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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 6001142" data-attributes="member: 70707">The game, right out of the first run core books, works well enough to be more mathematically sound and transparent than any other edition of D&D.  So whatever fixes there were later are irrelevant to that point, in the first place.Those fixes are minor because, well, they are.  A few tweaks to some numbers, and not much else.  The core of the system was always sound.Were there mistakes in 4E?  Yes.  Feat taxes are one of them.  I wish they had just made Expertise an automatic part of the level-up process.  Not jettisoning Ability scores entirely (or at least, not relegating them solely to the skill system), is another, that led to those "melee training" feats.It took a while to work out Skill Challenges, but they were, as a system, the first time D&D had ever even attempted anything like that.  Some rough edges were bound to occur.  And it's not like they changed all that much.  And it's, frankly, a minor system to begin with.Yes, the monster math changed, but MM1 monster design was still better than any other edition.  The math wasn't perfect, but at least it was there.Basically, this whole argument that somehow 4E getting improved over its lifetime means it was bad is just unsound.  It is entirely possible for good, well-designed things to get better.It started out the best D&D ever.  And it just got better from there.Stating that other editions would require an overhaul to fix does not imply that any other edition was overhauled to fix it.  Pre-4E editions were simply never fixed, and remain broken.The closest thing to a fix to 3.5 I've seen is E6.  I don't know if that's quite an overhaul (it's certainly far more extensive than 4E's lifetime changes), but it's also not really a full fix.  I would still take original core 4E over it.</blockquote>

Verification