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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6370993" data-attributes="member: 7635">Not quite...The AD&D 1e core classes (Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric, Thief) don't map to their 4e assigned roles as well as we think.A fighter in 1e could be a "defender" due to his high AC/HP, but he lacked anything remotely "sticky" about him and a % strength made him the best non-magical damage dealer in the game. A cleric was a healer, but aside from a few minor buffs (bless, prayer) he wasn't as big a leader as 4e's cleric. The concept of lazer clerics (who stood back and shot/buffed and healed) is completely foreign; clerics got heavy armor and d8 HD to be in melee with fighters. A magic-user had some control magic (sleep, web, charm) but he was the number one "striker" due to great attack spells like magic missile, cone of cold, and lightning bolt. While a MU was appreciated for his attack magic, he was REALLY liked for his utility spells like dispel magic, fly, knock, and teleport. Which is why the wizard's "control" power felt really weak; he wasn't really much of a controller before. A thief was a piss-poor striker. Backstab rarely equaled a solid fighter hit, let alone a magical spell, and it was often a "once per combat if lucky" thing. Rogue were explorers who best avoided combat rather than ducked in with grace and speed. So the 4e roles are really attempts to make the classes into what people THOUGHT they were, rather than what they actually were.</blockquote>

Verification