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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4684806" data-attributes="member: 5143">This I have to really disagree with.  My main problem with 3.5e was exactly that is didn't support any play style perfectly and attempted to do them all instead.  You could make a character who was able to solo no problem.  You could make a character who was a lone wolf.  You could make someone who casted spells, used magic, was psionic, stealthy, and was a BBQ chef.  However, he would not do any of them well.It concentrated SO much on "You can do anything with this system" that you couldn't really do ANYTHING without some mechanical problems.  So, what was it the pinnacle of?  If we're talking that it was the pinnacle of being able to make diverse characters...well, maybe.  Except it depends what you wanted to DO with those characters.  If there were 4-6 of them going on a typical D&D adventure then it certainly wasn't good at making them all equally good at adventuring.  Or all of them equally fun on a typical adventure.That's why I think 4e diverges so strongly with 3e.  3e design came simply from the point of view of "How can we take 2e but make it much more open, being able to be anything you can think of while keeping a class system and trying to improve the balance between classes."  It succeeded at doing that, I suppose.  But not 100%  It made things open, but using a system where 90% of all characters who multiclassed weren't all that viable.  It improved balance quite a bit compared to 2e.  However, there were still severe imbalances that needed a complete overhaul to fix.Did it go as far as it could using the framework of 1e and 2e?  I think it went 95% of the way there.  If I was going to continue running 3.5e, I would probably implement a bunch of house rules to fix the balance(things like giving everyone full BAB, removing full attacks, trying to come up with a new multiclassing system, and so on).</blockquote>

Verification