Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 5253703" data-attributes="member: 326">Hiya Farealmer3 matey! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I thought 4E has tons of cool powers where 3E had relatively few.In my experience most high level 3E players are power gamers to some degree and thus meta fictional in their planning of characters.But were they ever fun - certainly not if it happened to you.4E still has save or die mechanics, its just that they have a safety net of 2-3 saves before you reach the 'or die' bit. I don't think they are necessarily bland, I think maybe there are just 'so many' of them, that people just see pages and pages of abilities/powers.Also, when the heck did 3E ever describe character abilities with anything like the same level of detail? Most classes in 3E barely had any powers, let alone flowery descriptions of said powers.But only being able to memorise x spells per day isn't Meta-ish?  You are assuming Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf are all of equal level.Are fictional teams unbalanced, yes, but its because they have different levels of experience. Not because some classes should be more powerful than others.The term 'level' means equal. Two Level 15 characters should be equal regardless of class.The more recent books have been more flexible with the number of powers.But are you saying that a player who wants to play a Fighter cannot have as many abilities as a Wizard?I don't see how having less abilities for a Fighter is a good feature? I think the problem here is that there are so many abilities for each class as default that it seems both overwhelming and also you start retreading the same material only slightly different. But I am not sure if 'too many options' is a necessarily bad thing.You don't like balance you mean. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Absolutely.I agree Monster Manual 1 (4E) was a tad bland, but Monster Manual 3 (4E) is a good book. WotC have really listened to the criticism and changed the format.I love this approach.Earlier editions always had this, they just hid it behind class levels or extra Hit Dice. Now the trick is to come up with some original power(s) rather than just tack on some class levels and Hit Dice.I can't believe you didn't like Monster Manual 3, its a great book. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />Absolutely. Thanks for the feedback mate.</blockquote>

Verification