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: 4933407" data-attributes="member: 22779">I also get Spells and an alignment restriction.  I specifically said I don't want spells.  And suddenly, my honorable officer type is out the window as well.I DO NOT WANT sneak attack.  How much more plainly can I say it?  I am getting abilities that I don't want.  It doesn't fit with my concept being able to take advantage of other people's disadvantages in combat.  I'm not even going to touch this one.  If we're going to include Pathfinder under the umbrella of 3e, hell, why not every single d20 game as well?And armor restrictions and, IIRC, alignment restrictions as well.  Again, so much for my Henry V character.Yup, missed that one.  That's not bad and that gets pretty darn close.  Granted, that's also because diplomacy doesn't scale by level, but, I'll certainly admit that's a pretty decent build right there.  Granted, it's the ONLY one.  But, it's a decent one.Crusader too.  Except, now I'm a holy warrior again.  We aren't allowed to reflavor classes, remember, because we cannot treat ranger as sneaky guy in 4e.  I've got alignment restrictions, and some heavy duty flavor restrictions.But, yup, I got Suave McFightswell.  Only took seven years after the release of 3e to get it, but, yup, I got it.Sorry, your interpretation of my "stance" is your own.  I never, ever said that 4e was better than 3e.  I simply stated, and you can go back up thread where I stated this a few times, that 3e is not as broad as its being made out to be.In 4e, I can make my concept, from 1st level, with 4 or 5 different classes without any problem.  In 3e, a very simple concept - an eductated officer for example - takes me numerous splat books.  Although, there is one option in core that works.  One.  How does 1 option lead to "wider diversity" than 5 options?</blockquote>

Verification