Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 6076272" data-attributes="member: 11821">No argument here - I absolutely agree that's what happened and I agree the changes in aggregate boosted casters' power.  I'm simply pointing out that the bits the 3e designers targeted as "no fun" are all (arguably) no fun.  Components are the biggest offender here, IMO.  So I agree with the designers' logic, by and large, in removing those bits from the game.They just didn't take the extra, needed step to counter-balance it.  I don't think going back to micro-managing spell components would be a positive development for the game.  (Though I admit to a soft spot for spell disruption; I think that one adds a lot to both the game and the implied setting.  I don't know if the designers even disagreed; they simply failed at rigorously testing the Concentration skill.)I can't say I agree with this.  The number of fiddly bits in both 3e and 4e are pretty excessive for any casual gamer market, no matter what WotC's intentions were.  (And $105 is a heck of a buy-in.)  I think this is one area where Next has it right - start with a simple core book aimed at casual gamers.  Add the fiddly bits later.And it certainly wasn't the first D&D edition aimed at a casual market - there were three Basic sets which were designed specifically for new players in the mass market, with shelf-space in toy stores.  Holmes was a bit of a flash in the pan here, but both Moldvay's and Mentzer's editions were wildly successful.-O</blockquote>

Verification