Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 3822349" data-attributes="member: 40961">I am generally enthusiastic about 4th edition.&nbsp; While I haven't seen it yet, the designers seem aware of the problems in the rules, and enthusiastic about fixing them.My reservations are, 1) Not so sure about action points.&nbsp; Action points I've seen in the past have been mechanically clunky.&nbsp; I could be convinced once I actually see them, however, since we've been told that 4e action points will be newly designed.&nbsp; Maybe they won't be clunky.2) Losing the ability to put points into Profession: Yodeler.&nbsp; I never did, but I always liked having the option.&nbsp; Maybe a siloing system that divides adventuring skills from non adventuring skills might be nice?&nbsp; I don't know how it ought to work, and I know players would spend forever trying to figure out how to break it.&nbsp; But I like the non adventuring skills even if I never feel like they're worth lowering my Spot check to pay for them.I am neutral on-1) Changes to certain old busted mined out settings.&nbsp; Maybe they will make the setting cool again.&nbsp; But maybe they should have just issued a compendium book, and nailed that open coffin shut.2) Tieflings in core.&nbsp; I don't object to them there, and I'm glad they're being changed from &quot;mommy slept with a demon&quot; to an entire culture that made a pact with demons, forever changing their bloodline.&nbsp; I assume this was done based on the relative popularity of tieflings versus gnomes, so I'm happy for people who will have fun with tieflings now.&nbsp; I'm just ambivalent about them myself.3) Loss of the druid in the core rules.&nbsp; Honestly, it doesn't fit there.&nbsp; Its too redundant with other classes.&nbsp; And the 3e druid was a cobbled together frankenstein monster of legacy spells and a broken shapeshifting mechanic.&nbsp; So if the druid comes out in another book, except GOOD this time, I'll be happy.&nbsp; But I like druids (the archetype, not the 3e rules), so I'll miss them in the meantime.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 3822349, member: 40961"] I am generally enthusiastic about 4th edition. While I haven't seen it yet, the designers seem aware of the problems in the rules, and enthusiastic about fixing them. My reservations are, 1) Not so sure about action points. Action points I've seen in the past have been mechanically clunky. I could be convinced once I actually see them, however, since we've been told that 4e action points will be newly designed. Maybe they won't be clunky. 2) Losing the ability to put points into Profession: Yodeler. I never did, but I always liked having the option. Maybe a siloing system that divides adventuring skills from non adventuring skills might be nice? I don't know how it ought to work, and I know players would spend forever trying to figure out how to break it. But I like the non adventuring skills even if I never feel like they're worth lowering my Spot check to pay for them. I am neutral on- 1) Changes to certain old busted mined out settings. Maybe they will make the setting cool again. But maybe they should have just issued a compendium book, and nailed that open coffin shut. 2) Tieflings in core. I don't object to them there, and I'm glad they're being changed from "mommy slept with a demon" to an entire culture that made a pact with demons, forever changing their bloodline. I assume this was done based on the relative popularity of tieflings versus gnomes, so I'm happy for people who will have fun with tieflings now. I'm just ambivalent about them myself. 3) Loss of the druid in the core rules. Honestly, it doesn't fit there. Its too redundant with other classes. And the 3e druid was a cobbled together frankenstein monster of legacy spells and a broken shapeshifting mechanic. So if the druid comes out in another book, except GOOD this time, I'll be happy. But I like druids (the archetype, not the 3e rules), so I'll miss them in the meantime. [/QUOTE]

Verification