Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5642192" data-attributes="member: 48965">I would answer... Not as well as some people try to pretend it is. A few things that I find unbalanced in 4e... 1.) The disparity between someone who specializes in a skill (+4 attribute, +2 background, +3 skill focus, +2 racial, +5 Trained) vs. someone who doesn't (let's say a +2/+3 attribute and Trained +5)... That's alot of disparity. 2.) The way non-combat abilities are assigned out. Fighter with 3 trained skills vs. classes like the Ranger and Rogue with a ton of skills or the Wizard and Cleric with a medium amount of skills + free rituals. 3.) By Paragon tier... an equal level challenge (or even a few levels higher) by the book doesn't seem to really be a "challenge" it's more of a cakewalk for the PC's... this doesn't seem particularly balanced at all. 4.)Some classes are just better in their primary role vs. other classes in the same role. If you want to put out major damage as a striker... you don't go with warlock... you go with Rogue or Ranger. The Knight is a way better defender than the cavalier... etc. There's more but these are just a few examples of some of the issues I've seen concerning balance in 4e. I guess if you clarify whether you are talking about the game in general or a particular aspect being balanced it might be easier to answer.</blockquote>