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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gribble" data-source="post: 4232739" data-attributes="member: 12430">You have a good point. It certainly would have resulted in a lot less ill-feeling from some quarters if they had of positioned 4e as: "You know that really great game that you've been playing for the last 10 years? Well, we've taken that and improved on it, making it even better!"Unfortunately, that isn't the impression I've taken from their marketing of 4e, and it doesn't seem as if I'm the only one...Yes, of course there were some problems in 3.x core, just as there will undoubtedly be issues in 4e core. Also like 3.x, 4e will undoubtedly get more "broken" over time as "fixes" and expansions that don't play nicely together are released.What I'm saying is more about the nature of the "fixes" that were made. 3.x core made some fundamental assumptions, such as classes that are balanced over 20 levels, not at each level (the old fighters are gods at low levels, wizards are gods at high levels argument). 4e aims for balance at each level. You can see why some of the "fixes" that were made to 3.x didn't play nicely if they were really "previews" of 4e content...I'm sure that 4e will be balanced using the assumption that levels rather than classes are balanced, and because of that you'll be right that "4e is covered". What happens when 5e "previews" start to get integrated which use a different baseline assumption... then 4e becomes the horribly broken and unplayable game because the "fixes" for the core issues don't play nicely and excacerbate the problems?Anyway, I'm kind of getting very theoretical and rambling here... just makes for an interesting thought experiment.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification