Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 4032453" data-attributes="member: 14159">One of the big weaknesses of 4e to my eyes is that the game is built entirely around balancing combat to the point that every class is defined exclusively by it's combat role.&nbsp; 3e was certainly built around balancing it around combat, but not exclusively, there was plenty of room for non-combat aspects to characters, but with 4e it looks like some of those like the various non-combat oriented skills are being removed.Even back in AD&amp;D, the thief wasn't there to be a &quot;striker&quot; or whatever, he was a trap expert and climber and lockpick and scout, with combat as a secondary role and backstab a nice bonus if you could pull it off.&nbsp; Fighters (and fighter-types like Paladins and Rangers and Monks) were the ones that shined when the party got into melee.&nbsp; Thieves and Clerics could help some but it wasn't their specialty, and Wizard spells sure were nice in a fight but it was clear that a Wizard wanted to avoid fights when possible because of their low HP and AC (in my AD&amp;D days, we always used the expression &quot;Armor Class Mage&quot; to mean AC 10). A lot of the appeal of Clerics and Wizards and their magic was the non-combat spells to help the party out.&nbsp; A lot of the appeal of thieves was their skills and ability to get into and out of places, not being seen, with backstabbing being just another of their perks, not the whole point of them.One thing I saw as a big improvement of 3e over 2e was breaking out of the rigid Warrior/Priest/Rogue/Mage set of only four character groups and everything had to be one or the other.&nbsp; 3e and 3.5e expanded classes wide open and added countless PrC's that were more built around flavor or style than a rigidly defined role (Horizon Walker, Dragon Disciple, and Exemplar come to mind).&nbsp; Later base classes like Archivist freely blended from concepts of Priest and Mage.&nbsp;&nbsp; For much of the 3e era it felt like classes were created because the setting or genre being depicted needed a class that felt like it, not like it was a mechanical necessity to create a class to fill a specific role.I always liked the &quot;skill monkey&quot; characters, the ones with useful skills for any occasion, and were well rounded.&nbsp; Those characters might not be as mathematically optimum as a specialized character when initiative happened, but they sure were useful to have around.Then again, Noble and Bard were two of my favorite classes. . .</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wingsandsword, post: 4032453, member: 14159"] One of the big weaknesses of 4e to my eyes is that the game is built entirely around balancing combat to the point that every class is defined exclusively by it's combat role. 3e was certainly built around balancing it around combat, but not exclusively, there was plenty of room for non-combat aspects to characters, but with 4e it looks like some of those like the various non-combat oriented skills are being removed. Even back in AD&D, the thief wasn't there to be a "striker" or whatever, he was a trap expert and climber and lockpick and scout, with combat as a secondary role and backstab a nice bonus if you could pull it off. Fighters (and fighter-types like Paladins and Rangers and Monks) were the ones that shined when the party got into melee. Thieves and Clerics could help some but it wasn't their specialty, and Wizard spells sure were nice in a fight but it was clear that a Wizard wanted to avoid fights when possible because of their low HP and AC (in my AD&D days, we always used the expression "Armor Class Mage" to mean AC 10). A lot of the appeal of Clerics and Wizards and their magic was the non-combat spells to help the party out. A lot of the appeal of thieves was their skills and ability to get into and out of places, not being seen, with backstabbing being just another of their perks, not the whole point of them. One thing I saw as a big improvement of 3e over 2e was breaking out of the rigid Warrior/Priest/Rogue/Mage set of only four character groups and everything had to be one or the other. 3e and 3.5e expanded classes wide open and added countless PrC's that were more built around flavor or style than a rigidly defined role (Horizon Walker, Dragon Disciple, and Exemplar come to mind). Later base classes like Archivist freely blended from concepts of Priest and Mage. For much of the 3e era it felt like classes were created because the setting or genre being depicted needed a class that felt like it, not like it was a mechanical necessity to create a class to fill a specific role. I always liked the "skill monkey" characters, the ones with useful skills for any occasion, and were well rounded. Those characters might not be as mathematically optimum as a specialized character when initiative happened, but they sure were useful to have around. Then again, Noble and Bard were two of my favorite classes. . . [/QUOTE]

Verification