I gave an example of the fighter outpacing me the cleric at epic levels to show that "they suck only at house cat level" idea is flawed. If the fighter was able to easily outdo me then I don't see how this example can ever be true.
It's been demonstrably shown Clerics can trivialize fighters. If you don't use the tools you have, that's not the system's fault.
Two things, first, this wasn't about the various "limitations" you were talking about. This post was about how all 3e fighters were pack-carriers for wizards. So the point about the comparison is irrelevant as I'm not comparing anything, just pointing out that they WEREN'T.
Again, if everyone knows how to build characters then they were. That's a problem. The whole "system mastery" bits added to the spellcaster bits gave you a far-flung dochotomy if people know how to build. That was baked in to teh game.
Yes but were the hybrids in PHB1, or even 2? Or were they actually put into a book in PHB3? If they only existed in PHB3 then my point still stands regardless if they had been talking about it before.
And 3.x was a terrible system because I couldn't build a Hexblade in the PHB 1. Are you really missing such a glaring point?
The proper comparison here would be the 5e designers talking about making 5e... versus actually releasing it! Which are we supposed to use?
LoL, come back to reality, would ya? 5E won't have everything released from day 1 either. No edition ever has.
You say it right here, 4e is broken (or at least rigid) as it cannot allow something as simple as a bow to be used. Previous editions didn't have this problem. My point is made by you.
As far as I understand it isn't even like a bow would have been a sub-par choice, it appears as though it was not a choice at all. Having to houserule something is not a defense of any edition.
So, did 3.x suck because Hexblades weren't in PHB 1? I couldn't even play an Arcane Swordsman at level 1 and would never have the stats to play one properly either needing STR, CON, DEX, INT just to be functional. That's a character concept I wanted to play when 3.0 was released and couldn't make decently. [sarcasm]Gee, no choice, what a terrible system. Why would you ever play it. [/sarcasm] That's how ridiculous your argument is.
Expecting everything to be released in the PHB 1 is ridiculous. Until mnore stuff is released you have what you have. Seriously, are you 23 years old and came in to 3.5 late in the cycle? I'm trying to figure out why your perspective is so narrow as to disregard 1E and 2E while claiming things that only existed in 3.x (any many times LATE in 3.5) are the way they always were.
Okay, you missed my point so I'll phrase it another way.
Prior to 4e the books suggested you play one of each of the following; fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. It often went on to say that if you didn't the game would be more difficult. It may have explained how other classes could fit these roles or substitute for these roles or layer across to cover them.
They said most of these same things in 4e, however the key difference is they never said that you need to have a wizard because he controls and you can use X to replace or cover that angle to act as controller. It added a new layer of "what is this" to the game. It codified fighters as defenders, then gave other characters who could be defenders if you didn't have a fighter. It said a fighter could be a backup striker - because you need someone who does lots of damage.[/quote]
Page 10 of the DMG, the second section talking about the players after personality types, talks directly about party building without the standard roles covered. Page freakin' 10! It's right there! There's other stuff that covers it too, but from the very beginning of the DMG it gives you hints on runningn games without the four roles covered.
Gone were the roles of magic-guy, healer-guy, skills-guy, and fighter-guy.
WRONG! Jesus, those guys are still there, just with more transparent names. Magic Guy is an arcane or divine caster. Healer guy is a leader. Skills guys are still the same classes (Bard and Rogue) and Fighter guy is still fighting the good fight.
Now were the roles of boost-allies, limit-enemies, strike-for-extra-damage-guy, and "defender".
Again, same as they've always been , just with better-defined tools now in some cases (ie: the defender)
The roles are now too narrowly defined, and combat-centric, and some people find this off-putting. What is so difficult to agree about here?
Because THEY'RE NO MORE COMBAT-CENTRIC THAN THEY EVER WERE! For crying out loud, how is a FIGHTER not a 'narrowly-defined combat-centric' character? Not only that, but why must every character's combat role be matching non-combat role? That's ridiculously limiting. I can make the meathead who brutes his way through life, the charismatic party face, the nimble athlete, the courtesan, the noble, etc. And I can make that character any class/role I want., including Fighter.
Actually, given that 4e is based on 3e, and 3 on 2 and 2 on 1...
That is backwards. 4e has social skills for example, but places no where near as much emphasis on any aspect of them. Instead we have 95% of all pages, rules, supplements and aspects of the game focusing on COMBAT. Combat IS paramount in 4e. It is the way that 4e achieves its famed balanced. Other areas of the game took a backseat, something that 5e is seeking to remedy.
LoL, the reason 4E has limited skill lists is because the 3E system was bloated and moronic. You don't need all that ridiculous minutia to role play. Again, NO other edition had that utter crutch of shoehorning RP. Even mediocre role players and DMs don't need it. For those that want it, fine, port it over or in 5E get a module at some point, but you don't need all that crap to role play, just some basic adjudication methods.