Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Garthanos" data-source="post: 7809914" data-attributes="member: 82504">Some parts were changed to make things better some really really were changed to make it new IP a blanket statement doesn't cut it (they even tried to make those parts work better like the spell level meaning the level you get the ability.I am distinguishing parts that are different vs what could be presented as the same but werent  possibly due to the aforementioned ip difference. Encounter based tricks that could have been feats which acted as tricks once per combat... were put in the power system and that helped consistency but that isnt really hugely different.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Consistency in class structure people have identified that as samey it helped create balance and that was different... but it might not be the balance that is the issue but rather the presentation. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">4e martial types get to induce conditions and sometimes by pass enemy armor not just kill it with their swords... occasionally even just do some damage wearing down the enemy because they chose to do it. (could 3e martial types get some of that in feats maybe? so maybe i am wrong and its not martial being more versatile but how it was presented)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Level 1 was starting of as a beginner of heroic caliber not an apprentice that was different.</li> </ol></blockquote>