Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 5354018" data-attributes="member: 23977">Sort of- if you read the rest though (and maybe think about what I'm saying) you see where it differs. It's in how it effects the system as a whole, and how much of the system it forces me to rebuild, or invalidates because of the change.In each of these cases, it doesn't retroactively invalidate anything.The math behind the monsters improves monsters going forward, it doesn't change how effective the old monsters are going forward. They stay as effective as they ever were.The change to DCs is similar. If you were built to be good at climbing, and the DCs change, nothing about that change invalidates your being the best at climbing walls.You are still the best you can be at climbing walls, nothing about that has changed.This is contrary to changes from 3e to 3.5. With many of those changes the 'reworks caused things about your character to be retroactively replaced, or invalidated by the system going forward. Even certain classes were replaced. It's a catch phraze I'm using that tries to sum up objective differences pointed out above.It's not subjective. It's that the system is designed to handle changes without effecting other parts of the system. As a result 10 changes can/will have less of an effect to the system as a whole then 1 change in the old system. How they're used- and see above for the DCs. Because the system as a whole takes only 1 ranger class into account as the ranger class, and builds off of it. (See below.)  In what way? Magic items got a new keyword. The math behind them wasn't changed. Sure- if you didn't care about the math and the balance, you can say whatever you want. The fact is that changes to 3e rippled throughout the system. It's a statement made by not just myself, but many over the years including the designers of the game! I've said in the past there are a few areas of the game that have changed over the last 2 years that are what I would put in the category of 4.5There have only been a small number of these changes, and in each case, I still say it's important to look at how it effects currently running games.In the case of the skill DCs, as pointed out above, nothing about this change causes an optimally build PCs to have to be rebuilt to be optimal again. The PC stays built optimally.In truth I think the changes to stealth had more effect then the DCs.And this is my point again which I feel people are missing- it's not the quantity of the changes. It's the effect they have on the system as a whole. It seems like people are pointing out changes just to say it changed, rather then actually looking at the effect they have on the game as a whole. Look back on everything I've said.  In short it's mainly in how the system is built. 3e was built in a way where each system was linked to the other- this is not imagination, or anything subjective. The designers themselves have said this.4e is built with each system being for the most part independent of the next. Changes to one, don't effect changes to the other. Now- this is not true in all cases, there are some Here's an example:When the monsters changed from having generic magic resistance numbers to having specific types of resistances this effected previously made characters.No longer was a fighter that was optimally made, an optimally made fighter. It wasn't just a matter of everyone in the game simply hit less often. There were ways to make that fighter optimal again, but it required re-building the fighter under the new system rules. In 4e changes to the monsters don't invalidate an optimally built character. that character is still optimally built. Even the fact that the system considered elements the "starting point" for lack of a better word had an effect.What I mean is: In the case of the ranger, the "ranger" was considered THE Ranger class by the system. Anything going forward built for the ranger, took THAT class into consideration.Same is true of the monsters. A Goblin was the base form for goblin. To modify you added to that base form.This is not true of the 4e classes. 4e classes and monsters and such are considered by the system itself to be 1 type of that whole. One build of goblin exists independently of another.  One build of a class exists independently of another.Even the fact that the 3e system was built with the 4e core classes in mind had an effect. Swapping them out for something different often had huge effects on the game.I liked 3e- and I still do. This is not a statement to say 3e wasn't as good. It's simply saying 4e is open to more change to the system them 3e was, and as a result there isn't a neeed for a 4.5 vrs 4.0.</blockquote>

Verification