Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4520271" data-attributes="member: 63272">This.I was going to respond in much the same way to the gneech.&nbsp; Nicely stated.&nbsp; There was a thread just after the release of 4e in which someone challenged the people who claimed 4e was lacking in character versatility to propose concepts that you couldn't do in 4e that you could do in 3e.&nbsp; Outside of people using mechanical differences between the systems as &quot;concepts&quot; (I want a rogue who can do 12d6 sneak attack damage), there were very few, if any, concepts we couldn't make work even with just the options at release.&nbsp; The notable exceptions were certain wizarding specialists, like enchanters and illusionists, but Dragon addressed the illusion issue fairly early on and others are yet to come.&nbsp; I think, gneech, you might actually be missing something as you feel 4e is extremely limiting, as you asked.&nbsp; Its not some hidden trick, its just an open mind and a realization that 4e is not 3e and therefore a different approach is required, as with any edition change.&nbsp; 3e was not known as a versatility machine on release, it took a number of supplements and a great expanion in the feat options to begin to really see the multitude of build options.&nbsp; By the end, you could take the same concept and represent it mechanically a dozen ways.&nbsp; This was a bit of overkill really, and several of those ways were often very subpar or very broken.&nbsp; I hope 4e maintains a more cautious approach to expansion and expands versatility, without comprimising the system.&nbsp; General note:These edition war threads used to get under my skin as I felt so many people (feel) are just being obtuse on purpose, being opposed to any kind of change just for the sake of opposition.&nbsp; A very kindly blogger (i forget who, perhaps Chatty?) posted an archive of message board posts from 3es release and it was comforting to see the exact same arguments from the exact same type of grognard.&nbsp; Sure, the mechanics and flavor of those arguments were sometimes different (AC counts upwards?!&nbsp; Hasbro has KILLED D&amp;D!) and sometimes not (D&amp;D is a miniatures videogame clone now - was quite common), but the tone and source were the same and it enabled me to chill about the whole thing.&nbsp; I've enjoyed each edition of my beloved D&amp;D from the 1st to the current and been along for the whole ride.&nbsp; I think 4e is the best system to date.&nbsp; I felt the same about 3e, 2e, 1e...&nbsp; I like how the game has evolved and I apparently still remain firmly in the target demographic for WotC.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4520271, member: 63272"] This. I was going to respond in much the same way to the gneech. Nicely stated. There was a thread just after the release of 4e in which someone challenged the people who claimed 4e was lacking in character versatility to propose concepts that you couldn't do in 4e that you could do in 3e. Outside of people using mechanical differences between the systems as "concepts" (I want a rogue who can do 12d6 sneak attack damage), there were very few, if any, concepts we couldn't make work even with just the options at release. The notable exceptions were certain wizarding specialists, like enchanters and illusionists, but Dragon addressed the illusion issue fairly early on and others are yet to come. I think, gneech, you might actually be missing something as you feel 4e is extremely limiting, as you asked. Its not some hidden trick, its just an open mind and a realization that 4e is not 3e and therefore a different approach is required, as with any edition change. 3e was not known as a versatility machine on release, it took a number of supplements and a great expanion in the feat options to begin to really see the multitude of build options. By the end, you could take the same concept and represent it mechanically a dozen ways. This was a bit of overkill really, and several of those ways were often very subpar or very broken. I hope 4e maintains a more cautious approach to expansion and expands versatility, without comprimising the system. General note: These edition war threads used to get under my skin as I felt so many people (feel) are just being obtuse on purpose, being opposed to any kind of change just for the sake of opposition. A very kindly blogger (i forget who, perhaps Chatty?) posted an archive of message board posts from 3es release and it was comforting to see the exact same arguments from the exact same type of grognard. Sure, the mechanics and flavor of those arguments were sometimes different (AC counts upwards?! Hasbro has KILLED D&D!) and sometimes not (D&D is a miniatures videogame clone now - was quite common), but the tone and source were the same and it enabled me to chill about the whole thing. I've enjoyed each edition of my beloved D&D from the 1st to the current and been along for the whole ride. I think 4e is the best system to date. I felt the same about 3e, 2e, 1e... I like how the game has evolved and I apparently still remain firmly in the target demographic for WotC. [/QUOTE]

Verification