Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BASHMAN" data-source="post: 4090747" data-attributes="member: 8277">I also said that I liked it, so I wouldn't call it an argument against 4e.  I said I'd play it again, too.  The 2 on 2 scenario was a skirmish, but the reason the game seemed like a minis game & not an rpg wasn't because of that-- it was the writeups of the powers (which reminded us both of MtG) and the repetition of their use.  I suggested that the bo9s model would have worked better for this I think-- force people to "prepare" a certain number from a pool of available powers & then cycle through them before they can bee used again.  Then you wouldn't have mages using Magic Missile all day long... As for the powers seeming like the description of an effect of a CCG card, I cannot say what would have made that better.As to the "what other edition didn''t have you do the same stuff over & over again at 1st level" that's easy: BD&D.  The Wizard would use his sleep spell, then throw flaming oil in the next encounter, then throw his dagger in the next one, then use his staff till the party decided to go back to the keep.  They could have fixed the 15 mins then camp problem by giving you a larger suite of /encounter powers, from which you could prepare a certain number during a short rest.  You can choose your dailies after an extended rest.  The at will stuff should just be the cantrips I think-- abilities that have no combat effects.  If they made Magic Missile be an encounter power (which they then would be able to not require a hit roll since it has become limited) you wouldn''t see wizards casting it all day long.  Same goes w/ rangers +4 to hit thing. Essentially have more /encounters & weaken the at will abilities is my take on it.</blockquote>

Verification