Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5260109" data-attributes="member: 82106">Heh, its a trip to charops for you! FWT fighter, glaive, HBO, Polearm Gamble, Polearm Momentum, lots of dex, Tide of Iron, you can literally make a fighter that can hold up to eight monsters semi-adjacent and give them ZERO chance to ever escape. Its a very cute build and despised by DMs the world over. Does take 10 levels to get fully baked though. THIS is the key really. 3.x certainly had PLENTY of 'mechanical diversity' but the problem was 80% of the stuff in the books either ended up being horribly broken or utterly ineffective. It was a system filled with bad choices and I honestly think the whole reason 4e HAD to come along and do what it has done is that 3.x just collapsed under its own weight. 4e is up to 30+ books and shows no sign of breaking down. I'm not trying to bash 3.x, but just saying it sort of inevitably failed in the end.Ultimately all I know is that the dwarf greataxe fighter, the battle cleric, the brawny rogue, the starlock, and the human wizard in my game all play totally differently. In fact the players main challenge in combat I think has been figuring out just how different the melee types actually are. They spent months trying to play them all like they were pre-4e fighters before the players realized each class played totally differently. Likewise the wizard player and the warlock player had to learn just how totally different their powers were. I really don't think 2 'arcane' 3.x spellcasters would feel so different.</blockquote>

Verification