Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="helium3" data-source="post: 4071242" data-attributes="member: 31301">*nod* I totally had a fighter that called himself a paladin in my last game, and his holy smites totally kicked butt . . . it was just too bad that the monsters refused to play along.Look, your post really doesn't add anything beyond &quot;you're wrong and should just get over it.&quot; Heck, most of the posts opposed to the OP's premise have failed to address the point and pretty much say exactly what you do.The point being that, unless there's a giant chunk of the Rogue entry that's missing from the Ampersand article, Rogues are constrained very tightly to a very narrow definition of what it means to be a &quot;Rogue.&quot;Has there been false advertising on the part of WotC about how flexible 4E is going to be? Personally, I don't think so. They've been very clear that one of the major drivers of the new edition is to simplify play (particularly high level) and reduce the &quot;wonkyness&quot; of the system. The ONLY way to do this is to reduce the complexity of what the mechanics are trying to represent. Thus each class becomes much more narrowly defined figuring out how to create a &quot;builds&quot; with unexpected synergies is now far more difficult.Now, if there's anyone that's been engaging in false advertising (unwittingly, I might add) it's the reflexively pro 4E posters here who are so excited about the new edition that they've spun all manner of fantasies into being about what this new system is and is not going to be capable of doing.It'll be interesting to see what people aspects of 4E people are complaining about in a year, but I'm willing to bet that one of the major complaints will be the lack of flexibility and the similarity of class powers once you've played long enough to get a feel for what they all basically do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="helium3, post: 4071242, member: 31301"] *nod* I totally had a fighter that called himself a paladin in my last game, and his holy smites totally kicked butt . . . it was just too bad that the monsters refused to play along. Look, your post really doesn't add anything beyond "you're wrong and should just get over it." Heck, most of the posts opposed to the OP's premise have failed to address the point and pretty much say exactly what you do. The point being that, unless there's a giant chunk of the Rogue entry that's missing from the Ampersand article, Rogues are constrained very tightly to a very narrow definition of what it means to be a "Rogue." Has there been false advertising on the part of WotC about how flexible 4E is going to be? Personally, I don't think so. They've been very clear that one of the major drivers of the new edition is to simplify play (particularly high level) and reduce the "wonkyness" of the system. The ONLY way to do this is to reduce the complexity of what the mechanics are trying to represent. Thus each class becomes much more narrowly defined figuring out how to create a "builds" with unexpected synergies is now far more difficult. Now, if there's anyone that's been engaging in false advertising (unwittingly, I might add) it's the reflexively pro 4E posters here who are so excited about the new edition that they've spun all manner of fantasies into being about what this new system is and is not going to be capable of doing. It'll be interesting to see what people aspects of 4E people are complaining about in a year, but I'm willing to bet that one of the major complaints will be the lack of flexibility and the similarity of class powers once you've played long enough to get a feel for what they all basically do. [/QUOTE]

Verification