Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AllisterH" data-source="post: 4507187" data-attributes="member: 51325">There doesn't have to be.&nbsp;Example1: Beguiler vs Dread Necromancer vs Warmage&nbsp;Example2: Warblade vs Swordsage vs Crusader.&nbsp;I firmly believe that WOTC's experience and feedback about these classes is what influences the same structure that 4E classes have.&nbsp;The classes within these two examples are basically palette swaps of one another yet they play VASTLY different. Much moreso than say a wizard or a sorceror plays in reality IMO.&nbsp;Same with say a paladin versus a fighter. In practice, the crusader (the Bo9s paladin) plays vastly different than a warblade (the fighter) yet, the two classes are much closer than the paladin and fighter.&nbsp;The fact is that the &quot;exploits/manouevers/spells&quot; in actual USE are much more defining of how a class plays and feels than what you read on paper. Viscerally, you have to actually experience it to see the difference...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AllisterH, post: 4507187, member: 51325"] There doesn't have to be. Example1: Beguiler vs Dread Necromancer vs Warmage Example2: Warblade vs Swordsage vs Crusader. I firmly believe that WOTC's experience and feedback about these classes is what influences the same structure that 4E classes have. The classes within these two examples are basically palette swaps of one another yet they play VASTLY different. Much moreso than say a wizard or a sorceror plays in reality IMO. Same with say a paladin versus a fighter. In practice, the crusader (the Bo9s paladin) plays vastly different than a warblade (the fighter) yet, the two classes are much closer than the paladin and fighter. The fact is that the "exploits/manouevers/spells" in actual USE are much more defining of how a class plays and feels than what you read on paper. Viscerally, you have to actually experience it to see the difference... [/QUOTE]

Verification