Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 4449116" data-attributes="member: 336">Well, I'm not saying or even implying that it is dishonest, just interesting.  Because the argument seems to be that the way to make 3e more interesting for melee combatants is to shift those classes closer to what 4e does.  At that point some of the complaints about the limitations 4e imposes on encounter powers seem a little weird.I don't worry too much about balance in that manner.  I prefer 4e because it took care of balancing combat by making sure that the available actions "cost" the same in combat for each class.  But it also leaves the door open for the DM to handle a lot of things that are not spelled out in the rules.  That part is what I like the most.  Instead of feeling constrained because there is a "rule" about something, I'm mostly thankful that there are no rules about certain things.This was something frustrating at several different junctions.  If you knew you wanted to take a certain Prestige Class you usually started planning for it at 1st level.  Like you mentioned some of the classes had some pretty stupid requirements (Toughness??).  Then there was the case of a new sourcebook coming out that had a particularly interesting class.  At that point your character either, rather serendipitously, met most of the requirements and within a level or two could get there, or you really needed to start a new character to ever have a chance of playing that class.  Until PHB2 there were no retraining guidelines so your choices were limited unless your DM decided to waive the requirements or make the requirements roleplay based, which is what I did several times.In 4e the feat requirements also impose a certain level of pre-planning.  Though I don't think it is as harsh as the pre-requisites for prestige classes.  If you use one of the point buy methods for assigning attributes you are not going to be far off the mark for most feats, except racial ones.  In addition, I've noticed that most feats seem to follow a "theme" that makes them more appropriate for certain classes.  Because of this, most of the pre-requisites are easily met by being a member of that class.  Because as you build that class you would have mostly concentrated on the same attributes that the feat has.The advantage of 4e right now is that the list of feat requirements is short and appears all in one place.  That will change as more sourcebooks get published, but if they continue to "theme" the feats the problem should not get much worse.In addition, like in 3e using the PHB2 guidelines, you still have the option to retrain some of the prerequisites or let the DM hand wave requirements as needed.</blockquote>

Verification