Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6006024" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well the fighter was always loads of fun in my games and very much a contributor.&nbsp; So yeah I realize you felt differently but my actual experience differs from yours.&nbsp; I think though I played 3e as intended magic item wise so maybe that is it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think the Rogue is too weak but I could revive him pretty easily by making him a fighter subclass.Is a mechanic that causes you to break immersion and laugh out loud in an otherwise serious game situation a problem?&nbsp; Of course if that mechanic does not affect you that way then it's not a problem.&nbsp; It was a reguar occurance for my group in 4e.&nbsp; We finally decided we can't tell stories with this game and take them seriously at all.It's the resource management of them thats the issue as I've pointed out in another post.&nbsp; The fact you can use one and still have another remaining.&nbsp; Fatigue on a daily basis is unrealistic.&nbsp; It could work as an encounter resource.This is the silliest comment.&nbsp; I wish we had that kind of power.&nbsp; We went and played other games.&nbsp; 4e sales wise has tanked.&nbsp; You can't blame me for not playing or buying a game I don't like.&nbsp; I did of course buy a lot but you get the idea.&nbsp; For not continuing to buy after I realized I hated it.&nbsp; WOTC is making 5e to make more money.&nbsp; They rightly believe that they can get a lot more sales than just the 4e people they've had until now.Essentials was a variation on an edition that people had already stopped playing.&nbsp; WOTC didn't really do a lot of marketing specifically at these lost players.&nbsp; No big signs saying - Try Essentials it's not 4e.&nbsp; Honestly though Essentials was a patch and still had many of the issues that 4e had.&nbsp; It did address a few things specifically though.Well I don't believe balance per se is something anyone is against.&nbsp; But if you are right in your thinking that achieving balance requires plot couponish design then I'd say a lot of people are against it.&nbsp; You can revile the Pathfinder people but they did choose the game with all it's &quot;imbalance&quot; over 4e.&nbsp; No one is anti-balance.&nbsp; But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.&nbsp; I was able to play fun games with 3e and not with 4e.&nbsp; I had fun games with 1e,2e too.And I was say it differently.&nbsp; Those who want normal reasonable balance can use all twenty.&nbsp; Those who are hypersensitive to balance can use the fifteen.&nbsp; See how easy it is to turn that around.&nbsp; There are no anti-balance people.&nbsp; What is wrong with those who love D&amp;D fighting for it's identity.&nbsp; I love D&amp;D.&nbsp; I hated what 4e did to the game.&nbsp; So why when the next edition rolls around is it so wrong to fight for a game I can love again.&nbsp; 4e wasn't going to last forever no matter what.&nbsp; If it had been more successful it might have went a few more years but inevitably 5e was coming just as 6e is coming in another six or seven years.They are reasons you don't understand.&nbsp; The nature of the objections are such that if you did understand them perhaps they would affect you as they do us.&nbsp; But they are rational cogent reasons.&nbsp; At least many of them are.&nbsp; The logic to me is crystal clear and the rebuttals from the 4e camp are tortured.&nbsp; So you see our impasse.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6006024, member: 6698278"] Well the fighter was always loads of fun in my games and very much a contributor. So yeah I realize you felt differently but my actual experience differs from yours. I think though I played 3e as intended magic item wise so maybe that is it. I think the Rogue is too weak but I could revive him pretty easily by making him a fighter subclass. Is a mechanic that causes you to break immersion and laugh out loud in an otherwise serious game situation a problem? Of course if that mechanic does not affect you that way then it's not a problem. It was a reguar occurance for my group in 4e. We finally decided we can't tell stories with this game and take them seriously at all. It's the resource management of them thats the issue as I've pointed out in another post. The fact you can use one and still have another remaining. Fatigue on a daily basis is unrealistic. It could work as an encounter resource. This is the silliest comment. I wish we had that kind of power. We went and played other games. 4e sales wise has tanked. You can't blame me for not playing or buying a game I don't like. I did of course buy a lot but you get the idea. For not continuing to buy after I realized I hated it. WOTC is making 5e to make more money. They rightly believe that they can get a lot more sales than just the 4e people they've had until now. Essentials was a variation on an edition that people had already stopped playing. WOTC didn't really do a lot of marketing specifically at these lost players. No big signs saying - Try Essentials it's not 4e. Honestly though Essentials was a patch and still had many of the issues that 4e had. It did address a few things specifically though. Well I don't believe balance per se is something anyone is against. But if you are right in your thinking that achieving balance requires plot couponish design then I'd say a lot of people are against it. You can revile the Pathfinder people but they did choose the game with all it's "imbalance" over 4e. No one is anti-balance. But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. I was able to play fun games with 3e and not with 4e. I had fun games with 1e,2e too. And I was say it differently. Those who want normal reasonable balance can use all twenty. Those who are hypersensitive to balance can use the fifteen. See how easy it is to turn that around. There are no anti-balance people. What is wrong with those who love D&D fighting for it's identity. I love D&D. I hated what 4e did to the game. So why when the next edition rolls around is it so wrong to fight for a game I can love again. 4e wasn't going to last forever no matter what. If it had been more successful it might have went a few more years but inevitably 5e was coming just as 6e is coming in another six or seven years. They are reasons you don't understand. The nature of the objections are such that if you did understand them perhaps they would affect you as they do us. But they are rational cogent reasons. At least many of them are. The logic to me is crystal clear and the rebuttals from the 4e camp are tortured. So you see our impasse. [/QUOTE]

Verification