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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4933560" data-attributes="member: 19675">I think that the 4Ed "solution" was rather poor.  Either reducing it to G-U-E or outright removal would have been superior to 4Ed's 5 alignment system- either would have been more intuitive.And I say that as one who greatly enjoys the 9 alignments and see them as a valuable tool.  All of those "moral quandry" threads to me indicate an interest in role-playing your PC at a deep level.Your experience and mine clearly differ greatly.  Vancian casting- for me- was part of what gave D&D its unique charm.  It helped set D&D apart from all of the other FRPGs I played, NONE of which had anything like it.And in 30+ years of play, I haven't seen the 15 minute day from either side of the screen.  IME, casters who splurge with their spells will soon find themselves throwing daggers and shooting bolts- the party has places to be and foes to kill.  And stopping here because you're out of spells is probably not an option.Nor have I seen a mass gravitation towards spellcasting classes, though I have seen an increase in people multiclassing their PCs into spellcasting classes post-3Ed's release.  That, however, just reflects the freedom of the 3.X rules...and its arguably worse from a powergaming standpoint the way I usually see it done.Because its not all about powergaming, I'd have to say that this is a playstyle thing.I also dislike the way in which 4Ed handled both balancing things out between the classes- the sameness is numbing to me- and the resource management that used to solely be a concern for casters.IMHO, it was nice to have classes that had almost no resource management (like the Fighter), and I think the Reserve feats were an elegant solution that I'd like to have seen more fully developed.This didn't bother me too much.  As long as there are supernatural baddies for me and my buddies to smack around, I'm OK with that.</blockquote>

Verification