Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4428587" data-attributes="member: 48965">Then I think you are setting your party up for failure... or again by using the type of characters they create as a blueprint, you can create the type of game they are interested in playing... you know like in 4e where they talk about the different types of players.  You seem to be of the mindset that you want to control the type of adventures the players will experience, yet you don't want to give the players enough of a guideline so that they know what to expect, and I find myself at odds with this.  I believe that by letting players create the type of character they want and structuring my adventures around them, it creates a more enjoyable play experience for us all.  Or give them enough guidelines so that they know what will be stressed in the adventure so they know in a general sense what type of PC to create.  Either way, just like in 4e, a DM will have to construct his adventures to suit his particular players choices.Well we will just have to disagree here.  I think it's cool that in 3.5 I could have two Rogues, who were actually better at different things outside of combat.  One could be a "natural" at cracking mechanical and arcane devices (Nimble Fingers) while another could be specialized in bump and snatches (Deft Hands + Skill Focus).  It gives the characters schticks in the game and niches outside of combat.  In 4e, with the broader skills and general two ways of improving them (Training and Focus), it's much harder to do this.  In general two rogues will be about equal in skills they both take. Yet it's ok to be stuck in combat "roles" as niches.  Why can't my rogue be a controller?  Or my wizard or fighter be a striker?  As long as the areas are covered.  It's a double standard, no one will usurp your combat role... but any and everyone can usurp any niche you might have outside of combat. In the end I think it's a difference of philosophies.  I run my games so my players can have fun.  For me the well oiled tactical swat team play is secondary to a player getting the chance to explore and have fun with the type of character they want to.  I as a DM will gladly adjust my adventures so that my players are having fun, in the areas thay want to experience.  Different strokes for different folks I guess. Well, what if they are willing or want to sacrifice combat capability for capability in another area or even to have a niche outside of combat that the more combat focused character can't usurp.  Should they have that choice if they want too?  Agree with this... the problem for me is that with the wealth of 3.5 books I have available, I already have these types of things, and thus it is really hard for 4e to appeal to my groups playstyle.</blockquote>

Verification