Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GreatLemur" data-source="post: 3822578" data-attributes="member: 28553">I like the looks of 4e, but I am prone to endlessly bitch about even my favorite games.
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">I'm disappointed they don't seem to be trimming down the class list in favor of more generic classes.&nbsp; The talent tree direction seems cool, but they could've used it to eliminate things like Paladins and Rangers.&nbsp; (Seriously, True20 has the right idea.)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Also, it looks like the Cleric will once again be a healer regardless of his deity's portfolio, which is lame.&nbsp; I miss 2e's specialty priests.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The fact that armor still seems to provide damage avoidance rather than damage mitigation is extremely disappointing.&nbsp; I really didn't want to see AC still in the game.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Wizard traditions worry me a little bit.&nbsp; I'm not sure they'll actually be a problem, but my kneejerk &quot;Keep your setting fluff out of my character mechanics&quot; reaction is primed.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Also a little worried about the skill system, but I don't really know enough to complain, right now.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some of the mechanical changes suggest that they're continuing down a strongly gamist route to the detriment of simulationism.&nbsp; I know their primary goal is to make everything fun as much fun as possible, but things like a Cleric's critical hits triggering healing effects on allies are illogical enough to make things less fun for me.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The idea of making people pay for freaking virtual miniatures when they're also paying a monthly fee to even be able to use the things is absurd beyond my tolerance.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Warlord is a dumb name for a base class.&nbsp; I wonder if Mearls named it.&nbsp; Last time that dude made up a leader/tactician class, he called it the Hunter.&nbsp; WTF.</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="GreatLemur, post: 3822578, member: 28553"] I like the looks of 4e, but I am prone to endlessly bitch about even my favorite games.[list][*]I'm disappointed they don't seem to be trimming down the class list in favor of more generic classes. The talent tree direction seems cool, but they could've used it to eliminate things like Paladins and Rangers. (Seriously, True20 has the right idea.) [*]Also, it looks like the Cleric will once again be a healer regardless of his deity's portfolio, which is lame. I miss 2e's specialty priests. [*]The fact that armor still seems to provide damage [i]avoidance[/i] rather than damage [i]mitigation[/i] is extremely disappointing. I really didn't want to see AC still in the game. [*]The Wizard traditions worry me a little bit. I'm not sure they'll actually be a problem, but my kneejerk "Keep your setting fluff out of my character mechanics" reaction is primed. [*]Also a little worried about the skill system, but I don't really know enough to complain, right now. [*]Some of the mechanical changes suggest that they're continuing down a strongly gamist route to the detriment of simulationism. I know their primary goal is to make everything fun as much fun as possible, but things like a Cleric's critical hits triggering healing effects on allies are illogical enough to make things [i]less[/i] fun for me. [*]The idea of making people pay for freaking [i]virtual[/i] miniatures when they're also paying a monthly fee to even be able to use the things is absurd beyond my tolerance. [*]Warlord is a dumb name for a base class. I wonder if Mearls named it. Last time that dude made up a leader/tactician class, he called it the Hunter. WTF.[/list] [/QUOTE]

Verification