Imaro: I got rid of your weird formatting for my reply.
Uhm, even though many of the handful of races we get for 4e in the MM…are wonky, power wise, at best when matched up with the PHB races? Yeah much better than ECL or LA… Or did you just decide to skip that since it doesn’t support your argument. In fact this makes the advantage definitely with 3e since it has enough low level monsters that can be used without any problem to outdistance 4e. Advantage: 3e
"Broken" in 3.5E is more substantial than "broken" in 4E. In 4E, a mildly-wonky, not-intended-for-player-use-but-being-used-regardless race (for example, the Kobold) will not break your game. In 3.5E, playing a LA/ECL race as a spellcaster will make you noticeably less effective against appropriate-level monsters if the LA is +1; if the LA is +2 or greater, you will outclassed by the monsters of your level. The advantage remains with 4E.
Imaro said:
I will also note that many people are now starting to find that certain powers are objectively better than others that a class can choose, so I really wish people would stop touting the powers as all equal options when they aren’t. How can a sub-par choice in 3e equate to no choice but one in 4e is still viable? It’s even becoming debatable that some classes are less effective in their roles than others (Warlock vs. Ranger). So let’s give the game a little more time before we start declaring how viable it is option wise.
Yes, there are some powers which are objectively better than others, in both 3.5E and 4E. That said, again, being "broken" in 3.5E is a lot worse than being "broken" in 4E. Keeping this in mind, 4E never puts you in a "no choice but one" situation that could invalidate your character. Here, 4E is at least equal to 3.5E. (In fact, in this regard, 4E is a heck of a lot better than 3.5E, if you factor in 3.5E's metamagic.)
As for "class X" is better than "class Y", once more it's worth pointing out that brokenness is relative. If 4E's Warlocks are worse than it's Rangers (and I've seen scant evidence that they objectively are), they're still leagues more balanced than 3.5E's Clerics, Druids, and Wizards compared to 3.5E's Fighters, Monks, and Paladins. How much more time do we need? 3.5E can break itself without even leaving the
Player's Handbook; the term "CoDzilla" is a testament to 3.5E's brokenness. Advantage is 4E, by a mile.
Imaro said:
Again, jumping the gun…Tell me what benefit a squishy, low hp controller has in trying to multi-class into fighter or paladin classes. Will he be able to be an effective defender? Or is he basically worthless in that role?
He won't be an effective Defender. He will be an effective Controller, with a limited capacity to Defend. In 4E, a character's primary role is determined by that character's primary class, and effectiveness in that role is a function of being a member of that class, rather than the choices made within that class. Thus, in 4E, a Wizard who multiclasses as a Paladin remains effective as a Wizard, and gains a limited scope of the Paladin's capabilities.
OTOH, in 3.5E, a Paladin in a dungeon-crawl campaign could choose to specialize in mounted combat, effectively throwing away his opportunities to become more effective in the game. In 3.5E, a Rogue can choose just about whatever options he likes, and regardless, one of his best class features will remain entirely ineffective against a major portion of the monsters he encounters. In 3.5E, a Wizard (or a Cleric, or a Druid, or a Sorcerer) couldn't multiclass either as a Paladin or
anything else without shooting themselves in the foot. Advantage? Obviously 4E.
Throw all the stones you like at 4E's wooden walls, Imaro; it won't stop 3.5E from being built from glass.
