Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4519683" data-attributes="member: 63272">If this is your position, I find it pretty strange that you are using this statement to defend 3e over 4e.  3e was very limiting on what you could play and how you could play it because of the things they tied into the basic system.  First, though, to be fair, the 3e PHB had 10 classes and the 4e PHB has 8.  If you're trying to compare 4e now to 3e at the end of its run, well, that's a pretty skewed way to go about things.  Wait 8 years, then compare.  Those 10 classes in 3e had a very limited range of options (do I want my fighter to have a longsword and focus or a greataxe and power attack?).  Both games are built to expand through future products, its the business model.  New options for existing classes, new classes, new pretige/paragon paths, etc. That said, 3e attempted to pigeonhole characters pretty strongly.  All fighters pretty much looked the same.  One might trip, another cleave, but they had the same pitiful skills and none of them could effectively utilize the other skill based systems like craft.  You couldn't make the character you wanted, unless you could justify any non adventuring details mechanically.  A fighter/blacksmith? How you going to pull that off without making a subpar fighter?  You had to do it by not actually taking fighter levels, you had to dip in something else for skill points, never mind your concept is not rogueish at all.  Spellcaster multiclassing was awful and severely limited what you could do and how far you could do it.  That's the problem with trying to encompass everything in the rules.  Every group doesn't need everything, and the attempt leaves the system full of holes, corner cases, unworkable subsystems and unfixable disparity.  It took WotC 8 years to come up with a way to put a dint in the caster/melee disparity and the solution was to magic up melee classes with Tome of Battle.  Class doesn't define character and character doesn't have to be represented mechanically (although its easy to do so if your group desires).  Class represents the skill/powerset that a character uses while adventuring.  Right now, class choice is limited, just as it was at the beginning of 3e.  But within that range there is a lot of wiggle room, as a whole and within each class.  A lot of options are realized through the limited power selection versus the large number of choices (which will only grow, and has already).  A fighter focused on heavy damage with a 2h is a lot different from a fighter built for toughness from a fighter built around skilled tactical combat.  Feats and powers leave plenty of room for variety.  Sure, all those are fighters, but thats the class.  The roles have variety as well.  You can be an offensive defender.  In my group, the fighter is exactly that.  He is the guy who kicks down the door and charges the BBEG.  As class choice expands though, so will overall options as to how you can realize your concept mechanically.  Every role will be represented within each power source, in all liklihood.  A martial controller, a primal defender, an arcane leader, etc.  Looking at the general design layout, it looks to me like 4e will be able to reach the end game versatility of 3e in a much shorter time/book frame.  There are simply more avenues for expansion.</blockquote>

Verification