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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4929494" data-attributes="member: 2067">IMXP, this is VASTLY over-stated as a problem with 3e. By and large, 3e DIDN'T balance combat abilities with non-combat abilities. That's a 2e hallmark (Kits: "Ah, nobody likes me, but I can be a complete badass? Done aaaaand done!"). The one area where 3e didn't manage to silo off the combat and the noncombat was in the skills system, where skills like Spot and Listen vied for points amongst themselves and also with skills like Craft and Knowledge (architecture). This was done, as far as I can tell, because a high skill bonus was never really meant to be a prerequisite for being a decent adventurer. You could have a mediocre Spot and do fine against anything except a twinked-out stealth character.Now, in practice, this certainly went awry: twinked stealth = twinked spot, and at higher levels it just got more binary, where either you were twinked and so had a 50% chance, or weren't, and so basically had no chance.That seems like a weird argument given that 4e tells you straight up: "You will need every book to play this game." 4e is even more dependent on supplements than 3e was.Not that it wasn't kind of a problem in 3e. But part of the issue there is that unless you want to go with some sort of class-less point-based system or something, you will ALWAYS be waiting for the right supplement to be able to play your character perfectly. You can mitigate it by having very broad classes, but only up to a certain point before you loose that class's archetype.</blockquote>

Verification