Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5208589" data-attributes="member: 48965">Yes, but you and Hussar pre-suppose that 4e succeeded at what it set out to do. I honestly feel that many of the gripes raised in this thread concerning 4e are because it doesn't.... at least not without one spending money on more books (or DDI) beyond core and/or houseruling. As an example...It didn't do skill challenges well at all, and you are now expected to pay for more in order to get them to work halfway decent.  I also don't think a fantasy rpg system that can cause grind, can't handle an exciting and interesting fight with a solo BBEG by himself (without houserules and DM fiat) or a quick unimportant (but interesting) mook fight (without drawing one into a 40-60 minute tactical-grid game) a success in the combat department either... at least not as it relates to the feel of fantasy and the genre overall ( I won't get into how IMO, 4e also stumbles pretty bad in the single PC vs. enemy scenario).  This I think is one of the major problems I have with 4e. I like 4e for large epic battles... but loathe it for those unimportant battles that a PC has stumbled into or chosen to take part in. The fact that the system assumes every battle is a major setpiece of epic proportions and deadly terrain is IMO, a failure in it's design philosophy that has nothing to do with grid vs. non-grid. In fact I would be more forgiving if it tried to cater to more styles and that was why these weaknesses were in the game... than I am with a game that was supposedly focused on these principles (a tactical and interesting combat engine, structured way to handle extended/complex skill checks, minion mechanic, etc.)and doesn't get, IMO, alot of them right. YMMV of course.</blockquote>

Verification