Quote:Logan Darklighter wrote:No. You're not.
Am I in a distinct minority in actually LIKING 4th edition? I thought the distinct (and nicely described) feats were a good thing. Combat seemed to go MUCH faster and more "cinematically".
4e managed to do a good number of things right... as much as I don't like to admit it. It made the DM's job a LOT easier than 3.x did, simplifying monster generation and the like immensely. It's easier for new players to learn, and tends to play quicker on top of that. They managed to fix a lot of the non-viable or obsolete classes that plagued 3e, too. There are definite positives there, and they've won it its share of fans.
For a lot of people who knew and liked 3.x, though, it was a disappointment because of what it gave up. 4e is easier to run, yes, but at the cost of a lot of player choice and non-combat options. Players have far fewer options when it comes to character generation and advancement than they did, so it's easier to learn them all... but at the end of the day, there's still less there. Leveling an NPC is a simple matter of incrementing a few numbers, choosing some powers, and maybe throwing on a feat... but on the same note, leveling a PC just means you increment a few numbers, choose one more power from a short list, and maybe grab a feat. Every class works on the same basic framework; on the one hand, that makes them easier to learn, but on the other, it sacrifices flavor. The classes feel more samey, even though most of them have fairly well-defined uses and tactical niches.
They tightened up a lot of the mechanics that
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.