Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 4296440" data-attributes="member: 24970">Thanks Galadrin. I noticed that design philosophy while I was reading the 4E rulebooks... but you had unlimited healing in battle in 3E, so it can't be that unbalancing. If you want to blow all your healing on one encounter, then go for it, right? Plus, since it's a standard action, the cleric has to actually make a CHOICE between healing and attacking once in awhile (like in 3E). That's one of the core tension-points of 3E combats... the cleric has to get up in the front lines to heal the dying party member, oh noes! There's no good reason to eliminate such a fun melodramatic thing, such a staple of every D&amp;D game I've ever played, in 4E.I mean, seriously. There are 8 classes in the core rules -- and not *one* which can be played defensively? (Except perhaps the defense wizard, but even then, not really...) If someone doesn't want to pay defensively, let them play any of the 7 other classes, or a non-defensive cleric build. But for god's sake, they didn't have to eliminate *every* defensive build of *every* class.As for the Warlord's power, my point is, the Warlord himself doesn't have to attack. The Warlord doesn't even get a d20 roll. They can stand back and use the power and shout &quot;Attack!&quot; and their *ally* gets to do the actual attacking. It is viable for a Warlord to occasionally not be right on the front lines, to hold back and use support powers from a slight distance. Not for a 4E Cleric, apparently.Agggh! This whole subject bugs me so much I have to stop posting. In closing: Wizards are fools if they think every D&amp;D player is so ADD-afflicted they can't get behind the idea of a defensive character. I hate 4E's &quot;attack attack attack, everything is an attack&quot; philosophy which makes it nearly impossible to play a defensive or support character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ptolemy18, post: 4296440, member: 24970"] Thanks Galadrin. I noticed that design philosophy while I was reading the 4E rulebooks... but you had unlimited healing in battle in 3E, so it can't be that unbalancing. If you want to blow all your healing on one encounter, then go for it, right? Plus, since it's a standard action, the cleric has to actually make a CHOICE between healing and attacking once in awhile (like in 3E). That's one of the core tension-points of 3E combats... the cleric has to get up in the front lines to heal the dying party member, oh noes! There's no good reason to eliminate such a fun melodramatic thing, such a staple of every D&D game I've ever played, in 4E. I mean, seriously. There are 8 classes in the core rules -- and not *one* which can be played defensively? (Except perhaps the defense wizard, but even then, not really...) If someone doesn't want to pay defensively, let them play any of the 7 other classes, or a non-defensive cleric build. But for god's sake, they didn't have to eliminate *every* defensive build of *every* class. As for the Warlord's power, my point is, the Warlord himself doesn't have to attack. The Warlord doesn't even get a d20 roll. They can stand back and use the power and shout "Attack!" and their *ally* gets to do the actual attacking. It is viable for a Warlord to occasionally not be right on the front lines, to hold back and use support powers from a slight distance. Not for a 4E Cleric, apparently. Agggh! This whole subject bugs me so much I have to stop posting. In closing: Wizards are fools if they think every D&D player is so ADD-afflicted they can't get behind the idea of a defensive character. I hate 4E's "attack attack attack, everything is an attack" philosophy which makes it nearly impossible to play a defensive or support character. [/QUOTE]

Verification