Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="3catcircus" data-source="post: 4356317" data-attributes="member: 16077">Yeah - and sending the invisible wizard ahead as pointman guarantees that he'll be discovered because he is way noisier than the rogue and will soon end up dead due to his generally lower hit points and worse armor class.That cleric with divine might is now useless to heal anyone else while he is dishing out the pain.Look - if 4e is more fun than 3.5, than play it, but I just don't understand what people think 4e solved.&nbsp; It wasn't a rules problem in 3.5, it was a player problem.Obviously, everyone who loves 4e seems to love reading about the &quot;roles&quot; - striker, controller, etc.&nbsp; I'd suggest everyone who claims that the spellcasters were too good in 3.5 go back and read the &quot;role&quot; paragraph for each class.&quot;The cleric serves as a typical group's primary healer, diviner, and defensive specialist.&nbsp; He can hold his own in a fight but usually isn't well served by charging to the front of combat.&nbsp; The cleric's domains and spell selection can greatly affect his role as well.&quot;The role paragraph for the wizard says as much - that spell selection plays a part in affecting his role.&nbsp; Some are offensive, some are diviners, some are support for the front-line.Look - up until 4e, everyone knew that the fighter was infantry, the wizard was artillery, the cleric was a medic, and the rogue was a cavalry scout.&nbsp; Each was expected to be very good in his primary role and maybe have some collateral duties.&nbsp; Now, with 4e, there is this misguided notion that every class has to be equally effective at the same things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="3catcircus, post: 4356317, member: 16077"] Yeah - and sending the invisible wizard ahead as pointman guarantees that he'll be discovered because he is way noisier than the rogue and will soon end up dead due to his generally lower hit points and worse armor class. That cleric with divine might is now useless to heal anyone else while he is dishing out the pain. Look - if 4e is more fun than 3.5, than play it, but I just don't understand what people think 4e solved. It wasn't a rules problem in 3.5, it was a player problem. Obviously, everyone who loves 4e seems to love reading about the "roles" - striker, controller, etc. I'd suggest everyone who claims that the spellcasters were too good in 3.5 go back and read the "role" paragraph for each class. "The cleric serves as a typical group's primary healer, diviner, and defensive specialist. He can hold his own in a fight but usually isn't well served by charging to the front of combat. The cleric's domains and spell selection can greatly affect his role as well." The role paragraph for the wizard says as much - that spell selection plays a part in affecting his role. Some are offensive, some are diviners, some are support for the front-line. Look - up until 4e, everyone knew that the fighter was infantry, the wizard was artillery, the cleric was a medic, and the rogue was a cavalry scout. Each was expected to be very good in his primary role and maybe have some collateral duties. Now, with 4e, there is this misguided notion that every class has to be equally effective at the same things. [/QUOTE]

Verification