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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6210787" data-attributes="member: 2656">I ran a 3.x campaign to 23rd level, and I certainly felt that spellcasters had vastly more options over non spellcasters, particularly fighters. This is my personal subjective opinion of course, but my players gravitated towards selecting spellcasters at higher levels, at least those with the system mastery to make them effective. Partially, it's because I enjoy playing and running high level games, where the PCs can aspire to political and military power if they desire. 3.x Fighters tend to lack skills and stats appropriate to such games, and if they do invest in these areas they risk moving from "poor" to "average" socially, so still being eclipsed by other PCs,while being less effective at their primary job, fighting.I disliked the way 3.x made it so difficult to create effective fighters, and that effectiveness often meant being a one-trick pony, such as a tripper build. Fighters were even more dependent on magic items to keep up, and were crippled in low magic campaigns, while paradoxically spellcasters had much less need for magic items and could potentially make their own.There are mixed messages in the 4e rules, which is unsurprising to me - 4e was a big change, and the developers involved obviously had differences in how to approach the changes. Some of the concepts were rough and undeveloped at printing, and took years of thought and development to flesh out. As there are contradicions and rough spots in the rules, readers will interpret them in the light of their own preferences.Like the 3e playtest often ran the game with 2e assumptions that no longer applied to a greater or lesser extent, I think some people ran 4e trying to recreate 3e, and balked when that didn't work out, as the two editions are too different.Incidentally, I get a nasty taste in my mouth from anyone being told that their subjective experience is wrong. Errors in fact can be made and pointed out, but subjective opinions are matters of taste and not necessarily subject to rational argument. We are entitled to our own likes and dislikes.</blockquote>

Verification