Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 4287973" data-attributes="member: 1190">I honestly do not think that range of options = quality of options nor does it = enjoyability of game. 3e, which I still enjoy playing, created the illusion of options by offering a system with millions of possible permutations.However, within those permutations, the number of viable options are substantially lower (perhaps dozens or hundreds) and most of that number was not available at the inception of the edition but arose as a result of the build-up (some say bloat but I disagree) of the game over 8+ years.Also within those permutations, there is a massive disparity between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. A fighter or rogue has far fewer viable permutations in 3e than clerics, druids, or wizards. Why? Because there are more spells than feats, those spells tended to grow in power over the life of the edition, and those three classes could learn every new spell of their class that appeared.So, increased options really only applied on a practical level to spell casters. In the case of fighters, new feats were as often as not useless for an established character because the truly effective ones had to be planned for from the start.Thus, I would suggest that the increased options of 3e was actually the "illusion" of increased options, many of which exacerbated other balance issues (spellcaster vs. not) in the game.Now clearly there are fewer options TOTAL for 4e. Wizards have lost much of their granularity (not that I saw a huge range of 1st level spell options for wizards during the years I played). The classes as a whole have prospered in my opinion.DC</blockquote>

Verification