Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mister Doug" data-source="post: 4348434" data-attributes="member: 66623">Class-based games have always rewarded teams over individuals, starting with original D&amp;D. A party without a cleric had no healing in combat (well, at least starting at 2nd level). Without a magic-user, they lacked offensive power and battlefield control (the sleep spell, for instance) and without a fighting man, low-level survival through combats was a challenge. Each class had access to different talents, magic items, etc. The game was optimized around the representation of these three roles. This carried into every edition, an optimal party needed these three classes or similar subclasses for optimal performance in combat.4e seems to reduce reliance on specific classes an open options for effective high-offense groups of mostly strikers or strikers and defenders, or some other combination due to changes in healing rules and powers for characters, while allowing interesting synergies in tactics based on those powers.Other editions, esp. 3e did offer other choices, but they provided sub-optimal groups with penalties to combat performance. My Cleric/Rogue follower of a trickster god was an awful lot of fun to play, but the party suffered a lot and I had to rely on cure spell wands to make up for a lot of my lack of spellcasting ability. Lack of a single class wizard or sorcerer will punish the whole party in 3e, too. Party composition optimization has always been an issue in D&amp;D.4e does make it hard to make a character who screws over the rest of your party's needs in combat to fit an interesting concept (like my trickster cleric/rogue), but I don't see how that is a bad thing or a negative limitation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mister Doug, post: 4348434, member: 66623"] Class-based games have always rewarded teams over individuals, starting with original D&D. A party without a cleric had no healing in combat (well, at least starting at 2nd level). Without a magic-user, they lacked offensive power and battlefield control (the sleep spell, for instance) and without a fighting man, low-level survival through combats was a challenge. Each class had access to different talents, magic items, etc. The game was optimized around the representation of these three roles. This carried into every edition, an optimal party needed these three classes or similar subclasses for optimal performance in combat. 4e seems to reduce reliance on specific classes an open options for effective high-offense groups of mostly strikers or strikers and defenders, or some other combination due to changes in healing rules and powers for characters, while allowing interesting synergies in tactics based on those powers. Other editions, esp. 3e did offer other choices, but they provided sub-optimal groups with penalties to combat performance. My Cleric/Rogue follower of a trickster god was an awful lot of fun to play, but the party suffered a lot and I had to rely on cure spell wands to make up for a lot of my lack of spellcasting ability. Lack of a single class wizard or sorcerer will punish the whole party in 3e, too. Party composition optimization has always been an issue in D&D. 4e does make it hard to make a character who screws over the rest of your party's needs in combat to fit an interesting concept (like my trickster cleric/rogue), but I don't see how that is a bad thing or a negative limitation. [/QUOTE]

Verification