PrecociousApprentice
First Post
So this is a scary thing to bring up because of the possible arguments that it might spark, but here goes.
Character building in 4e may now be more like deck building in M:tG. I say this in a good way. 3.x did character building like financial planning. You pick where you wanted to end up, then with expert accounting, and a little luck, you slowly build to the character that you always wanted. You definitely don't start there, but as long as you stick with your initial plan, and the plan was flawless from an accounting standpoint, you could get there. Typically it required expert help or a significant deal of personal expertise to pull off, and it was easy to screw up and get crap.
In 4e, it seems that the accounting has been limited. There seem at this point the be way less prerequisites for any specific build, and there are these sort of do-over retrainings that are completely absent in core 3.x and financial planning (I wish!). instead, there seems to be the attitude of "Have your character work the way you want it now," and "It's OK if it didn't turn out the way you thought, try a different variation." Along with that the designers have spliced on an expandable series of archetypes that are self contained and generally ballanced between each other that can be mixed and matched to create any concept. It generally works best not to dilute each archetype too much, but two can be combined to create interesting synergies. Each archetype has it's strengths and it's weaknesses, but in the context of it's self and the group, each is ballanced and fun to play at all levels. This is relatively analogous to the color wheel in M:tG, but with the addition of new colors every year, and limited dual lands.
So before anyone starts the flame war, can we each think about the benefits that this approach will bring to the hobby in the form of accessability and fun, and what weaknesses it will eliminate in the form of system mastery and accounting prowess. I might enjoy the puzzle of accounting, but I far more enjoy the game play, and many people do not like accounting (probably most don't).
I think in general this approach will allow easier concept building at the character level, as long as people can divorce themselves from the accounting culture that has been cultivated for the last ~30 years. When we finally get aroung the "but I can't make my fighter/mage/cleric!!!!" and get to the "Wow, it is much easier and fun to create a fighting character with a connection to both the divine and the arcane (paladin->wizard/warlock)", we will likely realize that the fun and satisfaction of character creation can happen many times within a characters lifetime and happens immediately, as apposed to only after three years of playing and planning to get that final prestige class at 20th level.
I am very happy with how these rules are shaping up. They are more like I alway wished D&D was like. And on top of that, they appear transparent enough that houseruling will be a sinch.
Character building in 4e may now be more like deck building in M:tG. I say this in a good way. 3.x did character building like financial planning. You pick where you wanted to end up, then with expert accounting, and a little luck, you slowly build to the character that you always wanted. You definitely don't start there, but as long as you stick with your initial plan, and the plan was flawless from an accounting standpoint, you could get there. Typically it required expert help or a significant deal of personal expertise to pull off, and it was easy to screw up and get crap.
In 4e, it seems that the accounting has been limited. There seem at this point the be way less prerequisites for any specific build, and there are these sort of do-over retrainings that are completely absent in core 3.x and financial planning (I wish!). instead, there seems to be the attitude of "Have your character work the way you want it now," and "It's OK if it didn't turn out the way you thought, try a different variation." Along with that the designers have spliced on an expandable series of archetypes that are self contained and generally ballanced between each other that can be mixed and matched to create any concept. It generally works best not to dilute each archetype too much, but two can be combined to create interesting synergies. Each archetype has it's strengths and it's weaknesses, but in the context of it's self and the group, each is ballanced and fun to play at all levels. This is relatively analogous to the color wheel in M:tG, but with the addition of new colors every year, and limited dual lands.
So before anyone starts the flame war, can we each think about the benefits that this approach will bring to the hobby in the form of accessability and fun, and what weaknesses it will eliminate in the form of system mastery and accounting prowess. I might enjoy the puzzle of accounting, but I far more enjoy the game play, and many people do not like accounting (probably most don't).
I think in general this approach will allow easier concept building at the character level, as long as people can divorce themselves from the accounting culture that has been cultivated for the last ~30 years. When we finally get aroung the "but I can't make my fighter/mage/cleric!!!!" and get to the "Wow, it is much easier and fun to create a fighting character with a connection to both the divine and the arcane (paladin->wizard/warlock)", we will likely realize that the fun and satisfaction of character creation can happen many times within a characters lifetime and happens immediately, as apposed to only after three years of playing and planning to get that final prestige class at 20th level.
I am very happy with how these rules are shaping up. They are more like I alway wished D&D was like. And on top of that, they appear transparent enough that houseruling will be a sinch.
