NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7035811" data-attributes="member: 996">All those late hits add up?IDK about 'feature complete.'  There could have been a PH4 covering Epic better, for instance.  But, by early 2011, 4e had added back in everything even arguably present in a past-ed PH1.  The gnome, the most publicized omission, along with the Druid, Bard, Barbarian, (& Assassin in Dragon 379, & Illusionist as Orb of Deception build in Arcane Power) in 2009, and the Monk & Psion in 2010.  By early 2011 (which, yes, corresponds to where we are now), Essentials had added back daily-less martial classes, including the DPR-only fighter (the Slayer), and magic-using rangers (scout & hunter).  So even by fairly uncharitable standards, every class (and sub-class) that past editions had offered in the PH1 (and some from the 3.5 PH2 in some incarnation - Knight & Scout at least) were covered by 4e.5e still lacks the Warlord from the 4e PH1, and has the 1e PH1 psionics (not technically a class) only in playtest form.  So, yeah, it's a little behind in terms of basic completeness.It's also going on a much slower pace of release. Heroes of the Fallen Land dropped in Sept 2010.  I consider that the end of 4e - at least it signaled a reversal of direction, as everything since has been heroically forging into the past. The implication is that D&D can only do tactics, the way a 5e fighter can only deliver DPR.  Except, of course, that it's entirely false in the case of 4e, since 4e had more and (eventually) more functional mechanisms to handle out-of-combat challenges than any other edition, whereas the critique of the 5e fighter as at worst a tad hyperbolic (the 5e fighter /can/ do other things:  it can make warm-body skill checks, it can absorb a little more damage than other non-Barbarian classes, it can use stuff from it's Background, &c) 3.5 was /more mechanically detailed/, it had more skills with finer granularity, more extensive & granular tactical-combat rules, more conditions, more named bonus types, etc, etc.  It was a very more edition and had 5+ years of break-kneck-publication behind it, not to mention legions of 3pp products.  So, yeah, not like 'detailed mechanical whatever,' but prefering 3.5 to 4e on that basis is nonsense.   The Edition War led to a lot of nonsense, at that was just one of many mines in the field.  However, there is a very compelling reason for not wanting to adopt 4e's detailed mechanics, in spite of already having fully embraced 3.5's with great enthusiasm:  sunk cost.  Learning 3.5 and keeping up with it for years was no mean accomplishment, and the rewards of doing so in terms of the advantage you gained from system mastery were positively lavish.  Loosing that 'investment,' and having to re-learn a different system (that  was more designed to be learned easily by new players, than to be familiar to existing ones), for lesser pay-offs (because 4e was better-balanced, while you could certainly optimize, the result wouldn't be as wildly overpowered), was an understandable dis-incentive.  Just a practical and calculated one, not so much to do with 'da feelz.'</blockquote>

Verification