Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vael" data-source="post: 4217794" data-attributes="member: 57043">I'll admit to being disappointed that my favourite 3.5 classes (the Druid and Sorcerer) aren't in the first PHB, but I hardly consider it "holding them ransom". Look, if I really want to play one immediately, I'll homebrew. Meanwhile, I get to try the Warlord, the Dragonborn and I don't have to wait even longer for a game that I'm eager to try.Until Tome of Battle came out, I never wanted to play a melee class, because they bored me and felt like a waste when compared to what high level casters can pull off. Improving balance should be a good thing, and powers make all classes more interesting to play in combat.Real? What does that mean? I'll admit, the two-classes only rule seems overly restrictive, but 4e's feat-driven system seems to offer flexibility in the amount you want to immerse yourself in your second class and makes a multiclassed character viable in combat.I don't see these as mutually exclusive. A 3.5 Half-Orc paladin wasn't interesting, it was gimped by horrible stat adjustments so it could barely protect itself, let alone the weak. And between feat and power selection, I find it hard to believe that 4e PCs are less customizable than their 3.5 brethern.Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to playing a wizard that isn't going to run in fear from a common housecat.I do not understand this. Is this like truthiness?Where you see "3.5 sucks", I see "this is how 4e is better".Most of the flavour changes I've seen seem very well reasoned, hardly capricious. That implies that maybe it was broken, or at least improveable.Meh. Attempts at compatability were doomed to fail, unless what you really wanted was 3.75. And I see no point in playing 3.75.</blockquote>

Verification