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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5618688" data-attributes="member: 58416">I think the hardest time I'd have with 4th Edition would be due to some of the problems I mentioned having with 4th in a previous post.  I prefer heroes to be leading armies rather than fighting them.  There are a lot of points in the Conan stories where he's leading an army, a crew of pirates, and many other things.  While Conan is capable of fighting several foes at a time and winning, even he has his limits, and doing so often leads to injury.  In the experience that I've had with 4th Edition (and am still having in the campaign I play in right now... even using upgraded monster stats,) the PCs still tend to annihilate the monsters.  This was especially highlighted during the session yesterday in which the party's gouge wielding barbarian was able to regularly generate more damage with at-will powers than some solos and elites could pull off with their encounter powers.  That's not to say there aren't creatures which are challenging to the party.  We had a somewhat rough time with a group of Mariliths, but, in general, the party crushes the enemy.  At times I find myself using daily powers more to speed up combat and get the conclusion that I already know is coming rather than because I actually need to use them.I wouldn't use 3.5 or Pathfinder either. As a new D&D player, I remember taking the leadership feat because I wanted followers.  I wanted to build a castle, become a warlord, and amass an army.  It's that my dreams were crushed because I realized that no amount of low level followers could hope to even have the slightest chance against even just one creature a few levels higher.  The increased power curve between levels in 3rd Edition exaggerates some of the problem.  Really though, combat wouldn't even be the main area where I'd have trouble with getting what I want.  The main issue is that I would want less abstraction.  Especially when it comes to non-directly combat related things.  If I wanted to play a game in which I lead followers (army or otherwise,) I'm the type of person who would want some of the mundane details.  Actually, in general, I would want some of the more mundane details.  If I can touch back on the subject of combat again, an example of more detail would be wanting HP to represent something less abstract; represent actual injury.  Being able to grapple and choke somebody out (or even just grapple and have it actually do something) would be nice too.  On that same note, I'd probably prefer active defenses for a grittier game.  Being able to dodge or parry an attack would add a level of detail I would want.  IMO, the more static style of defenses in D&D works because the game somewhat expects you to get hit, and you have the big chunk of HP to soak it up.  With a more physical representation of HP desired, I'd want a more suited way of handling defenses to compliment that.  That's mostly personal preference.  Though, some of those ideas are things that I don't know how to incorporate into D&D.  As best I can tell, some of 4th Edition's design ideals were that the majority of those things I want shouldn't be important.  There's actually a lot more I was going to say, but I feel like I'm derailing the topic of the thread.  It's suppose to be about 4th Edition; not just my personal views on gaming.</blockquote>

Verification