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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 4114277" data-attributes="member: 3400">I'll admit that there are pre-defined abilities, with some strength, that aren't in 3E, but they're also doing away with an array of options that 3E had, from the sounds of things. A warlock always had an option between eldritch blast and whipping out a crossbow. He also had a variety of other options that were far riskier because of the penalties you faced if  you didn't have a feat to give you an advantage (bull rush, overrun, grapple, unarmed attack, trip, disarm, etc). So they weren't particularly credible for a warlock, particularly not compared to the main one he had in the eldritch bolt. Now, he's got a couple more options that might shine in a particular situations.But there's another cost to other character types. If things like trips are now encounter powers for fighters, that's an option lost compared to 3.5 when trip could be tried any number of times. Same with disarm. Same with bull rush if that doesn't happen to figure into your at will powers. Those options weren't always great options for all warrior-type characters, but they could all be resorted to if the situation warranted it. Now?The net result for me is that while some options sound like good ideas, and I like a certain amount of per encounter power ideas, I don't see a whole ton of progress being made in 4e as a game compared to 3.5. Some options are being added but others are being constrained in ways that I don't particularly like. They may be making those constraints so that the power has a certain significance, but why should taking that significant action be constrained to a particular character build rather than the player having the wit to think of applying a more general choice at an advantageous time?That's why a lot of 4e changes come out as a wash for me.</blockquote>

Verification