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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6236480" data-attributes="member: 37579">Disagree.There are quite a few balance and design problems. Like the expanded crit ranges on paragon paths open to anyone who can take a feat. The veteran's armour. The size of epic area effect powers. And so many more problems that could have been spotted by a little extra editing. Such as the paladin build that lacked a power at one level (I think there was a warlock power like that too). Because the edition was young and knowledge of the system was rougher, a lot of the problems are excusable. They just didn't know. But as the edition continued so did the errata, with regular large updates after every book. Stuff that should have been caught by even a cursory editing pass. Like the battlerager fighter, whose problems should have been obvious after a single playtest session. I think it was at its worst in 2010 when it seemed like they weren't even trying to do last minute editing figuring they could catch it as an update. I didn't bring up editions. I brought up WotC and its glut of books, which covered most of 3.5e as much as 4e. The monthly content being generated faster than it could be tested. That's a problem regardless of edition.I was asked directly what the most broken book for 4e was and answered. I could also tell you my pick for the worst 3.5e book.  Now, 4e was a *little* worse for this because it had a much higher crunch:fluff ratio, so there was that much more content to generate in the same time. And the balance was much tighter, broken options stood out more. You're making it about editions, not me. I was trying to discuss WotC's former practices in general, recalling how they managed to repeat a lot of TSR's mistakes (and start a reminder of what not to do next time).</blockquote>

Verification