Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eriktheguy" data-source="post: 5056196" data-attributes="member: 83662">The main difference from 3e to 4e is balance. In 4e, balance is WAY tighter than any previous edition was. Players of equal level have about the same to-hits and defenses. There are some differences by class and role, but the numbers rarely vary by much.The problem is that Wizards didn't do a good enough job balancing, so there are quite a few 'best' options that are significantly better than others. In an earlier edition, these options wouldn't ruin the balance because the balance was hardly there to begin with, but in 4e, they really show. Look at how 'bloodclaw' and 'reckless' weapons used to work, you can see they were overpowered at first print. If you look at 'expertise' and 'iron armbands of power', you can see that these &quot;options&quot; are so good that every player should take them (thus gaining a static flavorless bonus in place of a more interesting feat or arm slot item).It is way harder to publish a more balanced edition of DnD than it is to publish an imbalanced one, and Wizards have done an okay job so far, but when balance is so tight, even the little problems can become glaring.Another problem that most people complain about is that combat can take much longer, but there are plenty of threads that offer good advice to shorten it.Another problem is that most PC classes only come in two or three flavors. If you are a rogue you are either going to go with STR or CHA, and then your options become limited. In 3e two player characters with the same class and ability scores could be played remarkably differently. In 4e there is less flexibility IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eriktheguy, post: 5056196, member: 83662"] The main difference from 3e to 4e is balance. In 4e, balance is WAY tighter than any previous edition was. Players of equal level have about the same to-hits and defenses. There are some differences by class and role, but the numbers rarely vary by much. The problem is that Wizards didn't do a good enough job balancing, so there are quite a few 'best' options that are significantly better than others. In an earlier edition, these options wouldn't ruin the balance because the balance was hardly there to begin with, but in 4e, they really show. Look at how 'bloodclaw' and 'reckless' weapons used to work, you can see they were overpowered at first print. If you look at 'expertise' and 'iron armbands of power', you can see that these "options" are so good that every player should take them (thus gaining a static flavorless bonus in place of a more interesting feat or arm slot item). It is way harder to publish a more balanced edition of DnD than it is to publish an imbalanced one, and Wizards have done an okay job so far, but when balance is so tight, even the little problems can become glaring. Another problem that most people complain about is that combat can take much longer, but there are plenty of threads that offer good advice to shorten it. Another problem is that most PC classes only come in two or three flavors. If you are a rogue you are either going to go with STR or CHA, and then your options become limited. In 3e two player characters with the same class and ability scores could be played remarkably differently. In 4e there is less flexibility IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification