Lack of tactical depth is a slap in the face of 4E fans

Despite the promise to serve fans of ALL D&D editions the playtest rules (so far) offer nothing what made 4E great:

* No Opportunity Attacks (AoO) (which also work fine in ToM games)
* No flanking
* No interesting forced movement options for a dynamic battlefield
* Measurements in feet instead of international squares (WotC, just add a square number behind every feet!)
* No interesting combat options you could envoke "once in a while" (not to say "encounter power")


I'm disappointed that we didn't get an alternative rules modul for grid combat as promised to playtest with.
1) They are not testing different modules at this time just the basic bare bones game.
2) Divide feet by 5 theres your squares (although diagonal movement wouldnt work the same)
3) Don't think encounter powers are coming back
 
We 4E fans are waiting anxiously for the modules that add in more options for martial classes to make the game more tactical in nature.  It's hardly a slap in the face anymore than it's a slap in the face to druid, ranger, paladin, bard, sorcerer, etc. lovers that their favored class isn't included in the barebones test.

We're not testing those options yet.  We're testing the basic game.  Our time will come later. 
I agree that our time will come, but I think it's important to make our voice heard now. That's what the playtest is all about. After all, if 4e fans don't speak up and wait for their features, modules, ect. to appear, they might never show up. And it's not a bad idea to have some 4e ideas in the core concept. If it's a game that combines all the editions and is going to appeal to everyone, every edition needs to be part of the bare bones and DNA of the system from the ground up. I see some good 4e representation in the packet with at-will spells and full healing after a long rest, but if Cypher doesn't see enough he should be able to speak up.

World Builder Blog - Check out my world

The Tome Show - Check out my Podcast, The Round Table

Twitter - I tweet a lot of D&D stuff

As much as I otherwise love 4th, I'm kind of glad they got rid of the default assumption that everyone is using a grid and minis. Not everyone wants to use them or has access to them.

The fact is the heavy tactical nature of 4th just doesn't work as well without the grid. Should they eventually release an optional rules module focused on using a grid for tactical combat? Yes, definitely. I can almost guarantee it is in the works and we'll see it someday. Should the rules for such combat be forced down everyone's throats as part of the core rules? NO. D&D Next is about simplifying and streamlining the rules for the most focused and iconic D&D experience possible. Making everyone use a grid defeats that purpose.

That said, I do agree that AoO/OAs seems to be something a lot of people think the game needs somehow, and flanking in some form also seems like it should be in. As for the squares vs feet issue, I thought the rule was 5 feet = 1 square. It is not that hard to convert one into the other.

That said, the one thing I don't miss about 4th edition is the power system. I like it as far as 4th edition is concerned and it certainly makes each class more interesting to play.....it just doesn't feel very iconicly D&D.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual

2) Divide feet by 5 theres your squares (although diagonal movement wouldnt work the same)

 



Local (non-US) translations will convert the feet to meters. Now dividing these by 1.5 on the fly was something I hoped I left behind after 3.5.

I'm fine with feet as along squares are also mentioned with every measurement.


> Don't think encounter powers are coming back


I don't want the idea of "encounters" as unit back. But it would be nice pull, slide, push, prone, daze enemys 3x/day for example.


2) Divide feet by 5 theres your squares (although diagonal movement wouldnt work the same)

 



Local (non-US) translations will convert the feet to meters. Now dividing these by 1.5 on the fly was something I hoped I left behind after 3.5.

I'm fine with feet as along squares are also mentioned with every measurement.


> Don't think encounter powers are coming back


I don't want the idea of "encounters" as unit back. But it would be nice pull, slide, push, prone, daze enemys 3x/day for example.




Bah everyone knows meters are a communist plot to sap the will of freedom loving people.

Just say no to meters (and flouridated drinking water)

Oh, he's perfectly within his rights to mention his disappointment, sure.  But the tactical module is outside the stated boundaries of the testing.

These rules will likely look more compact than the most recent editions of D&D.  In many cases, we decided to excise a rule or element of the game to see if it really is a key component of playing D&D.

...

Our goal at this stage is to fine-tune the core rules.



The core rules, being the most basic iteration of the rules.  It's already been stated that tactical rules will be an optional module for this edition, and we're not to that point of the testing yet.

Definitely let them know that you're missing that option for combat.  But it's not a "slap to the face" at all.  It's just part of how testing works.  Start simple, then add complexity.

Bah everyone knows meters are a communist plot to sap the will of freedom loving people.

Just say no to meters (and flouridated drinking water)


Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.   Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream?  Children's ice cream!

Know when fluoridation began?  1946!  How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh?  It's incredibly obvious, isn't it?  A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual.  Certainly without any choice!  That's the way your hard-core Commie works!

This is funny.

They have specifically said they will release modules expanding more options for people who want advanced complexity in other areas... such as combat tactics and maneuvers etc. 
D&D isn't a tactical war game. It's origin may be from there, but it grew into something bigger, better, and more about fantasy and storytelling. This is what made the game great. Then, 4e came out and went back to a more tactical war game feel...and it failed. While I agree that there's always been a need for good strategy and combat rules, I think 4e went too far. If a more complex, tactical war game is what you want, there are other games out there that already do that, like Warhammer.
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
Everyone needs to remember that this playtest is not the full game. The goal of 5e is to have every tool available to play the game however you wish. More or less tactical combat, more or less roleplay, etc. The only point of this playtest is to test the basic core rules that will be built upon to include all the elements that we as players love.

Anyone looking at this playtest as some sort of preview will of course be disapointed. This isn't an unveiling of the edition. This is step one of an open test development scheme. The game will get more complex as it goes along. 
I think this new beginning is excellent - it reveals the weaknesses of 3.5 and 4th ed - the tendency of any game system to introduce more and more complexity as a means of "improving" the system.  The buyers spoke, and well-balanced, complex, tactical play was not in fact the best selling point of D&D.  The best selling point is the promise of social interaction and storytelling via fun players and a great DM.  

Tactical rules can always be added on, or house-ruled in.  New players need a simple, compelling, fun experience right off the bat. 
Keep in mind that one of the goals fo this edition is to allow multiple play styles.  The "core" combat mechanics are very simple, and can be played without a battlemap or tokens/minis.  This is for the people who want to go "oldschool".  I think its fairly certain we will see optional rules for more tactical/tabletop combat in upcoming releases.
media.wizards.com/podcasts/DNDPodcast_20... Everyone should listen to the release day podcast to get a better feel for what these 'simple' rules mean. This is a slice, a tip of the iceberg. This isn't the full edition, this is simply just enough, just barely enough, to get started with. Each new playtest will add to it.

They mention in there that the characters are "on the lower end of the complexity scale" because they want to highlight the basic core rules above the classes at this point. They want people to be familiar with how the game works before adding in some of the tactical twists and such. 

Fundamentally, I don't think that the lack of tactical options is an attack on any particular edition. Remember along the way that the design goal is to put together a single rules set with add-on options that will make everyone happy. It's always easy to add something on, hard to take it out.


In other words, if WotC started out with a 4E-based rules set and asked "what should we leave out" then older edition players would feel like it's a slap in their face instead.


So the plan is to begin with something universal and see how it goes. Try to keep everyone interested in the core rules. Then they can create sourcebooks with added options to satisfy those who want those particular options.

I'll be interested to see how this works out. I'm more optimistic about 5E now than I was a few months ago, but I lean toward the older editions. If I was more of a 3E-4E enthusiast I might see it the other way instead.

Just how I see it...

Marv (Finarvyn) Master of Mutants (MA and GW) Playtesting D&D Next and liking it! OD&D player since 1975
Definitely I expect they will release a tactical module - this will definitely appeal to people who enjoy wargames like Warhammer (**me**).

OTOH, I also played 1,2,4 editions of D&D and I totally love the old school feel of the new core ruleset and how it promotes roleplay.  I really like how they ditched the powers crap and opened it up to the creativity and imagination of the players and DM.... of course great DMs will really shine now.... and crappy ones will really stink even more. 

Definitely they are going in the correct direction... I sense this because DMs i prefer already run their games in a way similar to this ruleset....  assigning checks and challenges to innovative ideas of the players.  My favorites adapt old school modules to 4e and we have months of exploring dungeons with huge maps that would not lend themselves to battlemat tactics.... but once in a while we break out the mat and have at it with minis. 

I don't understand why people have to reply to every thread criticizing the playtest material by saying "but there must be more behind the curtain!" Who cares let us complain about things that bother us. All it does is tell WotC what we want.
I agree about complaining about things that bother you, but if it isn't done in the context of the playtest it is meaningless. This is the first set of playtest materials. If you are complaining about the lack of things we already know are coming later, that's non productive. Instead people should be complaining about and/or agreeing with things they're seeing in this base set of rules.
I don't understand why people have to reply to every thread criticizing the playtest material by saying "but there must be more behind the curtain!" Who cares let us complain about things that bother us. All it does is tell WotC what we want.



I agree. I am fully aware that this is the first glimpse only.

I'm only expressing my disappointment about elements which obviously aren't considered "core".

Basically this playtest screams at me: D&D5 at it's core is tactically pretty boring and for storytellers only.

And here is my problem: A lot of my players aren't even willing to even try and playtest this playstyle. How are we supposed to give feedback when the initial promise of the game isn't attractive enough to catch 3.5 / 4E players attention.

It was WoTC's Chris Tulach himself who announced to the LFR adventure authors: "Combat is at the heart of D&D"... and this is what I want to playtest.

Why bother if other game systems (and older editions) offer more tactical fun?
As a happy 4e player who is simply looking forward to some refinements in 5e, I'm still satisfied with the playtest. This is a game that is just within my limits for what I'd want to play. The good news is that the base game is the least fun the game will ever be, for all players except super old-school 1e players. I am still counting on later modules adding in my desired level of combat flair and calibrating different class power levels.
1) They are not testing different modules at this time just the basic bare bones game.
2) Divide feet by 5 theres your squares (although diagonal movement wouldnt work the same)
3) Don't think encounter powers are coming back
 

Yay! no encounter powers, or any of that crap.
Despite the promise to serve fans of ALL D&D editions the playtest rules (so far) offer nothing what made 4E great:



4E is a great tactical minatures game, but what's the point of making it again.  The smae thing can be said about 3rd edition - people who liked that game can and still do play the old edition.

From what I've gathered from D&D Next, they're moving away from the highly tactical and abstract 4th edition rules and embracing the more stratigic pre 3rd edition.  It pretty much says as much in the into to caves of chaos.  Encounters are not balenced and measured out like they are in 3rd and 4th edition.  As a result, the decisions you make before combat are much more important than the ones you make during combat.

For deep tactical combat, common sense, negoation, and creativity can replace the pure tactics of 4E.

* No Opportunity Attacks (AoO) (which also work fine in ToM games)



Guardians do get similar abilities, such as hold the line.  Also, anyone can use readied actions as oppertunity attacks.


* No flanking



You could use a help action to give an adjacent player advantage.


* No interesting forced movement options for a dynamic battlefield



As a DM I'd rule this as a strength contest from an improvised action. 


* Measurements in feet instead of international squares (WotC, just add a square number behind every feet!)



That one's easy, 1 square = 5 feet.


* No interesting combat options you could envoke "once in a while" (not to say "encounter power")



You have spells.  


I'm disappointed that we didn't get an alternative rules modul for grid combat as promised to playtest with.c



Not to be pithy, but why not just use 4E?  It's a great tactical minutares game. 
Yes what about just plugging in the 4e tactical rules into the 5e core ruleset - I mean if someone really likes the tactical aspect of 4e yet also really likes the open ended / creative aspect of contests from improvised actions, this solution might just be the best of both worlds.

Even the advantage/disadvantage could sit directly alongside the more modest advantage bestowed from charging and CA.   I think it pretty much would plug in with no problems (*edit* along with OA) and you could still use advantage / disadvantage for exceptional situations like they probably should be used... 
I like it as far as 4th edition is concerned and it certainly makes each class more interesting to play.....it just doesn't feel very iconicly D&D.



Someday I'll understand how and why this sentiment exists.


Someday...
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
D&D isn't a tactical war game. It's origin may be from there, but it grew into something bigger, better, and more about fantasy and storytelling. This is what made the game great. Then, 4e came out and went back to a more tactical war game feel...and it failed. While I agree that there's always been a need for good strategy and combat rules, I think 4e went too far. If a more complex, tactical war game is what you want, there are other games out there that already do that, like Warhammer.



So, if you want your roleplaying game to include meaningful tactical depth, you should play something completely different than a roleplaying game?

Sure, that's reasonable.

I mean, you are aware that many 4e lovers hate wargaming, right?


They are not the same, at all.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I feel that tactics is not at all 4e exclusive, and that many of the changes, which I feel are strongly reminiscent of AD&D, help to improve tactical options while improving flexibility of a player's options as well.
No Opportunity Attacks (AoO) (which also work fine in ToM games)


This change gets rid of all the "half-ogre with a spiked chain" type strategies, but in my opinion, those aren't strategies; they're loopholes in the rules and silly exploitations that should be done away with anyways. The times when OAs are constructive to the gameplay experience, from either a tactical or storytelling point of view, are few and far between compared to the times it just makes combat a cookie-cutter Fire Emblem level.

* No flanking


Through the Advantage system and Help actions, flanking kind of makes an appearance, but not really enough of one from a tactical perspective. My suggestion would be to implement something that's a direct opposite of a Help action, where you give an enemy disadvantage.

* No interesting forced movement options for a dynamic battlefield


I fully agree with this point; while one could argue that it would be an "Improvise" action set by the DM, forced movement needs to have set rules.

* Measurements in feet instead of international squares (WotC, just add a square number behind every feet!)


Assume all squares are 5ft by 5 ft.

* No interesting combat options you could envoke "once in a while" (not to say "encounter power")


I don't really know what you mean well enough to provide constructive feedback, could you elaborate?

Two things:


1. The metric system was invented by an American (Benjamin Franklin - perhaps you've heard of him).

2. D&D isn't a "board" game - describing movement and ranges as 5 spaces (I mean squares) just turns it into a board game. Describe it in either feet or meters, and if you want something else, convert it yourself.    
Telling D&D5 playtesters to "play 4E if you like tactical combat" is superflous.

The whole idea of D&D5 is to unite players of all editions.

The playtest SO FAR is more a nod to old-school OD&D players than to the latest published edition.

Healing starts at 0 hit points, chars heal fully over night (not a good idea though) and wizards have at will powers (Magic Missile). That's about it that's left of 4E. Disheartening.
Telling D&D5 playtesters to "play 4E if you like tactical combat" is superflous.

The whole idea of D&D5 is to unite players of all editions.

The playtest SO FAR is more a nod to old-school OD&D players than to the latest published edition.

Healing starts at 0 hit points, chars heal fully over night (not a good idea though) and wizards have at will powers (Magic Missile). That's about it that's left of 4E. Disheartening.


You forgot the Hit Dice, described by my friend as "wannabe healing surges."

And full overnight healing is not a good idea.

Itr's a GREAT one.

Just like Martial Healing.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
Despite the promise to serve fans of ALL D&D editions the playtest rules (so far) offer nothing what made 4E great:

* No Opportunity Attacks (AoO) (which also work fine in ToM games)
* No flanking
* No interesting forced movement options for a dynamic battlefield
* Measurements in feet instead of international squares (WotC, just add a square number behind every feet!)
* No interesting combat options you could envoke "once in a while" (not to say "encounter power")


I'm disappointed that we didn't get an alternative rules modul for grid combat as promised to playtest with.



1) If you want opportunity attacks, then allow them.
2) If you want flanking, then allow it, and give advantage/disadvantage.
3) These are extremely basic characters, we don't know all the spells in the game.
4) If measurements were in squares, every map would have to be at 5'=1 square scale. This way, you can make a square=anything you want. Also, Battlegrid isn't required, so squares don't work.
5) There are daily powers, but encounter powers are probably gone. 
Telling D&D5 playtesters to "play 4E if you like tactical combat" is superflous.

The whole idea of D&D5 is to unite players of all editions.

The playtest SO FAR is more a nod to old-school OD&D players than to the latest published edition.

Healing starts at 0 hit points, chars heal fully over night (not a good idea though) and wizards have at will powers (Magic Missile). That's about it that's left of 4E. Disheartening.


You forgot the Hit Dice, described by my friend as "wannabe healing surges."

And full overnight healing is not a good idea.

Itr's a GREAT one.

Just like Martial Healing.



Healing surges were one of the deal breakers for me and 4th edition. I actually like the hit dice mechanic, but propose that ALL healing has to be done through hit dice. So when you take your long rest you get them all back but you still have to spend them to keep healing until you are up to full. This seems like a nice compromise between  instant healing/realistic healing.
Telling D&D5 playtesters to "play 4E if you like tactical combat" is superflous.

The whole idea of D&D5 is to unite players of all editions.

The playtest SO FAR is more a nod to old-school OD&D players than to the latest published edition.

Healing starts at 0 hit points, chars heal fully over night (not a good idea though) and wizards have at will powers (Magic Missile). That's about it that's left of 4E. Disheartening.


You forgot the Hit Dice, described by my friend as "wannabe healing surges."

And full overnight healing is not a good idea.

Itr's a GREAT one.

Just like Martial Healing.



Healing surges were one of the deal breakers for me and 4th edition. I actually like the hit dice mechanic, but propose that ALL healing has to be done through hit dice. So when you take your long rest you get them all back but you still have to spend them to keep healing until you are up to full. This seems like a nice compromise between  instant healing/realistic healing.


Um...

Start over.  You lost me somewhere in there, and I don't know what you're trying to say.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
Telling D&D5 playtesters to "play 4E if you like tactical combat" is superflous.

The whole idea of D&D5 is to unite players of all editions.

The playtest SO FAR is more a nod to old-school OD&D players than to the latest published edition.

Healing starts at 0 hit points, chars heal fully over night (not a good idea though) and wizards have at will powers (Magic Missile). That's about it that's left of 4E. Disheartening.


You forgot the Hit Dice, described by my friend as "wannabe healing surges."

And full overnight healing is not a good idea.

Itr's a GREAT one.

Just like Martial Healing.



Healing surges were one of the deal breakers for me and 4th edition. I actually like the hit dice mechanic, but propose that ALL healing has to be done through hit dice. So when you take your long rest you get them all back but you still have to spend them to keep healing until you are up to full. This seems like a nice compromise between  instant healing/realistic healing.



wait. Surges were a deal breaker for you, but you want Hit Dice to be more important?

What the hell could be more gamist and anti-immersive than hit dice?! 
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome

Healing surges were one of the deal breakers for me and 4th edition. I actually like the hit dice mechanic, but propose that ALL healing has to be done through hit dice. So when you take your long rest you get them all back but you still have to spend them to keep healing until you are up to full. This seems like a nice compromise between  instant healing/realistic healing.



I don't want to alarm you, but Hit Dice are healing surges with a different name.
Can you explain why you feel differently about them?
"If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you." and "Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann
Despite the promise to serve fans of ALL D&D editions the playtest rules (so far) offer nothing what made 4E great:

* No Opportunity Attacks (AoO) (which also work fine in ToM games)
* No flanking
* No interesting forced movement options for a dynamic battlefield
* Measurements in feet instead of international squares (WotC, just add a square number behind every feet!)
* No interesting combat options you could envoke "once in a while" (not to say "encounter power")


I'm disappointed that we didn't get an alternative rules modul for grid combat as promised to playtest with.





1) AoO - Agree

2) Flanking - Agree

3) Forced movement - See page 10 Actions in Combat "Improvise" this plus imagination = "Conditions" page 14.

