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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4112339" data-attributes="member: 40961">What would be a deal breaker?I can't think of anything plausible that would be a deal breaker.  There are certainly things that I might not like, but I can't think of any that would be so big as to overshadow what I know about and DO like.4e really looks like 3e to me, except with mechanical improvements. It really looks like a lot of the same design goals went into 4e, except that now we have the experience of playing 3e for most of a decade to guide design.  Look at the attack v defense system we have in 4e.  Its basically the same thing we had in 3e, except it eliminated a bit of unnecessary complexity by rolling Reflex and Touch AC into one thing.  Or look at saving throws v magic.  Your top saving throw in 3e followed a progression that was basically stat modifier plus one half your level, and it targeted a defense that followed a somewhat arcane progression that, in the end, came out very close to stat modifier plus one half your level on average, with adjustment by class.  Now that's been standardized, and combined with normal attack rolling, to create one system.Its the same thing, just a little more polished.  It feels like the same game to me, and I like 3e.There are a few things that will really make me mad, but they're mostly things that are true of 3e as well, and I'm already accustomed to getting over them.  They include, for the most part, not permitting viable swashbuckler, samurai, or wandering swordsman archetypes.  The D&D "style" of having the archetypal fighting be a full plate armored tank is a bit unusual in the realm of fantasy, and I'd prefer a little more support for something lighter.</blockquote>

Verification