NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fox Lee" data-source="post: 6078280" data-attributes="member: 4346">As I said, one difference is that 3.5 pally's approach makes it unusable for anything that doesn't suit its flavour, and since the flavour and mechancs are one big pile it's difficult to sort out which is which. Thus, the 3.5 pally is only good for making the one exact one paladin archetype that the designers pictured. 4e paladin is useful for building lots of different "divine heavy armour tank" archetypes; just to grab some low-hanging fruit, the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight" target="_blank">Blood Knight</a>, the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar" target="_blank">Knight Templar</a>, the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CombatSadomasochist" target="_blank">Combat Sadomasochist</a> and the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoisterousBruiser" target="_blank">Boisterous Bruiser</a> are all common tropes that could be represented excellently by 4e pally, while all would be disallowed by 3.5 pally.This attitude demonstrates a difference in design philosophy that probably makes you either love 4e or hate it - and I love it. I suspect you could guess who does which by finding out their opinion on Prestige Classes in 3.5e. If you saw Prestige Classes as a character-building tool, and found it acceptable to ignore the requirement that a character join secret society x or arcane order y, then you probably like 4e; if you say Prestige Classes as inherently tied to their background and flavour, even the eunuch warlock, then chances are you hate 4e (if you saw them as a shallow powergamer tool and hated any use of them, you probably just stuck with 2e). For me, a versatile tool that I can use to actualise my vision for a character is exactly what I want a class to be - not a top-down package that includes everything from background concept to behaviour instructions.The other big difference is that one of the limitations is inherent to any system where you have personal abilities and get to make tactical choices, where the other is arbitrary based on a single concept of a character archetype - and I don't like WotC's/TSR's/Gygax's writing enough to let them design my characters for me, in any edition. Therefore while both do carry a limitation, those limitations are not equal in my eyes; one follows naturally and is all but unavoidable, whereas the other is imposed deliberately.</blockquote>

Verification