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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dungeoneer" data-source="post: 6326137" data-attributes="member: 91777">4e attempted to give some consistency to all the disparate sub-systems that had accumulated in D&D through the years. Maybe there was a little TOO much consistently early on (later books, and especially the Essentials classes, changed things up a bit). That said, the way things are presented on a page and the way they work in actual play on a battle mat are two different things. I've played lots of 4e and playing a wizard and a fighter couldn't feel more different. When you play as a fighter you are trying to 'mark' monsters 1-or-2 at a time and keep them from moving past you and attacking the squishier members of your party. When you play as a wizard you are using spells to alter the battlefield in ways that are advantageous to your party, and you are also trying to blow up groups of minions. Wizards and fighters in 4e have different 'jobs' (known as Controller and Defender, respectively) and you really feel that when you play them. But within those 'jobs' the designers still managed to make individual classes feel different. For instance, a Swordmage has a very different approach to holding the front line than a fighter does, even though they are both trying to do the same thing. Strikers, whose job is basically to do damage to one creature at a time, are even more diverse. Rogues, rangers, monks, sorcerers... they all play very differently. Don't let the fact that everything is presented in nice, tidy stat blocks fool you. The 4e game is still diverse, flexible and full of players pulling wacky stunts. It's all just formatted to appeal to those of us who are a bit OCD.The fairest criticism of 4e is one you have to play for a while to really have: combat takes too long.</blockquote>

Verification