Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3828648" data-attributes="member: 467">In doing so, the backstab/sneak attack ability loses some of its inherent flavour and archtypical (for D&amp;D anyway) quality and becomes a straight damage bonus.&nbsp; One might as well say all 4e character classes get a +xdX bonus to damage per level regardless of the circumstances.&nbsp; That drains the life out of the classes and the game, IMO, and means that there's little reason to choose one character type over another.Assuming there's actually a difference between playing a fighter or a rogue or a wizard, all characters shouldn't be equally viable in all situations.&nbsp; Certain situations should let the fighters shine, others the rogue and still others the wizard.&nbsp; It is incumbent upon the DM or adventure designer (or both) to make sure that an individual adventure or session makes every character useful or viable; any individual encounter must be able to vary greatly, however, or they all become the same with a different coat of paint.One of the problems with making the encounter the basic unit of play in 4E is that it changes the dynamic between the players and their characters.&nbsp; No longer is it necessary for the warrior to step back and save his hit points so the cleric can turn the zombie hoard to dust.&nbsp; No longer does a character for which the encounter is difficult -- like the rogue versus undead or constructs -- have to come up with ways to be helpful and useful, because they can just run up and hack away.&nbsp; The wizard isn't required to make judicious use of his or her spells anymore, reserving them for the BBEG or savinga&nbsp; few slots for knock or comprehend languages, because resources expended and encounters following are almost irrelevent to the current ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 3828648, member: 467"] In doing so, the backstab/sneak attack ability loses some of its inherent flavour and archtypical (for D&D anyway) quality and becomes a straight damage bonus. One might as well say all 4e character classes get a +xdX bonus to damage per level regardless of the circumstances. That drains the life out of the classes and the game, IMO, and means that there's little reason to choose one character type over another. Assuming there's actually a difference between playing a fighter or a rogue or a wizard, all characters shouldn't be equally viable in all situations. Certain situations should let the fighters shine, others the rogue and still others the wizard. It is incumbent upon the DM or adventure designer (or both) to make sure that an individual adventure or session makes every character useful or viable; any individual encounter must be able to vary greatly, however, or they all become the same with a different coat of paint. One of the problems with making the encounter the basic unit of play in 4E is that it changes the dynamic between the players and their characters. No longer is it necessary for the warrior to step back and save his hit points so the cleric can turn the zombie hoard to dust. No longer does a character for which the encounter is difficult -- like the rogue versus undead or constructs -- have to come up with ways to be helpful and useful, because they can just run up and hack away. The wizard isn't required to make judicious use of his or her spells anymore, reserving them for the BBEG or savinga few slots for [i]knock[/i] or [i]comprehend languages[/i], because resources expended and encounters following are almost irrelevent to the current ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification