Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 5770596" data-attributes="member: 5038">I clarified a few more specifics about some of the classes (e.g., Barbarian having Cold, Fire, and Thunder Powers, Assassin's Shadow Powers) and, in at least one instance (i.e. Rituals), specified that I liked the concept, but not the execution.&nbsp; However, that is my list.There are some things that I do think 4e does better than previous editions as&nbsp; I wrote in another thread.&nbsp;&nbsp; I wish they had been implemented in 3e ( a few I had even listed in my pre-3e TSR questionaire).&nbsp; There are even some things that I think were good ideas, but not the 4e implementation. However, overall, I am not a fan of the game.As for how they will reconcile people like us with&nbsp; vastly different tastes, I don't know. That is what I am waiting to see.&nbsp; I am not even sure that they can bring me back. While I am willing to run 3e, it is not with the majority of 3e supplements-especially, their class and race books or their later supplements (Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic, etc.), my choices are Savage Worlds or, for d20 class/level, True20.I want Martial characters to have more cool stuff, but I want a Book of Iron Might approach.&nbsp; This is what I think page 42 should have been with regards to adjudicating martial maneuvers- not damage by level.I am also sick of tons of spells/powers&nbsp; many of which are just variations of one another with a) variations of trappings/keywords or b) bonuses to hit, damage and/or ac.&nbsp; Often with crappy fluff that does not fit. Hell, save me the time, just give me an effects based system with a list basic effect powers as done in Savage Worlds, Hero, M&amp;M, Tri-stat and let me as the DM work with the players to define appropriate special effects/trappings and apply keywords as appropriate to my campaign.&nbsp; But yeah, again, I wonder how they are going to satisfy so many divergent tastes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greg K, post: 5770596, member: 5038"] I clarified a few more specifics about some of the classes (e.g., Barbarian having Cold, Fire, and Thunder Powers, Assassin's Shadow Powers) and, in at least one instance (i.e. Rituals), specified that I liked the concept, but not the execution. However, that is my list. There are some things that I do think 4e does better than previous editions as I wrote in another thread. I wish they had been implemented in 3e ( a few I had even listed in my pre-3e TSR questionaire). There are even some things that I think were good ideas, but not the 4e implementation. However, overall, I am not a fan of the game. As for how they will reconcile people like us with vastly different tastes, I don't know. That is what I am waiting to see. I am not even sure that they can bring me back. While I am willing to run 3e, it is not with the majority of 3e supplements-especially, their class and race books or their later supplements (Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic, etc.), my choices are Savage Worlds or, for d20 class/level, True20. I want Martial characters to have more cool stuff, but I want a Book of Iron Might approach. This is what I think page 42 should have been with regards to adjudicating martial maneuvers- not damage by level. I am also sick of tons of spells/powers many of which are just variations of one another with a) variations of trappings/keywords or b) bonuses to hit, damage and/or ac. Often with crappy fluff that does not fit. Hell, save me the time, just give me an effects based system with a list basic effect powers as done in Savage Worlds, Hero, M&M, Tri-stat and let me as the DM work with the players to define appropriate special effects/trappings and apply keywords as appropriate to my campaign. But yeah, again, I wonder how they are going to satisfy so many divergent tastes. [/QUOTE]

Verification