Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6188573" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I don't claim to be a 4e expert, so the following is, in part, based on  my limited experiences with it, but mostly from reading other commentary on the  web, both here and elsewhere.I think 4e shoots for that, but it typically relies on a build-up of tension through a sort of "race to the bottom" with HP. Early in 4e, there was a problem with solos and action-denial and condition implementation. By short-circuiting the HP race, it eliminated the tension. I believe that's been fixed for solos (or that fixes are available). However, the fixes are more difficult for DM to implement or sometimes involve inexplicable yet explicit immunities. I think that's also a part of why terrain is so vitally important for making 4e fights interesting. (At least, 4e's supporters often answer "boring combat" criticisms that way.) In a flat box, many powers become significantly less interesting or useful. That makes the HP race much more obvious...and thus "sloggy".  I think those combine to make the success of 4e's design rather fragile in practice. (Which explains the wide variations in people's reactions to it.) I think that may be an unintended side-effect of the influence of other design considerations, rather than an abject failure.</blockquote>