Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="theNater" data-source="post: 4286543" data-attributes="member: 62560">I want it to be clear that I've never said that 4th edition has as many builds as 3rd edition.  I have said the following two things:1) 4th edition has a fairly large number of viable builds.2) With certain exceptions, if you take a character to basic concept, you can generally build to the concept in 4th edition.As to point 1, I think we can all agree that 4th edition has at least 16 viable, distinct builds(2 per class).  Whether various class/race combos are viable or distinct from other class/race combos is up to interpretation.  However, I know that I'll get at least my money's worth out of a single build, so for me any other builds that are also fun are pure gravy.As to point 2, the exceptions are largely things that were removed by design.  We can't say that the game is poorly designed because those things aren't included.  We can say that the design goals were poorly chosen, but not that they were poorly implemented(on this topic).  This is an important distinction that I don't often see recognized.I personally prefer that the rules be written as easier for a novice DM to work with.  This is under the theory that the complex job of altering the complexity to match the DM's taste should be given to the experienced DM rather than the novice DM.  Your preference for rules more suited to an experienced DM is entirely reasonable.[joking]You sound like a capitalist.[/joking]  Does the fun of one individual player trump the fun of all of the other players?  If one player likes to lose fights spectacularly, and the other three player really don't like to lose fights at all, does the one player always get his way because it's easier for him to sabotage the fights than for the other players salvage them?  That's an extreme example, but where does the line get drawn?I agree with you on all of these points.I can see your points here, though I don't feel it's quite as devastating as you make it out to be.  There's less class flexibilty, but I think it's more flexible than you give it credit for.  There's a lot of focus on combat, but many of the more impressive out of combat actions are still present, if you look for them(mostly in rituals, with a few hiding in utility powers).  And I like the overall simplicity, but that's entirely a matter of taste.</blockquote>

Verification