NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 5110970" data-attributes="member: 326">Howdy Raithe! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />For me it just looks like a lot of complexity for its own sake rather than for any benefit to the fun.Having witnessed first hand the progress of D&D noobs (even if they were RPG gamers for some years) getting to grips with (low level) 3E showed me that the game has too many working parts,many of which are redundant. These problems are only compounded at the high end of the game. Does 3E play well when die rolls are basically inconsequential...not sure it does. Well from what I have been told (and I'll state I haven't tried these classes myself) is that some of the primal classes (in particular the warden and shaman) play quite a bit differently in practice.Not sure I understand the mentality of playing a class outside its given role...why not just play a different class, or multiclass if you want to spread yourself out a bit.If you want to play a Fighter who is primarily a leader, just play a Warlord. If you want to play a Fighter with some leadership ability occasionally multiclass into Warlord.Well thats weird because the reports I have read suggest that all the classes were equally boosted so while fighters might be slightly more powerful than their 3E counterparts they are still as weak, relatively speaking, when compared to casters.In the build I saw (upon Pathfinder's release) the Fighter looked about the same as a 3E Fighter (I think it was a Level 14 Pathfinder Fighter).  Ah.  Should they though? If it takes x amount of time to become a great fighter or a great wizard, yet the great wizard is notably more powerful, why would people become fighters?In 1E AD&D Wizards were pound for pound more powerful (after the first few levels). But this was tempered by notably higher EXP totals.3E maintains the power disparity per level, but makes EXP required the same for all classes.4E just reddresses that disparity.The difference being of course that the Wizard can generally attack multiple targets at once at range. Whereas the Fighter is generally attacking one target in melee.I'd be interested to see what the damage outputs are for Level 20 Pathfinder Wizards vs. Fighters...I mean don't they still even use iterative attack bonuses in Pathfinder?The Tome of Battle was of course a trial run for 4E martial class ideas. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I sort of like the 4E method that marries combat maneouvers to attacks. Well I don't have the PHB 3 yet, I am very interested to see the Monk.</blockquote>

Verification