Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 8455002" data-attributes="member: 90374">The stat dilemma (for me) in 4E was one of the biggest complaints I had about it. It felt like you can be a sneak thief rogue, or you can be a tough thug rogue. Beyond that, there wasn't a whole lot of choice built into the class options. Multi-classing was kneecapped to make matters even more difficult. That may have changed after x,y,z supplements came out, but I didn't stick around for them. Worse, a lot of folks want to be able to call the stat that governs their defenses (dex/int for reflex, etc...) I eventually have to ask why have stats at all if they all come out to the same in the wash?To be fair to 4E, PF2 is even worse. If you dont follow 1-2 stat arrays, your character will be completely ineffective. Sub-classes or paths dont use much variety at all so its even more homogeneous. They also grabbed the hybrid MC design from 4E to make it even more claustrophobic. Paizo designed this clever little A,B,C stats system, but its all for nothing ultimately. Window dressing at that point, so once again, im left asking why even have stats? Just dole out offense and defense based on class and sub-type.&nbsp; &nbsp; Yeap, stats are not that interesting in 5E, even though there was a big push to make them all matter during design. I do feel like I can open up character options more than 4E/PF2, which is nice, but not as much as 3E/PF1 allowed. I'd like to see design in the future that places a need/want on all stats. It should be a trade off on the things you are good at, and not good at. Being weak in a stat shouldn't be as effective/ineffective as 3E/PF1 era tho.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="payn, post: 8455002, member: 90374"] The stat dilemma (for me) in 4E was one of the biggest complaints I had about it. It felt like you can be a sneak thief rogue, or you can be a tough thug rogue. Beyond that, there wasn't a whole lot of choice built into the class options. Multi-classing was kneecapped to make matters even more difficult. That may have changed after x,y,z supplements came out, but I didn't stick around for them. Worse, a lot of folks want to be able to call the stat that governs their defenses (dex/int for reflex, etc...) I eventually have to ask why have stats at all if they all come out to the same in the wash? To be fair to 4E, PF2 is even worse. If you dont follow 1-2 stat arrays, your character will be completely ineffective. Sub-classes or paths dont use much variety at all so its even more homogeneous. They also grabbed the hybrid MC design from 4E to make it even more claustrophobic. Paizo designed this clever little A,B,C stats system, but its all for nothing ultimately. Window dressing at that point, so once again, im left asking why even have stats? Just dole out offense and defense based on class and sub-type. Yeap, stats are not that interesting in 5E, even though there was a big push to make them all matter during design. I do feel like I can open up character options more than 4E/PF2, which is nice, but not as much as 3E/PF1 allowed. I'd like to see design in the future that places a need/want on all stats. It should be a trade off on the things you are good at, and not good at. Being weak in a stat shouldn't be as effective/ineffective as 3E/PF1 era tho. [/QUOTE]

Verification