4) personaly prefer feat but wouldnt care if there was a /x behind the number

5) See #3



But like others have said this is the barebones basics. There surveys clearly showed that the 4e playerbase WANTS some sort of maneuvers, and I believe we will see it. My wife stated today that she missed the cool powers, where as the rest of the party said they loved the old fashioned feel.

I cant believe that they would state over and over again to unite the player base and would completely ignore powers. I see it working like this:

Rogues get +1d6 per level of sneak attack. Trade in xd6 for a permanant maneuver. This was discussed in a desighners thread

Same thing with fighters but trading in the awesomely powerfull Fighter surge for maneuvers.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
The sheer amount of melodramatic overrreaction going around these boards borders on ludicrous. It's like people aren't even bothering to read that we are just testing the core rules.

Do you honestly think that the game has only five playable characters and you cannot advance beyond the third level? Or that the bestiary is only twenty odd creatures deep? I, for one, am outraged at the absence of the catoblepas.

Seriously, these things will come. Something like 5% of the game is on display right now, so don't expect all of the more complicated stuff to be there and you won't feel like you've been slapped in the face.

And why are squares an international unit of measure? They were never used before 4th Edition, so why did being used there have them supercede the feet system that had been used for decades beforehand? I'm Australian - we don't use feet - but we don't use gold pieces either. I get by.
D&D isn't a tactical war game. It's origin may be from there, but it grew into something bigger, better, and more about fantasy and storytelling. This is what made the game great. Then, 4e came out and went back to a more tactical war game feel...and it failed. While I agree that there's always been a need for good strategy and combat rules, I think 4e went too far. If a more complex, tactical war game is what you want, there are other games out there that already do that, like Warhammer.



I'm going to try to be nice.

You are not in ANY position to dictate what D&D is. You do not have any authority WHATSOEVER over what happens at my table. If you do not like tactical combat that's fine don't use it. But DO NOT tell me I can't have it.

Who do you think you are? What is it with you conceited 4E bashers thinking you can dictate what other people play? How can you be so full of yourself as to think you know what other people should like?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

I have to say it, although it appears others will disagree. It didn't feel good to be fired as a customer when 4e came out, and right now I feel like I'm about to be fired again.

But, I'll withhold my judgement, I may be wrong I'll admit that, but right now it dosn't feel right.
I have to say it, althugh it appears others will disagree. It didn't feel good to be fired as a customer when 4e came out, and right now I feel like I'm about to be fired again.



I can completely relate to that feeling. I was totally confused when 4th Edition came out. It just felt like an entirely different game, yet the game I had been playing was no longer supported at all. Thank God for Pathfinder.

I've got renewed hope now. I'm hoping this might be a game I can start playing, rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

And that's not a knock against those who enjoyed 4th Edition. I'm sure if I'd had the budget and time to assemble a good quality set of tiles and get minis, I'd have quite enjoyed its more tactical approach to things.

So, if you want your roleplaying game to include meaningful tactical depth, you should play something completely different than a roleplaying game?

Sure, that's reasonable.

I mean, you are aware that many 4e lovers hate wargaming, right?
They are not the same, at all.



I would bet many like wargamming as well. Your arguement is kinda weak there. 

 
I have to say it, althugh it appears others will disagree. It didn't feel good to be fired as a customer when 4e came out, and right now I feel like I'm about to be fired again.



I can completely relate to that feeling. I was totally confused when 4th Edition came out. It just felt like an entirely different game, yet the game I had been playing was no longer supported at all. Thank God for Pathfinder.

I've got renewed hope now. I'm hoping this might be a game I can start playing, rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

And that's not a knock against those who enjoyed 4th Edition. I'm sure if I'd had the budget and time to assemble a good quality set of tiles and get minis, I'd have quite enjoyed its more tactical approach to things.


I can completely relate to that feeling. I was totally confused when 4th Edition came out. It just felt like an entirely different game, yet the game I had been playing was no longer supported at all. Thank God it came out, so I had a superior option in 4e.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.