Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 4536804" data-attributes="member: 3608">I’m big on reflavoring. The druid class in many editions makes a wizard I like better than the wizard/magic-user class.Heck, I’m big on house-ruling and making up stuff yourself. I’ve got some ideas for house rules that might make me enjoy 4e more.But when you ask the kind of question you did, I’m not going to consider those options in my answer. Because then the discussion becomes moot. You can do anything with any system with reflavoring and house rules.But let’s drop the “flashy” part. For me, most of the fun of the game is the stuff that happens between combats. A system that tells me I start off with four combat powers and zero utility powers sure looks like it isn’t optimal for many of my character concepts.Sure, I’ll “when in Rome” and enjoy it. Or I’ll house rule it to make it more to my liking. But it is sub-optimal for the kinds of characters I often like to play.(No doubt someone will say that then no edition of D&D is for me. Yet I really do find some editions fit my preferences better than others.)I’ve thought a lot about how the things that I think turn me off about 4e might be changed in future books. But I’m not big on supplements, and that doesn’t change even if they label as core something that looks like a supplement to me.Who knows, though. More experience with the system and if I can get some options I really like without buying too many extra books...Then there’s the answer to your question. Wizards that don’t always have the ability to lay down the hurt are my concept that 4e—as current constituted without supplements or house rules—doesn’t support. Heck, generally—whatever class it might be—having a PC who is weak on combat prowess in order to be stronger at non-combat activities.</blockquote>

Verification