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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 4542782" data-attributes="member: 29398">Someone way upthread hit my main annoyance: lack of backward compatibility.  0e to 1e wasn't bad, 1e to 2e was just strange...but a character from one edition could be shoehorned into another without *too* much of a headache.3e, despite the conversion manual, pretty much did away with direct backward compatibility, though if careful one could pretty much build any old-school character archetype (my experiment was using 3e to make a 1e Illusionist; she did OK) even if such a build would make the optimizers cringe.I haven't dug deeply enough into 4e yet but from what I've seen in the PH and adventures I think I'd have a very hard time trying to build anything not directly supported by the system as published.  Make a 1e Illusionist in 4e?  Now there's a challenge for ya! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  (hint: no spells, rituals or non-weapon abilities allowed if they cause direct physical damage.  Have fun.)You can still play original Risk using the contents of a Risk-2210 box...they even put a supplement in the rulebook explaining how.  Why can't I do this with D+D?As for the business about number of class options - someone said 4e has 47 options where 1e had 10 and 3e had 12+8; whatever - why does that matter?  Once you get past the very basics - fighter, wizard, sneak, cleric - the game-mechanics of the character really shouldn't matter that much.  It's a sad thing to see "characters" made of feats and skills and powers rather than personalities and alignments and role-played interactions.Lane-"the thread title includes 'cynicism'"-fan</blockquote>

Verification