Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 4313711" data-attributes="member: 996">I always prefer to build to concept, but, so far, I've found less support for that aproach in 4e than in 3e.&nbsp; Classes can no longer be turned into 'building blocks' via multiclassing, and deviating from the Primary/secondary attributes of your 'build' really hurts.I'm not condemning 4e, there are trade-offs in game design and 4e set out to make the game more accessible, less troubled by power-gaming, with better balance among the PC classes and more consistent feel of play through all 30 levels.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's a lot to accomplish, and if the flexibility that allows customized build to concept has to go because it also enables power gaming excesses and class imbalance (and I can see how that'd be the case), then we just have to accept that, and apreciate what we're getting in return (like no more CoDzilla and Fighter SUX threads).The 'treadmill' aspect of 4e is also a tradeoff to get the same degree of playability and fun at all levels.&nbsp; It does mean that a character who's a little ineffectual at 1st level because of his stat or race choices compared to his class is going to remain a little ineffectual through all 30 levels - because, if there were options in place to let you 'fix' such a character's effectiveness, those options could be abused by powergamers to break the system.Of course you should still build a character you want to play.&nbsp; It's just probably a good idea to start by looking at 'builds' and the races that work well with them, and see if that sparks any ideas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 4313711, member: 996"] I always prefer to build to concept, but, so far, I've found less support for that aproach in 4e than in 3e. Classes can no longer be turned into 'building blocks' via multiclassing, and deviating from the Primary/secondary attributes of your 'build' really hurts. I'm not condemning 4e, there are trade-offs in game design and 4e set out to make the game more accessible, less troubled by power-gaming, with better balance among the PC classes and more consistent feel of play through all 30 levels. That's a lot to accomplish, and if the flexibility that allows customized build to concept has to go because it also enables power gaming excesses and class imbalance (and I can see how that'd be the case), then we just have to accept that, and apreciate what we're getting in return (like no more CoDzilla and Fighter SUX threads). The 'treadmill' aspect of 4e is also a tradeoff to get the same degree of playability and fun at all levels. It does mean that a character who's a little ineffectual at 1st level because of his stat or race choices compared to his class is going to remain a little ineffectual through all 30 levels - because, if there were options in place to let you 'fix' such a character's effectiveness, those options could be abused by powergamers to break the system. Of course you should still build a character you want to play. It's just probably a good idea to start by looking at 'builds' and the races that work well with them, and see if that sparks any ideas. [/QUOTE]

Verification