MerricB said:
They've said as much.
Cheers!
See, this is where some weirdness comes in for me. There'll be more distinctness, but you won't need some core builds because every class can perform that function.
Huh.
To my mind, meaningful choices are ones that include both circumstances (by which you can determine what choice to make) and consequences (by which I mean that they have some effect that occurs because you made that choice).
Both of these are, IMHO, strengthened by having some form of
sacrifice included in the decision-making process. I.e., if I do A, then I gain B but have to give up C. Or I could do D, and gain C but not B. This makes
circumstances more important, because I have to determine whether B or C are more important. It also makes
consequences more important, because there are ramifications not only to what I
can do, but also to what I
choose not to do with that action.
Easy example: Bob is dropped by the hobgoblin shaman. I'm a cleric. I have the option of trying to heal Bob (provoking an AoO, giving the shaman another attack during my lost action, but possibly reviving Bob) or trying to drop the shaman (making healing Bob later easier if I succeed, but making it harder to succeed if I can't drop the shaman in one attack). This is a choice, where I need to take circumstances into account (How close do I think the shaman is to dropping? What do I think his next action will be? How close is Bob to death? Do I think the shaman will hit me with his AoO if I try to heal Bob? Can I take the hit? Will I still be able to cast the spell?) and, obviously, the consequences of my choice.
OTOH, if I can simply attack the shaman and heal Bob
at the same time, a certain amount of the decision-making process is lost, and so is the complexity and distinctiveness.
Heal
or harm is more distinct than
heal and harm, IMHO.
Strong archetypes are more distinct than classes that can fulfill the roles of any of those archetypes.
As a result, I don't buy the "4e = distinctiveness" argument.
Frankly, the reason that some folks think classes like the Bard suck is because they are not combat machines. 1e was a game of exploration (IME) that didn't require every character to be a meat grinder. 2e was much the same. 3e changed the common paradigm to "an adventure is a series of orchestrated fights" that made people despise anything that couldn't do max damage. I, myself, prefer a fantasy game that
includes those fights, but isn't about
those fights.
4e, to me, seems far more along the "about those fights" road than 3e was.
Give me a game intended to challenge both players and their characters. Give me a game designed to include a wide variety of elements, from riddles and "thinking" traps, to cool fights, to fleeing from superior foes, to exploring ancient ruins in search of treasure. Give me a game designed to allow me to turn it however I want it to be turned. Give me a game with strong archetypes. Give me a game where the most important feature of every character isn't how much damage he can inflict in each round. Give me a game where decisions are important, and consequences matter. Give me a game where failure to prepare means a risk of starvation, or being out of arrows.
The more I see of 4e, the less I think it is that game.
RC
). 
