Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mournblade94" data-source="post: 4757727" data-attributes="member: 74608">The archetypes were not well supported by the 4e mechanics which is one reason I dislike the game so much. I can see how the mechanics support the roles (roles have always been part of D&D, but the roles in table top were not parallel to the roles familiar to video gamers), but I do not see how 4e better defines an archetype from the time tested versions of D&D. The only archetype I would say that maintained its flavour is rogue and cleric, possibly paladin. If you want to play the noncombat rogue though your up the creek because then you are skinting on your party role.  People do not complain when things are done well.  The sorcerer was a nice new alternative concept. Vancian magic did not define the caster archetype anyway. The rogue was added to with its special abilities to fit into the 3rd edition rules set. The 1st edition rogue would have been a disaster if left as is. Back stab was redefined as sneak attack, and the % skill system was blended to non weapon proficiencies.</blockquote>