Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7935544" data-attributes="member: 87792">Then what exactly is your point? You seem to find them samey and seem to find this worth writing about.Because to me they aren't samey. They are only samey in your eyes because you do not think the way someone moves is fundamental to their fighting style.If 4e has cross-class saminess then there is only one point of difference in most other editions - whether someone is a spellcaster or not. Indeed that's such a ridiculously powerful distinction that it drowns everything else out. 4e by muting this distinction allows the differences between other classes to show themselves much more clearly in my experience.Meanwhile I find more difference between a 4e fighter and barbarian than I do a 3.5 fighter and monk. All the martial classes run up to the enemy and play pat-a-cake until someone runs out of hit points. Saminess is largely in the eye of the beholder.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 7935544, member: 87792"] Then what exactly is your point? You seem to find them samey and seem to find this worth writing about. Because to me they aren't samey. They are only samey in your eyes because you do not think the way someone moves is fundamental to their fighting style. If 4e has cross-class saminess then there is only one point of difference in most other editions - whether someone is a spellcaster or not. Indeed that's such a ridiculously powerful distinction that it drowns everything else out. 4e by muting this distinction allows the differences between other classes to show themselves much more clearly in my experience. Meanwhile I find more difference between a 4e fighter and barbarian than I do a 3.5 fighter and monk. All the martial classes run up to the enemy and play pat-a-cake until someone runs out of hit points. Saminess is largely in the eye of the beholder. [/QUOTE]

Verification