Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 4303496" data-attributes="member: 63214">Whoa, a bit hostile there, was I supposed to know about your current condition? And is there any reason you expect that I think you should consider me high on your list of priorities? Uh, well, good luck with your moving anyway. Can someone else explain the difference between 3E roles and 4E roles? As far as I can tell, the striker, defender, controller and leader are thematic as well as mechanical, just like "thief, wizard, cleric, fighter" In combat, the rogue sneak attacks, the wizard casts, the cleric heals, and the fighter takes the hits. So the roles relate to a mechanism. You have the cunning, the wise, the healer, I suppose, and the tough. The roles relate to a theme. So, if anything, both editions are the same. Even if one edition emphasizes one or the other, what's wrong with that? Sorry, I'm a bit lost on this.Hi, how are you? Well, I of course can't really change your mindset, but in relation to clerics I never felt there was an insane amount of choice. I mean, you picked your 2 domains and the 1 domain spell a day was what made you different from the other clerics. As far as good and evil clerics, Inflict Wounds sucks. A lot. I wouldn't say a huge list of feats, there wasn't that much to choose from in core 3.5, in terms of optimum feats. As far as the huge list of spells, for sure, 3.5 absolutely wins here. But when you consider the balance that had to be made since every class now has a list of spells, I'm not too bothered. I suppose we'll always differ on this point. If you want a cleric/rogue, this is possible in 4E too, even if 'multi-classing is a joke.' A level 10 Cleric/Level 10 rogue I think would be a real joke, being absolute junk to a level 20 cleric, due to loss of spell level. In 4E, at least you're not losing spell level and you're gaining rogue abilities if you so desire.The new alignment system gets rid of Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil. I can't argue with your experience I'm sure, seeing as how your saying the old alignments go back 30 years, but I'm not sure how junking these alignments is the 'worst possible approach you could imagine.' I mean, why not? To paraphrase one of the articles talking about the new alignment, what was the difference between Chaotic Good and Neutral Good? Did they really see any differently? Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil the same way. You can either follow the laws or break the laws. Assuming evil, if you don't care about breaking laws, Chaotic Evil is a good approach, if you do slightly, then Evil is the best approach. I respect your opinion, but on this point I don't see why you think it's terrible.As far as rolling for stats, that sucked for my group. If you used rerolls in your game, you might as well have been using point buy. If not, then people could roll terribly and be in the same group with average and above average people. Maybe having a character with 4 negative stats was a fun roleplaying opportunity or something, but to me that's just unworkable characters. Rolling a 1 on hitpoints was crippling, and martial classes of 3.5 had not much choice in core, no more than 4E for sure. Powers, powers, powers. You have to pick one out of four encounter powers at first level, one out of four dailies, and this repeats every time you get a new encounter or daily. So, plenty of option, for all classes.</blockquote>

Verification