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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4537595" data-attributes="member: 7635">Actually, I think we're arguing two very different things...I think 4e handles CERTAIN concepts very well. If I want a fire-based wizard or a polearm-weilding fighter, 4e covers them. What I'm talking about is some ideas that, because they were overpowered or underpowered, were simply removed rather than fixed. Lets take a few that were fixed in Martial Power.* The Animal Companion Ranger "Beastmaster". If I wanted to play a ranger who has an animal companion to fight and help him, I could do this in earlier D&D. There is no rule for that in the CORE RULES of 4e. Oh, I guess I could have a wolf from the MM follow me around and reflavor my Twin Strike as "Wolf Pounce" and let wolfie jump on my foe for two 1[w] (d8?) damage. But that's not covering the concept of "animal companion ranger" well IMHO. It took another book (Martial Power) to execute the idea of an animal companion who can aid and fight for you. The concept did exist (and you can debate how well, that's another topic) for the druid and ranger in 3.5* The "samurai" Complete Warrior introduced a redundant class; the samurai. The concept was simple; a heavy-armored dual-wielding fighter. It was redundant because the fighter could already do this! The point was I could, using just the 3.5 RAW, build an effective dual-weilding fighter wearing heavy armor. That is not possible in 4e, as written. A fighter could not dual-weild (sure, he could take TWF and trade a shield for a +1 to damage) and a ranger had not the "stickiness" (heavy armor, HP, or marking) to be a defender, even if he had dual-wielding.  It took Martial Power (again) to give fighters some dual-wielding worth talking about and create the same "samurai" character 3.5 core could do. (We never did need a separate samurai class, btw). That's what I'm talking about in "loss of concept". Mechanical elements in the core that were cut either utterly (fighters with bows) or pushed off to other books (animal companion rangers) that existed in core 3.5, in some form or another.I think 4e is a great system, but so far it has given me far too much "just wait and see" elements. Things that we took for granted gone. Paladins and Warhorses, summoner wizards, dual-wielding fighters, or bow-wielding rogues. These are small things for sure, but the fact I have to wait for other supplements or make up my own rules to recreate things I took for granted in 3e kinda bothers me. It feels like two steps forward, but one step back. I don't find 4e bad, wrong, or less fun, but it sure does feel a whole lot less "complete".</blockquote>

Verification