Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4383946" data-attributes="member: 710">Well, "better" is obviously a subjective thing here - because 4E is better for me. I don't need Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Monk or Sorcerer from the start. I need a game that's fast to play, and doesn't bog me down with complex mathematical interactions between spell effects and magical items or monster creation, manageable mechanics and a clear class balance and role distribution. That are my priorities, and 4E comes out better here on all accounts. But other people have other priorities. For them, 4E might not be that good in its release state and might only get interesting if more options are added.I agree - I was talking about playing the standard D&D classes - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue/Thief, Wizard. I assumed "Iconic" meant the iconic characters from 3E (which obviously covered all 3E classes, and not all of them exist yet in 4E). Translating any character that falls into the 4 traditional core classes is possible, translating the 3E iconic characters is not.I am not sure if this really relates about what you were talking, but I initially assumed so since you quoted me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>