Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5821768" data-attributes="member: 87792">The thing is that the 4e classes are pretty flexible.&nbsp; Each class has a primary role, and comes with a choosable subspecialty for a secondary role.&nbsp; So for instance a Thaneborn Barbarian is a Striker (Barbarian) with secondary role of Leader (Thaneborn) - whereas a Rageblood Barbarian is a pure striker with additional striker features.&nbsp; An Invoker (Controller Divine caster) will never be a leader in the way a genuine leader class is, but an Invoker with the Covenant of Preservation a good buffer and secondary leader - whereas one with the Covenant of Wrath is much more strikery.&nbsp; (And one with the Covenant of Malediction doubles down on control and playing the squishy to the point he overchannels and dazes himself regularly).&nbsp; A Mage specialising in Evocation and Pyromancy is for most practical purposes most of the time a striker with limited control despite the fact a wizard is a controller.&nbsp;Of course not.&nbsp; You have much more system mastery with 3e.&nbsp; On the other hand I'm pretty good at both.&nbsp; And although there's more fine tuning possible in 3.x, 4e's classes are superb and IMO superior at setting up almost any archetype I want and doing so without creating someone either ridiculously strong or ridiculously weak by comparison to everyone else.&nbsp; And making them very distinctive while I do so.&nbsp; There aren't only a handful of strong builds with everything else being weak by comparison.&nbsp; 3.x had a <a href="http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=0fthh4diab2v9lriftvet38rh1&amp;topic=5293" target="_blank">very strong tier system of classes</a> whereas in 4e everyone is tier 3 (arguably the ranger is pushing tier 2, the fighter and wizard are both blue, and the assassins and vampire are red).&nbsp; Which means that any of the archetypes explicitely supported by the game are viable - much more of a range than 3.x offers.&nbsp;&nbsp;And given my dislike of intentionally hiding mechanics and design principles I think the opposite.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5821768, member: 87792"] The thing is that the 4e classes are pretty flexible. Each class has a primary role, and comes with a choosable subspecialty for a secondary role. So for instance a Thaneborn Barbarian is a Striker (Barbarian) with secondary role of Leader (Thaneborn) - whereas a Rageblood Barbarian is a pure striker with additional striker features. An Invoker (Controller Divine caster) will never be a leader in the way a genuine leader class is, but an Invoker with the Covenant of Preservation a good buffer and secondary leader - whereas one with the Covenant of Wrath is much more strikery. (And one with the Covenant of Malediction doubles down on control and playing the squishy to the point he overchannels and dazes himself regularly). A Mage specialising in Evocation and Pyromancy is for most practical purposes most of the time a striker with limited control despite the fact a wizard is a controller. Of course not. You have much more system mastery with 3e. On the other hand I'm pretty good at both. And although there's more fine tuning possible in 3.x, 4e's classes are superb and IMO superior at setting up almost any archetype I want and doing so without creating someone either ridiculously strong or ridiculously weak by comparison to everyone else. And making them very distinctive while I do so. There aren't only a handful of strong builds with everything else being weak by comparison. 3.x had a [url=http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=0fthh4diab2v9lriftvet38rh1&topic=5293]very strong tier system of classes[/url] whereas in 4e [I]everyone[/I] is tier 3 (arguably the ranger is pushing tier 2, the fighter and wizard are both blue, and the assassins and vampire are red). Which means that any of the archetypes explicitely supported by the game are viable - much more of a range than 3.x offers. And given my dislike of intentionally hiding mechanics and design principles I think the opposite. [/QUOTE]

Verification