Have you tried more than one of the pregens? How did they feel?

[Klaus]

This is for those of you who personally played with more than one pregen. How different did it feel between one another?

Why I'm asking this: up until 4E, classes had different management. Fighters and Rogues had only "at will" abilities, if you will (attack, sneak for sneak attack, Power Attack, Cleave, Bull Rush, Sunder, Disarm, feint, etc). Wizards and Clerics had only "per day" abilities (spells). Only the classes in Bo9S had "per encounter" abilities.

So now that all classes have a mix of all three types of abilities, how did it feel? Do they feel like variants of the same class, or did they feel more unique? And if you played Ranger and Warlock (two strikers) or Fighter and Paladin (two defenders), did the different power sources alter the play for you?

Feel free to elaborate your replies.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

They felt different.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

Just kidding. . . I haven't played them, but from what people are saying it doesn't seem like they are feeling the same to them.

 

[LordArchaon]

This is (IMO) one of the most intelligent threads about 4e of the forum. Good shot Klaus!
I'd really like to hear the answers, since I didn't (couldn't) play anyone of the 4e pregens.

 

[Jack99]

Haven't played them myself, but yes, other people have stated on these boards that they felt differently. No link available though.

Cheers

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Played as the Warlock and the Wizard. DMed a preview as well. I can tell you that while the Warlock and Wizard look similar on paper, they play pretty differently. The Warlock felt like the Sorcerer always should have, while the Wizard felt more like a Wizard and less like a snot-nosed apprentice who ran away from his master's tower with one useful spell.

On the DM side, I could definitely see the tendency for players to play to their roles. The fighter was in the thick of it, drawing in the bad guys. The rogue was using as much mobility as he could to get a good striking position. The ranger stayed out of the fray, peppering enemies from a distance. The cleric stayed about 2 squares back, blasting the minions with rays in order to heal his allies. All in all, they played rather well together.

tl;dr - Feel different, feel better.

-TRRW

 

[Starbuck_II]

This is for those of you who personally played with more than one pregen. How different did it feel between one another?

Why I'm asking this: up until 4E, classes had different management. Fighters and Rogues had only "at will" abilities, if you will (attack, sneak for sneak attack, Power Attack, Cleave, Bull Rush, Sunder, Disarm, feint, etc). Wizards and Clerics had only "per day" abilities (spells). Only the classes in Bo9S had "per encounter" abilities.

So now that all classes have a mix of all three types of abilities, how did it feel? Do they feel like variants of the same class, or did they feel more unique? And if you played Ranger and Warlock (two strikers) or Fighter and Paladin (two defenders), did the different power sources alter the play for you?

Feel free to elaborate your replies.

I've played them a little each.
1) The Ranger: was great. But his teleport felt to me enough to make one cocky (did for me) so I teleported out so enemy had no cover.
Good Idea: hit and damaged a guy badly, but bad idea: a group of Kobolds ganked me.
Really, Ranger was great at hitting/damage. Loved playing it.
But hps could be higher (but he is a striker)

2) Paladin: I wish he had a better Ranged weapon. I loved the Mark ability (I wish they keep it the way the Pregens have it).
He was decent. I liked how he can help others heal/save. My luck with him made me miss alot.

3) Warlock: He had a decent to hit and damage. I switched between eyebite and eldritch blast depending on whether the enemy seemed to have a ranged weapon (or was scary).

4) Cleric: I liked how he can heal others for minor action. I liked how he can blast from ranged. I used Lance more than Sacred Flame (due to increases ally damage).

5) Wizard: I prefered Acid Arrow to sleep due to damage is useful at low levels. I liked Scorching burst is a AoE even though MM did more.

 

[LordArchaon]

Played as the Warlock and the Wizard. DMed a preview as well. I can tell you that while the Warlock and Wizard look similar on paper, they play pretty differently. The Warlock felt like the Sorcerer always should have, while the Wizard felt more like a Wizard and less like a snot-nosed apprentice who ran away from his master's tower with one useful spell.

On the DM side, I could definitely see the tendency for players to play to their roles. The fighter was in the thick of it, drawing in the bad guys. The rogue was using as much mobility as he could to get a good striking position. The ranger stayed out of the fray, peppering enemies from a distance. The cleric stayed about 2 squares back, blasting the minions with rays in order to heal his allies. All in all, they played rather well together.

tl;dr - Feel different, feel better.

-TRRW

That's good news! Makes me wanna play a Wizard with Warlock dips as my first character. Assuming that I'll be able to convince someone to be the DM at least once in my lifetime...

 

[keterys]

Between my wife and I, we've played all of them and we do think they're all noticeably different from each other, though I suspect some of it is purely based on power selection (like, I expect we'll form a different opinion of the ranger with different powers):

Cleric plays different from everything, with the constant calling out of buffs for people and the 'playing midfield' to be able to do the 5 range on attacks and heals.

Fighter vs. Paladin - Paladin singles out a single target to focus on and is very good at that and is _very_ good at keeping himself up and going, but lackluster at dealing damage. Fighter plays a lot closer to a damage class and is great at tackling groups of foes and exerting melee control.

Ranger vs. Rogue* vs. Warlock - Ranger was absolutely the most boring. His range and abilities should ensure that he can stay out of combat and reduce his turn to picking whether he wants a higher hit or damage and just rolling the dice. Yawn... but he's one of the more popular characters, so folks like different things. The rogue and warlock both had some level of control with ability to slide things and target other defenses so your decision making felt more important - wife really liked the rogue, I really liked the warlock and I suspect a lot of that is play style. Either way, all three strikers are very different from each other - even simple stuff like the warlock moved a lot more than the ranger and stayed far far closer to the action.

Wizard - The saving grace for the wizard is the cantrips... a ton of fun and minor actions so you're encouraged to mage hand a thrown weapon back to the paladin, send light spells into useful places, make spooky noises behind enemies, etc. Otherwise played a little like a less damaging ranger/warlock a lot of the time, until he got a chance to shine with AoE attacks. I actually think part of the problem is spell selection (Ray of Frost as at-will would give him another defense to target and give him a slow at-will which would make him feel a little more controllery). That said, any fight where you can group people up he felt different and over long term I imagine spellbook gives you some very nice options for varying things up.

 

[TarionzCousin]

My group has played them all multiple times, including the rogue. In short, I agree with everything keterys wrote.

We were especially disappointed in the ranger. Given all the praise on these boards, I expected him to be more fun and effective. Instead, he has been knocked unconscious almost every game, and been completely killed once.