Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bishmon" data-source="post: 3946995" data-attributes="member: 56176">I'm also disappointed that they took the fighter, in theory one of the most flexible classes, and have seemingly turned it into the heavy-armor-wearing-guy-who-hits-stuff-up-close. You can say, &quot;But he's a defender!&quot;, but that to me is more of an indictment of sticking so closely to the idea that each class must specifically fill one role and only one role than it is some good justification for the lack of flexibility.I like the ranger, but I'd also like to be able to play an archer who just had a natural affinity for the bow and became proficient in its use while serving in the city watch. Maybe he's got some perception skills, maybe some social skills from dealing with citizens and fellow soldiers, but otherwise he's just really freaking good with the bow. But that's not the role of a defender, so therefore that character option has seemingly been stricken from the fighter's suite of abilities, along with most any other combat option that doesn't involve going toe-to-toe and hitting something in the face with a manufactured weapon. That's disappointing.And it's not just the fighter. The wizard seems to have seen the loss of many necromancy, summoning, enchantment, illusion, and possibly transmutation spells. He's not much more than a glorified evoker now. That's not necessarily bad, because surely an illusionist and a necromancer and so on will come later down the line, but it's just disappointing to see such a flexible class get stripped of much of its flexibility. I was really hoping 4E was going to have more character options, but instead, it's looking like it'll have less. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it means the options that are available will all be interesting and balanced. But it's certainly disappointing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bishmon, post: 3946995, member: 56176"] I'm also disappointed that they took the fighter, in theory one of the most flexible classes, and have seemingly turned it into the heavy-armor-wearing-guy-who-hits-stuff-up-close. You can say, "But he's a defender!", but that to me is more of an indictment of sticking so closely to the idea that each class must specifically fill one role and only one role than it is some good justification for the lack of flexibility. I like the ranger, but I'd also like to be able to play an archer who just had a natural affinity for the bow and became proficient in its use while serving in the city watch. Maybe he's got some perception skills, maybe some social skills from dealing with citizens and fellow soldiers, but otherwise he's just really freaking good with the bow. But that's not the role of a defender, so therefore that character option has seemingly been stricken from the fighter's suite of abilities, along with most any other combat option that doesn't involve going toe-to-toe and hitting something in the face with a manufactured weapon. That's disappointing. And it's not just the fighter. The wizard seems to have seen the loss of many necromancy, summoning, enchantment, illusion, and possibly transmutation spells. He's not much more than a glorified evoker now. That's not necessarily bad, because surely an illusionist and a necromancer and so on will come later down the line, but it's just disappointing to see such a flexible class get stripped of much of its flexibility. I was really hoping 4E was going to have more character options, but instead, it's looking like it'll have less. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it means the options that are available will all be interesting and balanced. But it's certainly disappointing. [/QUOTE]

Verification