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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4288084" data-attributes="member: 32164">Firstly, I want to deal with the last comment:For starters, if you think something is reportable, report it. Don't threaten to report it.I don't think it's starting an "edition war" to argue that Fourth Edition has emphasized "options in play" over "options in character building." It is, in fact, a simple statement that the game is designed to put "choosing options" in a different place.For example, I'm very pro-4E and I'd totally agree with this statement. I know for a fact that there are people who are very pro-3e who would also agree with it. Which you prefer is a matter of preference, but the statement that 3e has more options in "character building" and 4e has more options in "play" (*) is nothing short of admitting reality.Now, do I expect there will be more "build options" as more options are released for Fourth Edition? Yes, I certainly think that's true. But the first release has limited options.What's he misunderstanding?People are saying that there are limited options in away from the table character design. He's responding: "You're not imagining things, the 'build options' are limited.""BUT," he continues, "There are still options and choices. It's just not all about stacking this feat and that combo or this class and those items."You are correct. Some options (druids, barbarians, bards, certain kinds of specialist wizards) are flat out gone from the first set of rules. I would contend that most of the concepts are not MISSING so much as they've been re-allocated.3e: "I want to make a light armored fighter who specializes in archery."  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/1.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":1:" title="One    :1:" data-shortname=":1:" /> Start with fighter class, allocate attributes. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two    :2:" data-shortname=":2:" /> Choose archery feats, and cross class skills.4e: "I want to make a light armored character who specializes in archery." <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/1.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":1:" title="One    :1:" data-shortname=":1:" /> The best class for that is ranger. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two    :2:" data-shortname=":2:" /> Choose archery style.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/3.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":3:" title="Three    :3:" data-shortname=":3:" /> Pick powers, skills, and feats to support concept.With the exceptions I called out above (druid, barbarian, bard, certain specialist wizards), I don't think there's that many character concepts that could be created "out-of-the box" in Third Edition at the start that can't be done in Fourth.In exchange, Fourth offers a few that weren't supported in Third. The arcane character who gains power via a pact wasn't supported until well into 3e. The smart warrior character who leads the team in battle is not a concept that was supported (mechanically) in Third Edition until well into its release. In fourth, both are present "out of the gate." <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/1.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":1:" title="One    :1:" data-shortname=":1:" /> What concepts? List some. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two    :2:" data-shortname=":2:" /> There were hundreds of playtesters. Some of them were even the same folks from the WotC Character Optimization boards whose compatriots found the broken combos. That means either they missed the abuses (which means they're far from obvious) or they deliberately left them in. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/3.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":3:" title="Three    :3:" data-shortname=":3:" /> ASIDE from Blade Cascade (and I freely admit that min-maxers can abuse that one), what ranger combos are we talking about? Strikers are supposed to do a lot of damage, and rangers are strikers. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/4.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":4:" title="Four    :4:" data-shortname=":4:" /> Warlord/Cleric is broken? What did I miss?I admit that some multi-classing dependent combos aren't available in this edition. But with some notable exceptions, I'm not sure how "unavailable" the real concepts of multiclass combinations really are. Basically, you're forced to decide what part of his "multiclass" your character emphasizes. Are you a wizard who can fight, or a fighter who can throw out a few spells. I admit that the straight 50/50 fighter/wizard combo is hard to pull off. I just question whether there's any real concept behind it.(*) Spellcasters are the only classes who have had their "in-play" options trimmed. Sort of. A 1st-level wizard actually has more powers than his 3e counterpart. By level 6 or so, that starts changing. Yes, his 3e counterpart had more options to choose from each day, but once those choices have been made, the low level 4e Wizard has more powers to pick from in any given encounter than his 3e counterpart.Not counting cantrips, our low level 4e wizard has 4 spells. He still has 3 of them even after he spends his daily. His 3e counterpart has 2 options in the 1st encounter, and his options decline rapidly if he uses his powers.At the highest levels,  the character has up to 10 attack spells (4 of which are available every encounter and 2 of which can be used any time) and 5-7 utility ones, not counting rituals. That's as many spells as the 3e wizard got from his top 3-4 (i.e. useful) spell levels.Yes, it reads as "fewer options" but is it really?</blockquote>

Verification