re
I thought 4E would play like a video game myself. But it doesn't. It plays closer to a fantasy game than 3E primarily because the healing system is more like a novel than a game. I have never read a novel requiring clerics or priests to give constant healing, and in 4E that is actually true. You can get by with much less healing.
I don't think the classes play the same at all. So far I've played a rogue, a cleric, and a paladin. All three classes play very different. The claim they are homogenous and play the same is an out and out untruth. They don't feel the same at all, especially at first level.
I find being a 1st level adventurer in 4E more like what being a 1st level adventurer was supposed to be: a fairly experienced combatant who has spent many years training to survive adventures.
The whole I'm a 1st level guy who can die in one hit didn't at all fit the idea of a starting adventurer who just spent a great deal of his life training to adventure and wield weapons. Instead you actually feel like a combat veteran about to set out on your own. I much prefer the starting feel of 4E because it makes you feel like a seasoned combatant right from the beginning, like you actually did spend quite a bit of time training in your chosen class.
Much, much better mechanic than the 3E start at 1st level being enormously weak and able to be slain with one or two lucky hits. That didn't at all feel like a fighter or wizard that had spent a great portion of their life learning their profession.
4E is a nice game. I feel it did a very good job of differentiating classes. In fact a superior job to 3E because it allows for specialization within a given class. No more assuming your a wisdom based cleric or a strength based paladin. Instead you have alot more options for building paladins and clerics with different focuses.
So the whole "classes feel homogenous" isn't at all true. A 3rd edition cleric at the early levels is almost exactly the same as any other cleric at early levels. A low level fighter is the same as any other fighter. There was very little to separate one class from another of the same class at early levels. But the differentiation of classes starts very early in 4E. So I'm not buying that classes are homogenous compared to 3E until I see what kind of splat books come out.
Because as far the Player's Handbook goes, the 4E Player's Handbook offers way more options than the 3E Player's Handbook for starting characters. If the splatbooks expand 4E options as they did 3E options, then I see 4E as having superior specialization and differentiation at higher levels as well.
It kicks 3Es behind at character differentiation at early levels. It isn't even arguable.
I thought 4E would play like a video game myself. But it doesn't. It plays closer to a fantasy game than 3E primarily because the healing system is more like a novel than a game. I have never read a novel requiring clerics or priests to give constant healing, and in 4E that is actually true. You can get by with much less healing.
I don't think the classes play the same at all. So far I've played a rogue, a cleric, and a paladin. All three classes play very different. The claim they are homogenous and play the same is an out and out untruth. They don't feel the same at all, especially at first level.
I find being a 1st level adventurer in 4E more like what being a 1st level adventurer was supposed to be: a fairly experienced combatant who has spent many years training to survive adventures.
The whole I'm a 1st level guy who can die in one hit didn't at all fit the idea of a starting adventurer who just spent a great deal of his life training to adventure and wield weapons. Instead you actually feel like a combat veteran about to set out on your own. I much prefer the starting feel of 4E because it makes you feel like a seasoned combatant right from the beginning, like you actually did spend quite a bit of time training in your chosen class.
Much, much better mechanic than the 3E start at 1st level being enormously weak and able to be slain with one or two lucky hits. That didn't at all feel like a fighter or wizard that had spent a great portion of their life learning their profession.
4E is a nice game. I feel it did a very good job of differentiating classes. In fact a superior job to 3E because it allows for specialization within a given class. No more assuming your a wisdom based cleric or a strength based paladin. Instead you have alot more options for building paladins and clerics with different focuses.
So the whole "classes feel homogenous" isn't at all true. A 3rd edition cleric at the early levels is almost exactly the same as any other cleric at early levels. A low level fighter is the same as any other fighter. There was very little to separate one class from another of the same class at early levels. But the differentiation of classes starts very early in 4E. So I'm not buying that classes are homogenous compared to 3E until I see what kind of splat books come out.
Because as far the Player's Handbook goes, the 4E Player's Handbook offers way more options than the 3E Player's Handbook for starting characters. If the splatbooks expand 4E options as they did 3E options, then I see 4E as having superior specialization and differentiation at higher levels as well.
It kicks 3Es behind at character differentiation at early levels. It isn't even arguable.
