Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Farealmer3" data-source="post: 5249897" data-attributes="member: 35526">Well i'd dare say it's a case of the things you love about it being the things i hate. I guess it's because in terms of viewpoint we couldn't be more different. You look at it with the eyes of a game designer long sick of the design challanges you have to put up with in 3.X. I look at from the prespective of someone wanting to see cool powers and a design that isn't steeped in meta fictional planning.I don't like the loss of instant kill abilities:Mythos monster had all kinds of stuff like that and it is really annoying they have safe gloved this aspect.I don't like the bland descrption of character abilities:It was one of the things i enjoyed most about reading character classes, now it gone. As well as not liking per encounter abilities(too metaish). I don't like the forced balance for the character class:Ultimatly few teams even in fiction are ever really balanced in terms of each persons abilities(unless thay all have the same abilities) You don't need to have the same number of powers as everyone else to be useful. Thats why D&D is a table top and not a video game. You can do things video games simply aren't adavnced enough to properly detail. Like the previously stated things about fighters. Speaking of which i don't like fighters having all these abilities(which read to much the same anyway). And i don't like the powering down of caster types and the ritualization of there best 3.X abilities. It worked for D20 modern because it was low magic, D&D not so much. But like i said as a game desginer who was sick of having to cross dozens of t's and dot hundreds of i's i understand that the above would all be a boon for you.But the last and the one thing i cannot overlook is it has basically eliminated the very thing that got me into D&D to begin with. The first book i got was the 2nd monster manual. I loved it, as a guy who reads nature books and similar stuff it felt like i was reading a nature book from another world. The descriptions where amazing and fun to read. Even with the advent of 3rd and the more technicalization of the monster descriptions it was still fun to read about the monsters and now that the abilities were seperate and outlined i also had fun reading those as well. However 4th edition has taken all the fun out of it. Alot of the info is listed under how many skill ranks tell you what about this monster and the monsters ability descriptions are nothing but tech specs. The complete opposite of what got me interested in D&D to begin with. And if that wasn't bad enough it's basically full of the things that ruined later monster manuals in 3.5 for me, the multiple entries for the same monster but each one being just a little different(class abilities added, stuff like that). So it has no interest for me. While it is a great for designers, for a guy like me who likes feeling like he's reading a nature book it might as well be digital code. Some people love reading code, i don't. Even the recent monster manual 3 was more of the same. Simply my take, nothing really objective but since it is a hobby, subjectivity is all that really matters for it anyway.Not saying 3.X is better or worse than 4th, but for me they are worlds apart.</blockquote>

Verification