Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wayne62682" data-source="post: 4268460" data-attributes="member: 40455">The big problem that everyone is forgetting though is that the imbalance between classes is exactly what caused problems in 3rd edition.  This never happened, though.  What ended up happening was there was such an imbalance between the Wizard and everyone else that, while this might work in theory, in the hands of any capable player (I'm not even talking about a powergamer; I'm talking about anyone competent enough to look through the damn book) the Wizard himself could do everyone else's role via magic, without breaking a sweat.  Take it from personal experience:  While in theory it's all well and good that everyone will have their own role, it's no fun to be the guy that can be replaced with Spell X and Spell Y.  D&D was always focused on combat abilities, just that older editions never spelled things out and left it entirely up to the DM if you could disarm or bull rush or whatever; the "Mother, may I?" factor, which is complete nonsense in and of itself.  I'm glad that they started to give rules for certain options - it prevents the DM from deciding for you if something is possible or not.They nerfed creative spell use because opening spell use to "creativity" allowed crafty (read: optimizers/rules-lawyers) players to "break" the game.  That's the whole problem with 3.x - it's easy to break the game by using these so-called creative spells to do weird things that nobody could ever expect.  Reigning them in helps bring balance by disabling the main trick of those players.  You call it stifling creativity, but I call it keeping everyone on the same page.Yes, heaven forbid someone being utterly useless during the majority of the game because they made some bad choices.  People didn't wine because they didn't do the same amount of damage, people whined because any decent player could figure out the optimal choices and render someone who didn't useless/ineffective.  Again, speaking from experience, it's not fun to watch the rest of the group doing damage, and you not being able to because you chose poorly and didn't build for combat.  This was a flaw of the game system.  It was a noble flaw, since it was trying to avoid making everything combat based, but still a flaw because combat is the main part of the game in all but the extreme fringe cases.I can certainly see where you're coming from, but IMO you're looking at it in the wrong way.  Everyone always seems to point out that the 4E rules focus on combat - just how do you focus on roleplaying, something that doesn't require any rules at all in the first place?  Of course the rules would focus on combat; that's the part that actually requires rules to be in place!</blockquote>

Verification