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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="STARP_Social_Officer" data-source="post: 4381703" data-attributes="member: 41202">I'd rather not get into the very vigorous discussion about mechanics v storytelling - it was just a casual observation on my part. But I can respond to Jay. So I will.I still dispute that wizards outclassing everybody, or anybody, was ever a problem. Someone suggested this is because they 'weren't being played right', which I take exception to. In my experience, wizards simply weren't that powerful under 3.5. There was a wizard is almost every game I ever played in 3.5, and in not one of them did the wizard outclass the other PCs or unduly dominate the game (well, once, but only because of the player). It was possible to min-max every character to make them exceptional. Maybe, perhaps, with wizards it was a little easier because of their versatility, but I repeat that I never found this happening. As regards to wizards still being versatile, I'll pay that, but that's because I feel every other class has been made even less versatile than they were before.On re-examining that section, you are correct and I'm wrong. Enjoy me admitting that, because it doesn't happen often. The 'paragon paths' and 'epic paths' are also optional - however, to me they seem far inferior to prestige classes, which provided much more variety and colour.I don't see it. Both characters focus on killing things quickly. The only difference is in how they do it - fighters by hitting hard, warlords by hitting slightly less hard but making all their allies hit slightly harder. I really don't see the need for the warlord. Why can't fighters be battlefield leaders? And why would you play a fighter if warlords can do pretty much the same things?I agree, and of all my gripes this is the one I'm least fussy about. And there's no reason someone can't create 4E gnomes. I'm sure someone has already.Well, I can see your point but I think it's poorly executed. It would have been better to give the creatures different or better combat skills and AC rather than larger amounts of HP.It's just a feeling. I guess it would be the 'powers', which, to me (and remember, this is my opinion, seem designed to make a character more "kick-arse" than they are to making the character a person. I know people are going to say the same was true in 3.5 but I disagree. Some class abilities added little to combat but they did add to the player's character.Again, it comes down to the powers. I think they're ill-thought-out. Feats are a much better way of distinguishing between two character, in my view.I found character building easy enough, but there's more to a character than their combat abilities, which I feel the game is too focussed on. I think probably it is just that we were perfectly happy with 3.5 and felt that 4E a) didn't fix anything that needed fixing and b) was mostly about selling more rulebooks to everybody and making more money. Yes, we had these preconceptions but if we'd been totally closed-minded we wouldn't have started playing in the first place.The kind of games we like to play value strength of character, group dynamic, interplay between the characters and good storytelling.I'm sorry, but I just don't feel the new rules make that easier.</blockquote>

Verification