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="Primal" data-source="post: 4218825" data-attributes="member: 30678">One of the reasons I'm quite concerned about 4E is that it seems that a lot of people are going/are required to homebrew character concepts, which implies to me that 4E is mechanically and thematically a step backwards. I don't want to homebrew/houserule stuff in my first campaign to make some concepts work -- I hated doing it in AD&D, and I certainly never had to do it in 3E. Again, to you. My group voted against using ToB and Bo9S, because to us they felt a bit "over the top" and ridiculous. As I've said before, monk has also always been a "banned" core class in my group.   I think there's a very good reason why there won't be any official conversion guide from 3E to 4E, and that is because the character concepts and roles limit your options -- there won't be any "suboptimal" choices to make in 4E anymore. For example, I don't believe that I could convert my elven Cleric/Divine Templar who is specialized in Longbow and has taken all the archery-related feats. Sure, I could create a character that has *some* similarities, but he should probably be a Cleric with some You should also take a look at the options presented to each class -- for example, I can't really see a rogue using anything else but a dagger in melee, unless he multiclasses. And how many powers are available to you at each level? 3-8, if I recall correctly. Sure, there are a lot of Feats in the game, but I don't think they allow you a lot of customization -- I rather suspect that they are there to "enhance" your powers and your "effectiveness" in your role. I have played them in 3E (in fact, I've never ran in fear from a common housecat).I can understand why the designers (and a lot of gamers, apparently) feel that everyone should always have "cool stuff to do" in combat, but I'm not convinced that their method is the best way to accomplish that. IMO some sort of "power points" for all the classes would have been a lot better way to do it, since I'm not a hard-core fan of Vancian spellcasting (and Psionics already work that way). Now it feels that everyone should just use their best At-Will power all the time, *or* the attack which targets your enemies' weakest Defense. And it seems that all the classes will get powers/exploits against each defense and most of them also seem to do the same amount of damage (and use the same attack modifier, to boot) -- which results in combat becoming a series of attacks that cause almost identical amounts of damage with just a different flavour.Uh, shouldn't that be "where you see '4E sucks'..."? It's a whole new game, not just a new edition of D&D. Note that this is once again a matter of personal taste -- I see a lot of "fluff" becoming too "simplified" and thematically very restricting. Not to mention that it's easier to create a whole new setting for 4E than try to come up with reasons for all those changes, say, in Cosmology and monster "fluff" for example (e.g. fomorians who have mysteriously evolved into kings of Feywild, although my previous campaigns have featured them as mutated, brutish and primitive cave-dwelling giants). And yes, my players *care* about consistency in the setting and the "fluff", so I can't just handwave it away.Which is what Paizo is doing with the Pathfinder RPG, and in my opinion succeeding pretty well considering their target demographics and design goals.I personally see no point in "change for change's sake", but I understand what you are saying. And I agree to a certain point -- I think the update from 3E to 3.5 was too insignificant to justify new set of core books and I wouldn't pay for 3.51. Besides, barring Haste and some other "troublesome" spells, in my opinion 3.5 created more problems than actually solved them. However, I personally don't like how far thematically and mechanically 4E is moving from 3E, and like I said above, I don't see it fitting my group's style or taste.</blockquote>

Verification