Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4290044" data-attributes="member: 7635">I hate to quote myself, but THIS is what I was referring to in another thread.3.x character building was akin to deck building in Magic: The Gathering. Free multi-classing option FORCED everything to be equal. the first level of ranger was just a valid as the 20th level of monk. Power attack was just as valid as toughness. Silenced Ray of Frost was just as valid as magic missile. The system weighed them the same amount (1 levels worth of XP, one feat slot, one spell slot, etc). Except we know thats not true. There were sub-par choices. There were super-optimal choices. This meant it was imperative to find the best &quot;combos&quot; like deckbuilders do. It also broke down players like M:TG does; casual (my goblin deck is fun, even if I don't win alot), serious (my white deck is well tuned), professional (you should see my white/blue denial deck!) and fanatic (lets see, two red mana and two green mana tapped, I lay down channel then fireball, oh look! 20 damage in 1 round. I win. Next?) In short, 3.x rewarded you for finding the best &quot;bang&quot; for your buck in ways older editions didn't. 4e went back and tried to fix that, or at least curtail it. Amusingly, some of the people who griped and complained about half-gold dragon, celestial gelatinous cube crusader/paladin/purple dragon knight/knight protector/cavalier PCs now are complaining to being constrained to one class and dabbling in another...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 4290044, member: 7635"] I hate to quote myself, but THIS is what I was referring to in another thread. 3.x character building was akin to deck building in Magic: The Gathering. Free multi-classing option FORCED everything to be equal. the first level of ranger was just a valid as the 20th level of monk. Power attack was just as valid as toughness. Silenced Ray of Frost was just as valid as magic missile. The system weighed them the same amount (1 levels worth of XP, one feat slot, one spell slot, etc). Except we know thats not true. There were sub-par choices. There were super-optimal choices. This meant it was imperative to find the best "combos" like deckbuilders do. It also broke down players like M:TG does; casual (my goblin deck is fun, even if I don't win alot), serious (my white deck is well tuned), professional (you should see my white/blue denial deck!) and fanatic (lets see, two red mana and two green mana tapped, I lay down channel then fireball, oh look! 20 damage in 1 round. I win. Next?) In short, 3.x rewarded you for finding the best "bang" for your buck in ways older editions didn't. 4e went back and tried to fix that, or at least curtail it. Amusingly, some of the people who griped and complained about half-gold dragon, celestial gelatinous cube crusader/paladin/purple dragon knight/knight protector/cavalier PCs now are complaining to being constrained to one class and dabbling in another... [/QUOTE]

Verification