Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
214,197
edits
Dungeons & Dragons/Fridge: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 9:
***** I'd say that the reason is closer to "dying and creating a new character every session cuts down on the roleplay and makes fighting the only thing worth concentrating on." Why bother with real roleplaying if the personality you so painstakingly created, and the in-character friendships and contacts you've worked so hard to form, could be taken away at any second? Also, death is no longer a certainty in 4.0, as fate plays a part in whether a resurrection even works. This means that death has more impact and balance; it's more nebulous. There's no longer a sort of "resurrection hump" to cross, before which you're basically screwed and after which death is a mere annoyance. You should give 4.0 a fair chance; despite being flawed, it circumvents a lot of things in 3.5 that were plain nonsense.
***** That just plays right into the "dumbing it down" argument. If you're smart about how you build and play your characters, you won't die very often in anything outside of the [[Tomb of Horrors]]. On the other hand, you would have to be downright retarded to lose a character in 4th ed. Now a valid argument would be that 4th ed lets you get back in the fight faster. If that's what you want, 4th ed really is the better game.
*** This troper's particular original point of contention was that 4E seems to be trying to enforce a 'level cap', [[Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game|MMORPG]] style, as if to discourage epic-level play. But later, I realised that pretty much everyone will admit that at epic levels in previous editions of D&D (and many other games), balance is an absolute joke in so many ways, combat takes forever to resolve, and gameplay itself becomes absolutely ridiculous. They're trying to encourage players to take their time leveling, or even be more willing to retire characters that become powerful enough and roll new ones. It's not something you have to agree with or like by any means (most of my friends don't like the idea) but they did that for a reason.
** This pales in comparison to the other examples here, but the 4th ed. Monster Manual 2 has a foe called the Human Gladiator. His Well-Placed Kick [[Share the Male Pain|dazes and slows its target.]]
* A bit of [[Forgotten Realms]] fluff related fridge brilliance; a lot of people complained about them [[Killed Off for Real|killing Mystra]] in 4e, after it had been established that Mystra is needed for magic to function. A lot of people also mentioned that Mystra had died more than once before, and asked what made this time so special. It occured to me that there were two constants for when Mystra died; 1: magic started going completely haywire, and 2: someone stepped up and became a new Mystra before things got out of hand. What makes this time different is that the second one didn't happen. No one took over, so magic just went out of control. But where as everyone had expected a complete collapse, instead you got the spellplague.
| |||