Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8628294" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I hear this comment a lot.  And what exactly is Warcraft-like about 4e?  It's a grid-based, turn-based, strategy game.  It has abilities on cooldowns of 5 minutes and 8 hours, respectively, where Warcraft abilities are generally refreshed in seconds.  I don't see playable Trolls anywhere.  You roll dice, which Warcraft does not.  So the only point you can use to compare the two is that classes have roles?  That's always been true, it just wasn't codified.  Are Rangers main healers or guys who protect the back line in D&D?  No?  They do damage?  Ok.Are Wizards best used for blowing stuff up?  That sure wasn't true in 3e, where crowd control was king.The Fighter was always supposed to be the guardian of weaker allies, but had no real ability to control the battlefield outside of vaguely defined rules for engaging opponents in 1e (with punishing rules for leaving melee), or 3e's AoE rules and Feats.So now he has a built in way to force enemies to focus on him.  Sounds like he just got better at doing the thing he was always intended to do, with his ability to wear heavy armor.  I guess we can add this as a second comparison point- you can generate a sort of "aggro" on enemies.  Which isn't really new either, Kender could taunt enemies back in 1e.Basically, 4e was almost nothing like any MMO that has ever existed.  And if you want to say it's like a video game, a better example would be something like Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics- but even there, you field a small army, not 4-6 characters.Plus, it's easy to draw a line from early computer RPG's to those games...which were based on early D&D, which began life as a supplement to a wargame.It's ok if you don't like 4e, but your specific objection is not well stated, I'm sorry to say.</blockquote>

Verification