Fun Stuff > ENJOY

4th edition D&D=Teh sckuk OR awesomesauce?

<< < (13/14) > >>

Nodaisho:
What, characters too complicated for you? I guess I can understand the appeal of 4E, but I really also like having so many sources to make a character from. For instance, D20 modern has very few source books, characters are pretty easy to make, the biggest part is figuring out what to buy, how mastercrafted to make it, any enchantments (if playing with FX), but in D&D, you have a lot more stuff to consider, so when you find a build that you like, you have the feeling that you made something nobody else did, even if someone else has likely made a build with all the same classes, because you put so much thought into it, doing it all yourself.

ackblom12:
No, I played and enjoyed number crunching for quite a while in 3rd ed, but it was also shitty as hell that certain classes actually WERE completely useless unless you broke the game and multiclassed your way to godhood. It was especially a problem if someone in the group wasn't as good at making characters or was more about flavor than powergaming or numbercrunching and basically got screwedf or not knowing how to abuse the system.

The game was broken beyond belief.

Hence why outside of flavor books, 3rd Ed will never be touched by me again.

Edit: There's also something to be said about the fact that WotC put in practically useless feats such as toughness in the books with the intent of them being terrible feats. Personally I found it irritating that I was apparently paying them to make purposefully shitty feats, powers and classes to penalize people who were not as familiar with the game and make people who did know the game wonder why the hell they wasted the space with them.

Nodaisho:
What, didn't all of you agree what amount of optimization to use? Granted, there are some shitty classes, but that should be taken for granted, nobody can balance perfectly. Fighter did need help, though. There were a few ways you could use fighter 20 to be awesome (archer works, lots and lots of feats, lots and lots of iteratives), but for the most part, it was underpowered. Most classes had to multiclass for highest potential, druid is the only exception I can think of off the top of my head. And artificer.

Basically, it could be broken (pun-pun, anyone?) but it was only as broken as the DM and the players let it be.

Alex C:
Yes, but the optimization discussion is something I could gleefully do without though. I really just don't see a bonus in having characters of the same level with such widely varying capabilities. Some guys just want to play the game and approach things as collaborative problem solving with some wisecracks and snack foods thrown in. Some guys just want to play a role and approach things as performance. As a former GM I always found it easier to appease both groups when I kept their relative capabilities in line. Plus, I generally dislike metagaming against my players, and some of the more min-maxed builds basically beg for the silver bullets to be pulled out lest I lose the attention of the rest of the party.

Surgoshan:
First time I DMed in college I made the mistake of letting a munchkin do his thing.  He made a totally broken fighter build whereas everyone else just wanted to play for fun.  Since they never got to do anything... it wasn't fun. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page