NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fireinthedust" data-source="post: 5617174" data-attributes="member: 51930">Not so.  I, for one, spend my time playing earlier editions (and Pathfinder) because I like thinking about how to create objects and have them work in, basically, a simulation of a world.  I also like creating games using these rules, and am informed by 4e when I do this.  These are the two reasons that spring immediately to mind, and I'm sure I could find others, but I didn't start RPGs because I wanted to avoid cookie-cutter rpg classes.That they're different is not a primary concern; certainly not one of the desires I'm conscious of (though if it's an unconscious desire for classes that play differently but mix well enough, explain that to Freud or Erickson).I don't get the argument about cookie cutter design.  The Leader role in 4e is very different from the striker, and the defender, and the controller.  The emphasis is certainly different.  My wizard blankets areas in small damage, while my barbarian whallops one target for big damage.  Yes, they all have powers that function a certain number of times a day, but that's not a new phenomenon for anyone except spellcasters.Example:  in 3e all character actions are divided up in a round:  Full-round action, standard action, move action, minor action, free action.  All of them.  Some are "spells", some are "weapon attacks", some are "racial/class abilities", but all are divided in exactly the same way.Is that cookie cutter?</blockquote>

Verification