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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack99" data-source="post: 4379275" data-attributes="member: 53135">Why do they seem more focused? Because they are balanced? or because there is no craft skill? What rules from prior edition do you feel they should have included? Because I see more pages about creating your character and playing a role than in any of the previous edition. Not to mention the DMG, which is about handling players and their different styles, instead of spending 45 pages telling me how much a mule weights and how many sp a waitress that moonlights as whore 3 times a month earns. Sorry, was that just a strawman? Saying something ain't broken because you haven't figured out how to play it correctly doesn't make it broken. The Wizard has since the dawn of D&D been the, or one of the most powerful classes. Now, I never played much 1e, but in 2e and 3.x the wizard dominated play with his Switz-army-knife syndrome, with a solution for everything. If played smart. Natural my bonehead cousin could only figure out how to throw fireballs and such after the monsters, so he never thought that the wizard was overpowered either.  The party above works just fine. I do not know where you get the idea that it shouldn't, especially since mentioning that it only has 1 tank. /boggle. If you guys failed, it was either because you screwed up badly, or because the DM did. For the record, my group consists of 4 strikers, 1 controller, 1 leader and 1 "tank". I use quotation marks because he is fighter multiclass wizard, so he uses hide to benefit from his 16 int. Let's just say that even without a massive AC, he does just fine. And so does the group.Yes, I agree that it felt more realistic. Now, I am perfectly fine with that, but that's a matter of taste.To quote Hong: You need to stop thinking so hard about fantasy. It is the single best advice on this, because once you do, you will find your narration getting much better.WoW. This leaves me baffled. 3.x was the munchkin game par excellence. 3.x was all about me me me, my character, my build, my crap. 3.x combats were won at character creation, by using a good (broken) build, not to mention by rolling a wizard/cleric/druid. Instead, 4e combats are won on the table, by using team tactics. Which sounds more munchkiny to you? Regarding the roll vs role. The streamlining of the rules, together with the greater focus on the team, has increased the roleplay at my table. Of course, this may not be true for all groups, but I thought you should know.How much have you played? It sounded like only one session. For what it is worth, it is not that hard to kill players. But it is still a new game, and I am guessing that a lot of DM's rather go easy than hard on his players for starters.I think you should try it some more. My guess is that given some more time, you will find that some of the issues you have with 4e only exist in your head, not in the game.Cheers</blockquote>

Verification