NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4280725" data-attributes="member: 42582">D&D is a game in which one of the main aims of play is to find and use magic items. Most people enjoy the finding bit - if you play D&D, you like a good combat - but what is added to the play experience by the identification requirement?Or, to put it another way, what is non-dumb (intelligent?) about playing a game of finding and using items, but having the game make it hard to use those items properly once you've found them? Adversity in a roleplaying game isn't meant to be real adversity - that's what life is for - it's meant to be imaginary adversity which it is fun to roleplay out. How many people like roleplaying an assayer?Like all rules systems, some things are in there and others are not. Now the game is fun for those who didn't like Identify. I assume that WoTC believes that they are the majority. I think that WoTC are right about this.Your criticism makes no sense to me. Yes, in 4e the players get more powerful, but this is because the changs to the game's mechanics of character build and action resolution give the players more narrative control. Why is this a bad thing?It's also perhaps true that low-level PCs get more powerful because those same changes make them less likely to die on a single unlucky dice roll. Why is this a bad thing?And those who don't like the flavour of traditional D&D magic items can easily strip it out in a mechanically consistent fashion. Why is this a bad thing?Is there anyone whose objection to magic items in 3E was not a flavour one, but rather that it made it too easy for the players to have fun? How can a game make it too easy to have fun? That's the raison d'etre of a game!</blockquote>

Verification