Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ChameleonX" data-source="post: 9102604" data-attributes="member: 6801361">I always liked 4e. It was the first edition I really got invested in, and I never really understood why there was so much hate for it. Now that I've looked into older editions, it makes more sense, but I still think 4e had a lot of progressive ideas and good design choices.I think the main issues that really killed it was the reliance on magic items to make or break your build, and the related MMO style gear treadmill effect it encouraged. The other thing was powers being based on classes instead of sources. It led to way too much bloat, and for obvious tiers to form among classes due to some getting tons of support (e.g. the PHB classes) while others got basically nothing (e.g. the Seeker and Runepriest).That's why I was a fan of unified spell lists in One D&amp;D. It seemed like them finally doing what they should've done in 4th edition. Unfortunately, that seems to have been rolled back... Oh well...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ChameleonX, post: 9102604, member: 6801361"] I always liked 4e. It was the first edition I really got invested in, and I never really understood why there was so much hate for it. Now that I've looked into older editions, it makes more sense, but I still think 4e had a lot of progressive ideas and good design choices. I think the main issues that really killed it was the reliance on magic items to make or break your build, and the related MMO style gear treadmill effect it encouraged. The other thing was powers being based on classes instead of sources. It led to way too much bloat, and for obvious tiers to form among classes due to some getting tons of support (e.g. the PHB classes) while others got basically nothing (e.g. the Seeker and Runepriest). That's why I was a fan of unified spell lists in One D&D. It seemed like them finally doing what they should've done in 4th edition. Unfortunately, that seems to have been rolled back... Oh well... [/QUOTE]

Verification