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: 4934861" data-attributes="member: 22779">Let's see if I can do this without causing BryonD to blow a gasket.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />In my view, 3e does something extremely well - it allows you to build a character which fits a single concept, either a combat concept or a non-combat concept with an absolutely bucket full of choices.  If you want to build a character that is amazingly good at something, 3e will let you do it.However, that comes at a price.  3e, again in my opinion, balances effectiveness in one area with effectiveness in a non-related area.  A combat effective option is often balanced by being less effective, or even completely ineffective (such at being untrained in a skill) in a non-combat element.  Thus fighters get there measly 2 skill points per level.I would point out that I'm hardly the first one to complain of this.  There's a reason Pathfinder has chosen to change how skills are allocated to classes after all.  Now, BryonD is absolutely correct about 4e.  In 4e you can't make a character that is head and shoulders better than another character at something.  The math won't let you.  A character's capabilities are hard wired into his level and you don't have a whole lot of wiggle room between the floor and ceiling of that limit.  Thus, you cannot be a really good archer or, conversely, a really bad one either.  Everyone is balanced.  Thus that's the heart of BryonD's criticism of homogeny (I think.  I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth again, which I'm sure he'll yet again accuse me of.)However, there is a side effect of this balance.  Because the mechanics do not balance like with unlike, you can spread your concept a bit wider.  You can be character that is good at combat and non-combat and have a pretty wide number of choices.  Or rather, a better way of putting it is, your choices are not drastically reduced if your concept strays from the baseline assumptions of the game.In my mind, they've simply traded depth for width.  Yes, you cannot laser focus in 4e.  That's true.  Which means that certain concepts are going to be much better created in 3e.  Really tight concepts focused around a single (or at least narrow) idea work much better in 3e.  IMO, (and I hope that people just take this as my opinion and don't need to blow a pipe here) 4e works better with concepts that are a bit broader in approach, with concepts that mix unlike elements.That's primarily why I'm not really buying the whole "4e is too homogenous" thing.  I think they both have a great deal of ... errr... diversity, but it it is simply expressed differently.</blockquote>

Verification