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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 5791672" data-attributes="member: 882">One aspect of 4th edition races that I didn't like was the flat stat bonuses. I understand that certain races are better performing in certain classes, that's fine. However, the class structure left almost all characters relying on only 2-3 stats. In the old days you could absolutely dump one, maybe two stats if you weren't a Paladin or Ranger, and they felt like they had important consequences (because all stats impacted something, from carrying capacity to vulnerability to certain spells).When you can dump many more stats, focusing only on the one you use to hit (which is *always* the same, no matter what sort of attack you make), the one that governs your secondary damage or power choice (sometimes there were two here) and the third would often be for feat choice or similar. This meant that certain races were *ideal* for certain class builds, and so it always felt a bit unfortunate that Eladrin loved wands, for instance. With just one stat bonus, you would pick Wizard, sure, but with two you pick wands. It becomes another straight-jacket, unless you deliberately play against type, with much more severe consequences in 4th edition than previously (I believe).I'm going on a bit now, but I guess I blame class design more than race design for this. Or maybe the slim skill system. Why bother being a charismatic Ranger when any oaf with a tick in Diplomacy will be better than you at it? Why bother being a dextrous fighter when you're designed never to use a ranged weapon (or indeed, a strong ranger because you're designed never to enter melee)? Clerics are universally stupid, Warlords always unwise. Everything became much too focused on class, not enough on stats.</blockquote>

Verification