Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 4566593" data-attributes="member: 29398">It'd be easier for me to list off what I *did* like, out of a system I really didn't like very much at all despite playing it for 7+ years: (the DM made a silk purse game out of a sow's ear system)- Sorcerers were good...that's how all casters should work; no more of this annoying spell-memorization business- Monsters that could better challenge high-level and-or powerful parties- Monsters that actually got their bonuses for strength etc.- Some good ideas for new monsters - always room for more of those!- Some of the new magic items were worthwhileThe things that really stuck in my craw, as opposed to merely annoying me:- Constructs and undead having immunity to criticals; even though it's a construct, you shold still be able to hit the key bit that holds it together- Harshly turn-based initiative with no room for reaction or simultaneous actions, leading to some ludicrous in-game situations e.g. two or more people cannot move together as a group while in combat- Far-too-fast level advancement- I'm not a fan of multiclassing in general, but how they handled multiclassing into or out of a caster class really was awful- Rangers based on Drizz't rather than Aragorn- Feats and prestige classes got completely out of hand both in number and power- Magic items far too easy to make and far too hard to break- Different ExP awards for people of different levels in the same party who did the same things in a given situation- Far too much focus on the 4-character no-hench party vs. one big opponent- Wands and potions being limited to only replicating spells...how dull- Some generally poor thinking on spells and how they would work at the table (one easy example is polymorph: the only mistake they made was to give it range "touch" instead of range "self", but refusal to admit this error had lead instead to no polymorph in 4e at all; a pity)Lanefan</blockquote>

Verification