Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 5771721" data-attributes="member: 2656">4e is my favourite edition of D&D, and I've played all but OD&D. However, it isn't perfect, no ruleset is.1. Daily powers don't work as written in low stress situations, where there isn't a number of encounters before an extended rest can be taken. (I houseruled this to fit my preference for avoiding novas in encounters, by disallowing daily refresh till a number of encounters had been passed when in wilderness/ one encounter a day mode)2. Rituals didn't quite work, due to player reluctance to spend money on them. I still think they are a good idea, just need some tweaking.3. Maths fix feats. These tend to be both boring  and so not taken by non-optimisers and too good for optimisers not to take, thus widening the power disparity between them. 4. The  melee training feats should be folded into classes as in some of the essentials ones. I personally have no problem with weapon attacks based off non-physical stats.5. Combat feats and non-combat feats should be split into different resource pools, so they don't compete. 6. Better adventures,as the core 4e adventures were lacklustre. Even if they don't sell well, good adventures are absolutely essential to teaching new players, and giving new DMs ideas.7. While I personaly like detailed tactical combat, and  seen D&D played that way, ofen with minis, since 2nd ed, others don't. Supporting a quick combat option will improve appeal, and improve flexibility for scenarios where combat isn't the focus.There's more, but that's enough for now. The really major improvement 4e provided for me is in making DMing much easier, including improvisation. I really appreciate not having to vet every PC like a hawk for broken or useless stuff, like I did in 3rd ed or 2nd ed(kits mostly for 2e). I really like the transparency and options for reskinning. I used to see the flavour text of skills and powers as describing the only way they worked, but have increasingly moved away from that opinion. I now see flavour text as advisory only, and not to be taken literally. This makes reskinning much easier to tolerate, at the price of moving away from a rules-as-physics view of the game. I worry that increasing PC customisation and dropping roles will return us to the days where a DM won't have a good idea of party capabilities without knowing the exact details of every PC build, and massively complicate balance.A major factor in any new ruleset is the subjective factor. As others have often said, 4e plays better than it reads, and characters and classes feel different in play even if their character sheets look superficially similar.I adopted 4e as soon as it came out and I've seen no reduction in roleplaying from my 3.x campaign.</blockquote>

Verification