NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6068397" data-attributes="member: 58416">I wasn't bothered by 'nerfing' the spells.  I was bothered by the manner in which it was done.  I was likewise bothered that the answer to the 5 minute workday was to place the same problem (running out of spells/powers) on every class.  I suppose that sums up my feelings on a lot of 4th Edition things: I loved the ideas, but the ideas weren't implemented in a way I would have liked them to be.  For example, I've already mentioned that I prefer a lot of the 4th Edition fluff, but the way the mechanics worked made it so that the fluff didn't really seem to make sense in the context of the crunch.  That's starting to edge toward a different discussion though, so I'll move on.I haven't played 2nd, so I cannot comment.  As said in previous posts, I'm most familiar with 3rd and 4th when it comes to editions of D&D.  I'm also familiar with Pathfinder, and I've also used the GURPS rules with D&D fluff.  I've dabbled very briefly into 1st Edition.  For what it's worth, I do find that the 2nd Edition books speak to me on a level that the books of today don't seem to.  Gaining an army is something I don't think should be bound to class choice.  Also, gaining an army only helps if the army is actually capable of helping.  I highly enjoyed 3rd Edition, and I'm also the type of player who regularly took Leadership as a feat.  I'm big into castle building and estate management.  However, there came a point when I realized that no amount of my low level followers could ever hope to offer any kind of help for a problem which would matter to someone of my level.  The power curve between levels was too extreme for having an army to really matter.</blockquote>

Verification