Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5420238" data-attributes="member: 87792">Stop right there.  You've been playing Encounters.  Something designed specifically to be drop-in lowest common denominator game runnable by a random DM with no experience.  Criticising a lack of complex thinking and deep roleplaying in Encounters is like playing the Castle Grayhawk module and then saying that D&D is not a serious game.You do not often get deep and meaningful games in random dropins with inexperienced players and sessions that are designed for a very basic taster both in front of and behind the screen.  Essentials is what it is designed to be and works wonderfully for that.  It gets people into the game.  It is not the be-all and end-all of 4e and is at one extreme of the spectrum.For my desires, as a PC the mechanics of 4e do as good a job as any edition of D&D, although it doesn't have things like aspects to invoke.  As a DM, I find improvising easier in 4e than other editions due to the Skill Challenge DC table allowing me to add in the random factor very easily and account for PC rather than player skill.  But to be honest that's a minor factor.  Ultimately, out of combat, no edition of D&D has ever had strong mechanics (although 3.x made you work hard and had detailed ones).That's assuming Frank the Factotum has the same armour, dexterity, and magic as you do.  A ... dubious assumption, especially in 3.X.  (More valid in older editions).You don't see high level spells as qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively stronger than low level ones?  Fascinating.And maybe assumptions have changed.  After the outcry when WoTC put in a Roper (IIRC) into a low level campaign.Different goals.  The 4e encounters are all meant to be beatable.  The 3e ones aren't.  As I said, they changed that (IMO massively for the worse) after an early fan outcry.  And the editions use a different attrition and daily resource model - a pre-4e wizard can fire off all his spells in one fight for instance.  And wizards casting spells always takes resources pre-4e.  So even a cakewalk has a cost, whereas in 4e you just stick to the encounter powers and maybe lose a healing surge or two between the party.  Not a measure of encounter difficulty so much as encounter annoyance.The problem isn't with WoTC D&D per se.  The problem is with 3.X.  In specific, the problem is the <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm" target="_blank">Diplomacy skill</a> and more specifically the Influencing NPC Attitudes table.  That's not a skill.  That's Charm Person usable on everyone with a simple skill roll and no downside.  And it's no harder to use on a high level dragon than a kobold.  As far as I know, no other game has that broken an implementation of a diplomacy skill - with the rules as written allowing for serious Diplomancy and giving the DM about as much leeway as a computer game would have.  And at fairly minimal resource investment.  (And to an extent this has continued into 4e because a lot of 4e players first learned on 3.X)Oh, hi, Essentials.  Arena fight is now, admittedly the new Monty Haul.Ah yes.  The XP for treasure rule.  One of the more ignored rules in D&D - and removed in 2e.  Which is one reason I really do not like 2e.  That risk/reward incentive model did a hell of a lot for older editions of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification