Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lutecius" data-source="post: 4612866" data-attributes="member: 60332">Like others in this thread, I have a hard time considering myself &quot;old guard&quot; because I am not attached to any particular dndism. But I’m 34 and hate 4e, so I guess I qualify.At this point I don’t think more options or small changes can win me over.The new setting, cosmology, races and classes are hit and miss (monsters are mostly miss) but that can easily be fixed with houserules or splatbooks. I can also overlook silly artistic choices, low value for money and the marketing.But my real beef is with some core mechanics and, I guess, the whole design philosophy. Balance and streamlining are all well and good, but not at any cost.I know dnd always involved some degree of abstraction but I wanted more rule / fluff correlation, not less. This is what separates rpgs from boardgames. To me the worst offenders are: - The daily/encounter system (for those who don’t know yet)- All those power effects with far-fetched in game justifications, often the result of the contrived role distinction. In game action should inspire the rules, not the other way around. - I'd like hps and ac to represent something. They should be less abstract (armor as damage reduction and all) not more.Also flexibility and customisation are sorely lacking. The multiclassing &quot;dips&quot; seemed like a good idea but the implementation is terribly restrictive. Hope it isn't just for commercial reasons.I don’t think a 4e Unearthed Arcana would work. This level of change would break 4e’s math and balance, which would make most 4e material useless anyway. Likewise, allowing 3p variants like true20 would be cool but wouldn't benefit wotc because their products wouldn't be compatible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lutecius, post: 4612866, member: 60332"] Like others in this thread, I have a hard time considering myself "old guard" because I am not attached to any particular dndism. But I’m 34 and hate 4e, so I guess I qualify. At this point I don’t think more options or small changes can win me over. The new setting, cosmology, races and classes are hit and miss (monsters are mostly miss) but that can easily be fixed with houserules or splatbooks. I can also overlook silly artistic choices, low value for money and the marketing. But my real beef is with some core mechanics and, I guess, the whole design philosophy. Balance and streamlining are all well and good, but not at any cost. I know dnd always involved some degree of abstraction but I wanted more rule / fluff correlation, not less. This is what separates rpgs from boardgames. To me the worst offenders are: - The daily/encounter system (for those who don’t know yet) - All those power effects with far-fetched in game justifications, often the result of the contrived role distinction. In game action should inspire the rules, not the other way around. - I'd like hps and ac to represent something. They should be less abstract (armor as damage reduction and all) not more. Also flexibility and customisation are sorely lacking. The multiclassing "dips" seemed like a good idea but the implementation is terribly restrictive. Hope it isn't just for commercial reasons. I don’t think a 4e Unearthed Arcana would work. This level of change would break 4e’s math and balance, which would make most 4e material useless anyway. Likewise, allowing 3p variants like true20 would be cool but wouldn't benefit wotc because their products wouldn't be compatible. [/QUOTE]

Verification