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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gondsman" data-source="post: 5661601" data-attributes="member: 90057">Swordsmasher, i'd like to thank you for presenting the first complaint about 4e that i've ever completely agreed with.  You complained about content not fitting well with playing style, and i can agree that 4e does lack somewhat when it comes to character variety, you do get sort of railroaded into specific progressions more with 4e than with others.  And certainly there are a lot of feats like Irresistable Flame that only helps people with fire attacks, but there is no comparable feat for say a bard who mostly has thunder attacks, and you have to houserule a feat and call it Irresistable Thunder. Personally I like to houserule a lot of stuff.  I'm about to run a campaign that's about 3/5 3.5e and 2/5 4e.  I like the less rigid approach to classes, but i dislike certain things like the skills list in 3e, it just doesn't make sense to me a rogue that seperately trains picking locks and disabling traps since the mechanics are often very similar, so i pull in some of the more broadly defined skills of 4e and condense the list a bit, and i also think that 3.5 spellcasters are significantly underpowered with no at-will magic attacks so i blend in a little bit there.  with more time on my hands i might look at another system like pathfinder, but for now i stick with something that satisfies most of my needs and i make up the rest. I do think that far too many people place all the burden on the game rules, when no rule, no matter how cool or well developed is going to satisfy everybody.</blockquote>

Verification