Community

Without a doubt, the flexibility of character creation and evolution is the single most important aspect of 3.5 missing in 4E.

I used to take great pleasure thinking about builds for characters that were interesting and unique, while still being effective enough to be an asset to the party rather than a liability. I had built literally hundreds of characters that were never used in 3.5 simply for the enjoyment I got out of doing so. I've made FAR fewer characters for 4E because it isn't as fascinating.

4E is far too heavy handed in its approach to character generation in my opinion. One of the great evolutions of 3.x from 2ed in my opinion was the concept of classes as packages of skills and abilities rather than as straight-jackets that define nearly everything about your character. I was dismayed that Essentials appeared to be a move back to the 2ed days where class was everything again.

In 4E, I cannot play a street-urchin pickpocket who learns of religion and eventually finds their place in the world as a Paladin of Torm. At least, I can't let that story play out during the course of a campaign. That character development was something that had to have happened in backstory only in order to fit into the mechanics of multiclassing in 4E.

I have never grasped why so many readers seem so focused on their characters being members of a specific class first and foremost. It seems to me that many (perhaps even most) of the players of 3.x didn't move with the times and embrace the new possibilities it presented them with. Sadly, with the advent of Essentials it seems to me that R&D is moving further from the 3.x system that I loved and not closer to it.

I will be the first to admit that multi-classing in 3.5 was not perfect. There were imbalances in the way it affected spell-casting classes compared to non-spell-casting ones. It allowed for nearly invulnerable characters due to the front-loading of save modifiers. BAB's could be quite variable if levels in each individual class were not considered carefully. Favoured classes were a terrible idea. Despite these (and many other) pitfalls, it allowed my imagination to fire in ways that make 4E look truly bland in comparison.

I have felt for a long time that there is a strong contingent of players who insist that all you need is imagination to differentiate members of an archetypal class from each other, and that multiclassing (or even other methods of providing options for players) amounts to nothing more than an exercise in min-maxing. Min-maxing, to these people, is bad for unspecified reasons. Presumably because it is not an element of the game that they find appealing themselves despite the fact that many do. Instead, I suggest that freer multiclassing is an avenue to enhance the creative process. One that can be taken or left as desired.

4E is built around archetypal characters. I do not wish to play an archetype. I wish to play a person with a unique set of skills and outlooks. 3.5 gave me more or what I’m looking for in that regard than 4E ever has.