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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4928432" data-attributes="member: 22779">Going back to homogenity in 4e for a sec.There's a point that occurs to me that  I don't think has been made in this thread.  If it has, sorry, I missed it, it's a long thread.  3e uses non-combat abilities to balance combat abilities.  4e doesn't.  4e only balances combat abilities with combat abilities.Now, in 3e if I want to make Suave McStabbity, that's no problem.  I take rogue and I'm off to the races.  But, if I want to make Suave McFightswell, then I have a problem.  Social skills and skills in general are balanced off against being able to mix it up in combat.  Thus fighters get only 2 skill points per level and don't actually get class access to Diplomacy.So, if I want to make Suave McFightswell, I have two choices - paladin, which comes with HUGE amounts of baggage, or ranger, which again, comes with an animal companion and all sorts of other baggage.In other words, because non-combat is balanced with combat, my choices are actually very limited for what classes I can take if I want to make a character that can do both combat and non-combat well.OTOH, I can take pretty much any class in 4e and be Suave McFightswell.  At worst I can be Notbadtalker McFightsok.  <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=":)" />  So, isn't that a case where 3e is more homogenous than 4e?</blockquote>

Verification