Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brian Compton" data-source="post: 3917385" data-attributes="member: 24898">Are there too many changes?&nbsp; Fluff- yes (but there are other places to rant on this).&nbsp; Crunch- no.&nbsp; There are changes, but some will make things so much better than they are now.3E claimed that it was going to bring more options for characters.&nbsp; And in a way it did, but many of those options were sub-optimal depending on campaign style (like a fighter/wizard who wasn't really good at either).&nbsp; But, like in 2E, fighter swings sword, does damage.&nbsp; Paladin swings sword, does damage; sometimes, a little more if smite is invoked.&nbsp; Pretty much same with ranger, except he could swing TWO swords or fire a bow really well.&nbsp; They have spells, but a small number and of minor power (bless weapon being a possible exception, but feats and magic bonuses can give this permanently to weapons later).&nbsp; And later books offered ways to dump non-combat abilities to get more combat abilities.&nbsp; Rogues are skill monkeys and useful, but in combat they spend so much time moving into position that they don't get to do much (or their key combat power gets nerfed by some &quot;immune to crit&quot; ability).&nbsp; Likewise, a wizard or sorcerer that doesn't load up on combat spells gets to spend most of a fight getting out of the way or fighting vicariously by buffing the damage-dealers.&nbsp; In many ways, I see giving wizards at will and per encounter powers as positive a change as giving clerics the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells- do what your class is known for without being stuck doing only that.&nbsp; Likewise, adopting per encounter and at will powers for warriors and rogues, similar to the ones in Bo9S, will make &quot;swing sword, do damage&quot; more interesting.&nbsp; Imagine a monk, rather than just swinging two or three times, swinging once and doing damage, then grabbing the guy and throwing him 30 ft. into another group of enemies, hurting them too.&nbsp; That's a lot more fun.&nbsp; That's real options.&nbsp; And it won't kill D&amp;D.&nbsp; Now, killing the gods... that's a whole other issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brian Compton, post: 3917385, member: 24898"] Are there too many changes? Fluff- yes (but there are other places to rant on this). Crunch- no. There are changes, but some will make things so much better than they are now. 3E claimed that it was going to bring more options for characters. And in a way it did, but many of those options were sub-optimal depending on campaign style (like a fighter/wizard who wasn't really good at either). But, like in 2E, fighter swings sword, does damage. Paladin swings sword, does damage; sometimes, a little more if smite is invoked. Pretty much same with ranger, except he could swing TWO swords or fire a bow really well. They have spells, but a small number and of minor power ([I]bless weapon[/I] being a possible exception, but feats and magic bonuses can give this permanently to weapons later). And later books offered ways to dump non-combat abilities to get more combat abilities. Rogues are skill monkeys and useful, but in combat they spend so much time moving into position that they don't get to do much (or their key combat power gets nerfed by some "immune to crit" ability). Likewise, a wizard or sorcerer that doesn't load up on combat spells gets to spend most of a fight getting out of the way or fighting vicariously by buffing the damage-dealers. In many ways, I see giving wizards at will and per encounter powers as positive a change as giving clerics the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells- do what your class is known for without being stuck doing only that. Likewise, adopting per encounter and at will powers for warriors and rogues, similar to the ones in Bo9S, will make "swing sword, do damage" more interesting. Imagine a monk, rather than just swinging two or three times, swinging once and doing damage, then grabbing the guy and throwing him 30 ft. into another group of enemies, hurting them too. That's a lot more fun. That's real options. And it won't kill D&D. Now, killing the gods... that's a whole other issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification