Community

Beta tests in games are always smalle rthan the final product. THe warmed over D&D you seem to enjoy denigrating defeated 4th ed in terms of support and being a viable RPG system. I wanted somehting resembling 3.5 and got 4th ed instead. Paizo done something right, WoTC done somehting wrong. Eithe way I am very sick of very short D&D ediitons (3.0 3 years, 3.5 5 years, 4th ed 3-5 years depending on PoV).

 Back in the 90's one of the fears about WoTC was that D&D would be like Magic the Gathering. In hindsight maybe they were right. After dropping to much money on 3.0/ 3.5 neither WoTC or Paizo have gotten that much money from me. I'll pay money t play their games, not gonna drop alot on it though due to fears of another edition being released or one or both editons failing. Its not an ego thing its just getting hard here to find players for anything 3.5, 4th ed or PF related.

Oct 28, 2012 -- 3:06AM, Zardnaar wrote:

They all dealt XYZ damage+ some status effect.

Name one ability in any other edition that doesn't do any of the following.

1.Damage
2.Effect
3.Damage+Effect

we did get 4.5. It was called "essentials", and was a major step backward. Or maybe sideways. What it really did was make a mess of 4e with retconned rules more than anything else.

Nov 5, 2012 -- 4:27AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Oct 28, 2012 -- 3:06AM, Zardnaar wrote:

They all dealt XYZ damage+ some status effect.

Name one ability in any other edition that doesn't do any of the following.

1.Damage
2.Effect
3.Damage+Effect

 It was the same thing for every class though. The only thing you had to look forward to was a better damage+ effect ability. There was no interesting ability as such.

 COmpare 3.5 Rnager to the 4th ed ranger. 4th ed ranger is just damage. Of course 3.5 had its bad classes and overpowered classes but it felt more organic bad word maybe) that 4th ed. This was probably due to 3.5 multiclass rules and the way you built your character was a large part of the fun in 3.5.

 4th ed was alot more linear if that makes any sense. It was at least good at doing what it was designed to do. The kicker being what if you did not like the linear progression or tactical combat aspects of D&D. 4th ed got better in that regard as the game expanded via splats and the like but it felt clunky. Star Wars Saga would release a new talent tree of maybe half a page, 3.5 would release a feat chain, 4th ed would release a new character option like the tempest fighter or a new class.

 Didn't help the 4th ed bloat situation.

4E Ranger (and other classes) have different builds instead of feat-trees. That's all.

Multiclassing works slightly differently.

4E bloated in the wrong direction. Some aspects it would start, then leave unfinished. Others it would keep inflating to the point of insanity.

Salla, we'll have to agree to disagree about Essentials. I have a lot of problems with what Essentials did, the way it was done, and how it made a mess of the existing game.