Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="stevelabny" data-source="post: 4359518" data-attributes="member: 9298">We played our first 4E session last night, and I feel that problem still exists... just in a different place.In 3E, there were certain types of monsters where each class had the chance to be the &quot;star&quot; or main damage dealers,&nbsp; usually because certain classes were weak&nbsp; or useless against those monsters. In 4E, the characters are limited by their roles, strikers do more damage, defenders soak up more damage,&nbsp; etc. I don't see much ability for a character to step outside of their role for an encounter or two.&nbsp; Also, instead of characters being weak/useless against monsters, their are certain monster roles that will be more of a hassle towards certain character roles.Then, it was the DMs job to make sure each character class had a chance to shine equally and took a support role equally. Now, its the DMs job to make sure that each role has a chance to do what they're best at, and that theres an equal amount of monster roles for counter-tactics. Seems a little bit like tomato/tomAto. I think I like the idea of the varying roles for each character depending on the opponent (3E)&nbsp; over the idea of varying levels of usefulness for each role based on the opponents (4E)&nbsp; The roles thing seems like a handcuff. That said, I've only played 4E once, and still need to test it out more. And there are definitely some rules/changes/concepts that work better in 4E. So don't take this as anything deeper system vs system than an answer to your question.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="stevelabny, post: 4359518, member: 9298"] We played our first 4E session last night, and I feel that problem still exists... just in a different place. In 3E, there were certain types of monsters where each class had the chance to be the "star" or main damage dealers, usually because certain classes were weak or useless against those monsters. In 4E, the characters are limited by their roles, strikers do more damage, defenders soak up more damage, etc. I don't see much ability for a character to step outside of their role for an encounter or two. Also, instead of characters being weak/useless against monsters, their are certain monster roles that will be more of a hassle towards certain character roles. Then, it was the DMs job to make sure each character class had a chance to shine equally and took a support role equally. Now, its the DMs job to make sure that each role has a chance to do what they're best at, and that theres an equal amount of monster roles for counter-tactics. Seems a little bit like tomato/tomAto. I think I like the idea of the varying roles for each character depending on the opponent (3E) over the idea of varying levels of usefulness for each role based on the opponents (4E) The roles thing seems like a handcuff. That said, I've only played 4E once, and still need to test it out more. And there are definitely some rules/changes/concepts that work better in 4E. So don't take this as anything deeper system vs system than an answer to your question. [/QUOTE]

Verification