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="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5261630" data-attributes="member: 61155">I can see some truth to this. At the same time, I often see the situation overstated.  I mean, look at that list by Remathilis, and some of the things mentioned: -Sword and Board, Two-handed Weapon and Power Attack, Spring Attackers, Dual-Wielding, Raging Barbarians, Scouts that move around the battlefield... ... and these all exist in 4E.  You can have someone running around with an Executioner's Axe and power attack who doesn't hit as often, but does serious damage on every hit, and occasional explosive crits.  You can have someone with sword and shield whose attacks are effective, but not as high as most, but instead has enhanced defenses.  You can have builds that are very much based around mobility, and moving into and out of combat every round. Now it is down through powers more than feats (though feats can help), rather than via a path of feats. It is mainly confined to several specific classes, though skill powers can help. But the same concept can be built.  Dual-Wielding characters still exist, and typically get more attacks than others for smaller damage. This happens through powers rather than feats and core rules, but again - a tangible difference is there, mechanically.  Barbarians still rage. Rather than giving some static numerical changes, it tends to give other big explosive powers for a combat. We do have some other classes with similar types of things - stances, warden forms, etc - but each feels distinct, and each helps define that class.  We have plenty of builds that encourage movement in 4E. And we have at least one specific one, for the ranger, that gives specific bonuses for moving an attacking, in a similar theme to the scout.  I can understand someone complaining that Healing Word and Inspiring Word are too similar. Sure. (Though, to be fair, Cure Light Wounds from a cleric and Cure Light Wounds from a bard or druid... was still Cure Light Wounds.)  Most classes have something unique to them, but some fundamental differences that could be established - especially in the domain of spellcasting - are gone, and you can end up with conceptually different builds than can feel similar in actual play.  But trying to say that everything feels identical - to say that there is no difference between a 4E character using two weapons, or a big axe with power attack, or a sword and shield - but that these all felt completely different in 3.5! - just doesn't feel right.  I can't deny him his experiences, sure. But complaints like these absolutely feel like he is either overestimating how similar everything is in 4E, or underestimating how similar it could be in any edition. I'm more than willing to admit there are plenty of areas for improvement, and making strides on this front would be something I am all for - but I also don't feel like you can really engage in genuine discussion of this when claims this exaggerated are being made.</blockquote>

Verification