Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gribble" data-source="post: 4873784" data-attributes="member: 12430">I agree this is becoming a tangent. Suffice to say that IME there were many ways to make a playable 3e generalist who wasn't noticably worse than the rest of the party (multiclassing, monks/paladins who were somewhat forced to because of MAD, as you point out, rogue/bard). In 3e, you at least had skill points that you could sink into skills and they weren't making you worse at combat. In 4e, if you sacrifice a feat to pick up skill training (thievery) - as this player did - it is one less feat to sink into TWF, TWD, WE, WF, better armor, etc.It's not really about making an effective 4e character - believe me I know how to do that. It's about the fact that in 4e you pretty much need to have a 16+ (arguably an 18+) in your primary stat to make an effective character.The player in my game is evidence that 4e definitely hasn't removed the whole system mastery thing that 3e had going on. He didn't set out to make a crap character, but by virtue of not realising how specialised 4e characters have to be, and some admittedly poor choices, he's ended up well behind the curve. Anyway, that's the last I'll say on it to stop the sidetrack. To bring things back on topic, the difference between optimised and non-optimsed characters is vastly amplified in high level 4e (as Merric pointed out, probably just like it was in 3e).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gribble, post: 4873784, member: 12430"] I agree this is becoming a tangent. Suffice to say that IME there were many ways to make a playable 3e generalist who wasn't noticably worse than the rest of the party (multiclassing, monks/paladins who were somewhat forced to because of MAD, as you point out, rogue/bard). In 3e, you at least had skill points that you could sink into skills and they weren't making you worse at combat. In 4e, if you sacrifice a feat to pick up skill training (thievery) - as this player did - it is one less feat to sink into TWF, TWD, WE, WF, better armor, etc. It's not really about making an effective 4e character - believe me I know [B]how [/B]to do that. It's about the fact that in 4e you pretty much [B]need [/B]to have a 16+ (arguably an 18+) in your primary stat to make an effective character. The player in my game is evidence that 4e definitely hasn't removed the whole system mastery thing that 3e had going on. He didn't set out to make a crap character, but by virtue of not realising how specialised 4e characters have to be, and some admittedly poor choices, he's ended up well behind the curve. Anyway, that's the last I'll say on it to stop the sidetrack. To bring things back on topic, the difference between optimised and non-optimsed characters is vastly amplified in high level 4e (as Merric pointed out, probably just like it was in 3e). [/QUOTE]

Verification