Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="brehobit" data-source="post: 4612088" data-attributes="member: 12032">I play and like 4e, but it has some serious failings.&nbsp; 3e's failings were greater (and 4e is new and blingy) so 4e is where I'll stay.&nbsp; Problems are:* Skills need love.&nbsp; Badly.&nbsp; Probably the best fix is to silo feats so that you can justify some skill improvements or diversity without gimping the combat aspects.* Non-combat based stuff got the shaft.&nbsp; Skill challenges are poorly done, and there really isn't much else. * Builds are too limited.&nbsp; Three of us sat down to build a decent laser-cleric.&nbsp; We all three end-up with a multi-class elven ranger.&nbsp; More books will fix this, but casters in 3.x always had some more flexibility.&nbsp; When I make a new character it always comes out the same as a character someone else in the group has already played.&nbsp; I didn't feel that way in previous editions.&nbsp; Not even OD&amp;D.&nbsp; Part of the problem is that some powers suck so &quot;real&quot; options are limited.&nbsp; Most importantly, the PHB needed more at-wills.But the bonus is the game is fast and plays skirmish well.&nbsp; As an RPG I give it a 4/10.&nbsp; As a skirmish system I give it an 8.5/10.&nbsp; 3e was probably a 6/10 on both, maybe 7/10 for me.Oh, and so far the WoTC modules are too &quot;railroady&quot; and greatly emphasize the skirmish aspect over the RPG aspect.&nbsp; 3e often had the same problem.&nbsp; So did 1e and 2e.&nbsp; But there were outstanding examples of RPG-based modules too (L1 and L2 come to mind).&nbsp; Mark</blockquote>

[QUOTE="brehobit, post: 4612088, member: 12032"] I play and like 4e, but it has some serious failings. 3e's failings were greater (and 4e is new and blingy) so 4e is where I'll stay. Problems are: * Skills need love. Badly. Probably the best fix is to silo feats so that you can justify some skill improvements or diversity without gimping the combat aspects. * Non-combat based stuff got the shaft. Skill challenges are poorly done, and there really isn't much else. * Builds are too limited. Three of us sat down to build a decent laser-cleric. We all three end-up with a multi-class elven ranger. More books will fix this, but casters in 3.x always had some more flexibility. When I make a new character it always comes out the same as a character someone else in the group has already played. I didn't feel that way in previous editions. Not even OD&D. Part of the problem is that some powers suck so "real" options are limited. Most importantly, the PHB needed more at-wills. But the bonus is the game is fast and plays skirmish well. As an RPG I give it a 4/10. As a skirmish system I give it an 8.5/10. 3e was probably a 6/10 on both, maybe 7/10 for me. Oh, and so far the WoTC modules are too "railroady" and greatly emphasize the skirmish aspect over the RPG aspect. 3e often had the same problem. So did 1e and 2e. But there were outstanding examples of RPG-based modules too (L1 and L2 come to mind). Mark [/QUOTE]

Verification