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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7935450" data-attributes="member: 87792">I'm trying to think of an edition where this isn't the case. They then tweak that balance - but a lack of balance in any edition of D&D doesn't mean a lack of trying, it means having screwed up. 4e was just that bit more open about things and a whole lot more willing to iterate after publication by producing errata.That depends how much of your combat capability you want to trade off. Have I made a 4e fighter far more skilled in the broadly defined arts of stealth and thievery than any 3.5 rogue of equivalent level? Yes I have. (4e skills being in many cases much broader than their 3.5 equivalent helped). Would he have been more powerful in combat if I'd spent his feats and utility powers on combat related stuff rather than enhancing my skills? Yes. So I have traded off combat capability to become really good at skills - and done a better job of that than is possible for any other version of D&D. Remember I'm comparing a 4e fighter base to a 3.5 rogue here and coming out ahead. Of course the 3.5 fighter can't do this; all their fighter feats have to be about fighting, they have no utility powers to give up, and they get fewer and significantly less impactful general feats. And the 3.5 rogue doesn't start to be able to pick extra non-combat abilities until 10th level.What I can't do is rearrange my magic so on Monday I'm packing my stealth spell kit and on Tuesday I'm packing my battle magic spell kit. But when it comes to being good at actual skills I have more flexibility to trade my combat ability for skills than in any other edition I think.</blockquote>

Verification