Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7613488" data-attributes="member: 996">Its easy to forget that 4e was, in fact D&D, and, though it was challenged successfully by PF (which, only technically wasn't D&D) in some calendar quarters, was far too popular to be called 'niche' in the RPG context (though, to be fair, the entire RPG industry was a pretty small niche between the end of the success of 1e in the 80s and 5e, today).So thus myth that 4e only catered to one play style isn't credible.  4e was as close to reasonably balanced as D&D has yet come, balance is conducive to /wider range of styles/, without resorting to rules-tinkering.  Of course, it didn't over-reward system mastery to nearly the degree 3.x did, didn't make specific strategies like scry/buff/teleport supreme or anything like that, so if a style hinged on something like that, it was no longer "supported" in the sense of achieving markedly better results than others.Contrarily, classic D&D could be played in virtually any style the DM cared to encourage through variants or DM 'force,' or even just with the simple ultimatum "you run something, then."  4e was so easy to run that, well O.K., they will.5e though compromised.  It's not nearly so balanced or easy to run as 4e was, it does over-reward system mastery some, and does return most of the imaginary power of the play dynamic to the DM side of the screen.And, it has AL.So DMs can run it prettymuch however they want, but there is a consistent rule set, in AL, to be mastered.  The biggest complaint, on that end, is that it's just too easy. So, you didn't find yourself playing in a /familiar/ way. I found 4e easier to manage by visualizing the battlefield than 3e.  Mainly because cubes are pretty easy, that way.  As a consequence of counting diagonal as 1 as, circles and blasts became squares. (cubes in 3D)That's a major simplification from from spreads and cones and spheres and 180 degree fans and whatnot - each of which, at each possible size, had a specific template to match it to the grid.Gah.But, because enough of that was /familiar/ from late-2e C&T, maybe it was OK, while the simpler, easier to visualize, but unfamiliar, squares were not.None of those were gone, just, different (arguably, more consistently) implemented.Disease got it's own sub-system that spanned across the usual daily cycle, so actually quite a bit more than a speed bump (also a pretty flexible little sub-system that could have been adapted to curses, long-term injuries or the like, but was under-utilized) - but compared to make a save or you need Cure Disease, maybe a little /unfamiliar/.Poison was simply a damage type - very often ongoing damage, and could definitely kill you.  Just not with a failed save - nor could Slow or Nuetralize Poison retroactively cure you from instant death.  Another simplification, and while arguably intuitive, certainly /unfamiliar/.As far as "Actual Physical Health," hps, alone, may have been a /familiar/ model to you, but 4e's was just a little different, bringing surges into it.  If you're used to thinking of a full-hp PC as being in perfect "Actual Physical Health," then one being at full hp after a 5min break may seem the same - but, it's not, he's down surges, which you can also pretend represent Actual Physical Health - If you can handle that /unfamiliar/ act of make believe. Don't sweat it - you were actually very much on-topic, in an illustrative-example sort of way.</blockquote>

Verification