Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fumetti" data-source="post: 5429044" data-attributes="member: 6667461">I agree entirely.&nbsp; I have been trying to make this argument in another thread, albeit from another angle.The way I see it, the 4E game as published is about 95% combat encounter.&nbsp; Roleplaying is given a nod, but most of it is reduced to summary.&nbsp; Virtually all the rules are written in combat encounter terms.&nbsp; Spells, which traditionally have been easy to use outside of combat, now take extra mental work to get the spell description to fit a non-combat event.&nbsp; IMO, this is pushing the game to be just a combat strategy game (but with just enough latitude to be used as an RPG).&nbsp; And to tie to your point, combat is just an element of story.&nbsp; It is not the story itself.For game purposes, not realism, 4E homogenized all the classes.&nbsp; They all function pretty much the same in combat (4EE might turn all this around, it's still early to tell).&nbsp; Glancing through the descriptions, every class uses combat feats and combat powers.&nbsp; And all classes powers function very much the same -- usually a to-hit roll, deal [W]+prime req adjustment, change of PC or monster placement, perhaps a continuing effect.&nbsp; It's GREAT to play a low-level wizard in combat in 4E!&nbsp; Not only do they get to make an attack every single round all day long, but they also get the same kind of non-magical AC boost other classes always got--now INT can boost your AC.&nbsp; And with healing surges, you are your own cleric.All great for game mechanics, but what kind of story is being told here?&nbsp; Is it realistic to say charisma should add to melee damage?&nbsp; I would differ from Andy Collins's quote by saying that in 4E there really isn't much difference in the game pieces.&nbsp; It's not like 1E where the differences are great.&nbsp; It's like Ninja Turtles--just pick a color.&nbsp; You're going to be doing the same basic things in combat anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fumetti, post: 5429044, member: 6667461"] I agree entirely. I have been trying to make this argument in another thread, albeit from another angle. The way I see it, the 4E game as published is about 95% combat encounter. Roleplaying is given a nod, but most of it is reduced to summary. Virtually all the rules are written in combat encounter terms. Spells, which traditionally have been easy to use outside of combat, now take extra mental work to get the spell description to fit a non-combat event. IMO, this is pushing the game to be just a combat strategy game (but with just enough latitude to be used as an RPG). And to tie to your point, combat is just an element of story. It is not the story itself. For [I]game [/I]purposes, not realism, 4E homogenized all the classes. They all function pretty much the same in combat (4EE might turn all this around, it's still early to tell). Glancing through the descriptions, every class uses combat feats and combat powers. And all classes powers function very much the same -- usually a to-hit roll, deal [W]+prime req adjustment, change of PC or monster placement, perhaps a continuing effect. It's GREAT to play a low-level wizard in combat in 4E! Not only do they get to make an attack every single round all day long, but they also get the same kind of non-magical AC boost other classes always got--now INT can boost your AC. And with healing surges, you are your own cleric. All great for game mechanics, but what kind of story is being told here? Is it realistic to say charisma should add to melee damage? I would differ from Andy Collins's quote by saying that in 4E there really isn't much difference in the game pieces. It's not like 1E where the differences are great. It's like Ninja Turtles--just pick a color. You're going to be doing the same basic things in combat anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification