Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5863092" data-attributes="member: 42582">Not at all.Fair enough.I'm not really able to compare 4e to 3E in this respect, as I don't have enough experience with 3E. Likewise for full bells-and-whistles 2nd ed AD&amp;D.When I compare 4e in this respect to Basic D&amp;D and 1st ed AD&amp;D, I would see the biggest changes of this sort are in respect to wizards, rangers and druids. Rangers and druids in AD&amp;D are quirky enough (and arguably overpowerd enough) that the changes are tolerable - one set of oddities is replaced by another, and rangers - especially archer rangers - make for an easy class to play.The changes to wizards are a different matter, but I'm personally from the &quot;classic D&amp;D wizards need to be evened out&quot; school. In 4e, one of the benefits of broader classes with &quot;sub-builds&quot; is that it opens up space for the sharing of utility powers (and in some cases attack powers as well), which reduces power bloat. 5e seems unlikely to have a 4e-style power system for non-spellcasting classes, which makes me curious about what, if at all, is at stake in this issue.For example, if (i) the fighter class has 3 build options, and (ii) being a fighter doesn't involve any mechanical choices other than choosing one of those 3 builds, then why call it one class rather than 3?For clerics and wizards choosing spells it probably will matter, but I worry a bit about a return to pre-4e overpowered, in part because overly broad and flexible, spell casters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5863092, member: 42582"] Not at all. Fair enough. I'm not really able to compare 4e to 3E in this respect, as I don't have enough experience with 3E. Likewise for full bells-and-whistles 2nd ed AD&D. When I compare 4e in this respect to Basic D&D and 1st ed AD&D, I would see the biggest changes of this sort are in respect to wizards, rangers and druids. Rangers and druids in AD&D are quirky enough (and arguably overpowerd enough) that the changes are tolerable - one set of oddities is replaced by another, and rangers - especially archer rangers - make for an easy class to play. The changes to wizards are a different matter, but I'm personally from the "classic D&D wizards need to be evened out" school. In 4e, one of the benefits of broader classes with "sub-builds" is that it opens up space for the sharing of utility powers (and in some cases attack powers as well), which reduces power bloat. 5e seems unlikely to have a 4e-style power system for non-spellcasting classes, which makes me curious about what, if at all, is at stake in this issue. For example, if (i) the fighter class has 3 build options, and (ii) being a fighter doesn't involve any mechanical choices other than choosing one of those 3 builds, then why call it one class rather than 3? For clerics and wizards choosing spells it probably will matter, but I worry a bit about a return to pre-4e overpowered, in part because overly broad and flexible, spell casters. [/QUOTE]

Verification