Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3752073" data-attributes="member: 18280">How is that different from &quot;Same reason they decided that you should have to create monsters using the same rules as PCs, or made AoOs requiring a list of what provoked them, or any of the other things they are now &quot;fixing&quot; with 4.0: because they thought it sounded good at the time.&quot;?Sure, they think it will improve the game.Sure, they think it is what the players want/will want.But simply because they believe this doesn't make it true.&nbsp; Nor is it true that people's initial ideas of what they want turn out to be what they actually want, once they've had the chance to examine them.&nbsp; Witness the many, including WotC designers working on 4e, who thought that certain 3.X design elements would be ideal until they discovered that they changed the play experience in unexpected ways, or created additional problems (such as increased DM workload).I do not believe that the game will necessarily be improved by making the classes more mechanically even.&nbsp; Right now, and moreso in previous editions, there are certain roles that the various classes are optimized for playing in the game world.&nbsp; Some of these roles are not particularly combat-oriented.&nbsp; I suppose that is a difference in seeing D&amp;D as a game in which combat has a large part, and seeing D&amp;D as a combat-oriented game.&nbsp; As a player of wizards in previous editions, I never saw going toe-to-toe with monsters as my &quot;role&quot;.&nbsp; Rather, I saw my role as provider of information through divination spells, advice, backup, and the occasional magical whammy.&nbsp; That seems, to me, an endangered species under the new rules.&nbsp; 4e will, apparently, make that doubly true.When classes are not mechanically even, they require taking different approaches to the same problem.&nbsp; This was a strength of the system.&nbsp; I would hate to see that strength utterly removed.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3752073, member: 18280"] How is that different from "Same reason they decided that you should have to create monsters using the same rules as PCs, or made AoOs requiring a list of what provoked them, or any of the other things they are now "fixing" with 4.0: because they thought it sounded good at the time."? Sure, they think it will improve the game. Sure, they think it is what the players want/will want. [b][i]But[/i][/b] simply because they believe this doesn't make it true. Nor is it true that people's initial ideas of what they want turn out to be what they actually want, once they've had the chance to examine them. Witness the many, including WotC designers working on 4e, who thought that certain 3.X design elements would be ideal until they discovered that they changed the play experience in unexpected ways, or created additional problems (such as increased DM workload). I do not believe that the game will necessarily be improved by making the classes more mechanically even. Right now, and moreso in previous editions, there are certain roles that the various classes are optimized for playing in the game world. Some of these roles are not particularly combat-oriented. I suppose that is a difference in seeing D&D as a game in which combat has a large part, and seeing D&D as a combat-oriented game. As a player of wizards in previous editions, I never saw going toe-to-toe with monsters as my "role". Rather, I saw my role as provider of information through divination spells, advice, backup, and the occasional magical whammy. That seems, to me, an endangered species under the new rules. 4e will, apparently, make that doubly true. When classes are not mechanically even, they require taking different approaches to the same problem. This was a strength of the system. I would hate to see that strength utterly removed. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification