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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4916200" data-attributes="member: 2067">Pretty true, there. Of course, they had a lot of "fluff"-style abilities to tell them apart. They wouldn't feel the same when, for instance, tracking the Ranger's favored enemy over the land. They'd be almost the same when fighting that favored enemy, though. And 2e, remember, operated under the philosophy that fluff was part of the balancing mechanism, so you were "supposed to" play up the differences. Not that many did, but TSR attempted to design the difference into the classes.In 4e, a fighter and a ranger are both pretty equally adept at the non-combat aspects of the game, leaving the only difference of note in combat.True. For instance, you can no longer specialize in a bow as a fighter, and, in fact, if you want to use a bow in any meaningful way, you have to be a 4e Archer. Which means that every bow-user is the same (instead of one being a lightly armored skill-based tracker and another being a heavily-armored front-line bruiser who didn't have many other options). Which sort of brings it full circle, except without the noncombat dimension, which 4e makes nearly identical between all characters. Now, in combat, the two are indeed fairly dramatically different. But they still get the same number of the same type of powers, all with damage and other rider effects.I mean, it's not too big of an exaggeration to say you could simplify every power from the big block of powers with only one power: "Attack," which lets you buff/move an ally, mark, impose a status/move an enemy, or just deal raw damage. Once per day, you can use it to deal a lot of damage, once per combat you can use it to deal more damage, and you can switch off between two effects normally (say, two specific statuses). Power structure is one of 'em. But there's also the mechanics themselves: as a wizard, you made your enemies roll dice to prevent you from wreaking havoc. As a rogue, you made percentile rolls and tried to avoid most kinds of combat (which you weren't that good at, except in the DM-subjectively-fiddly Backstab). This is sort of the difference that the 3e rogue tried to carry over (as the skill-monkey). There's the way you learned and accessed wizard spells through the vancian system and the way you learned and accessed thief skills throug point investment. Your approaches were different: thieves went in under the radar and ran away when discovered, wizards would cast a spell, and run away after that.Now, it wasn't all good, but the other extreme that we have now isn't really great, either. It's well-balanced and dull, which is just the opposite problem of poorly balanced and varied.Ranger: "I shoot him and deal a lot of damage."Sorcerer: "I shoot him (with magic) and deal a lot of damage."Warlock: "I shoot him (with dark magic) and deal a lot of damage."While we're at it,Rogue: "I stab him and deal a lot of damage."Barbarian: "I axe him and deal a lot of damage."TWF Ranger: "I knife him twice and deal a lot of damage."Beastmaster Ranger: "I hit him and also my pet hits him and we deal a lot of damage."Also,Cleric: "I buff and do damage."Warlord: "I buff and do damage."Bard: "I buff and do damage."I've played many games of 4e. I've DMed many games of 4e. I'm not ignorant of the actual experience of 4e. I am still very bored with the lack of meaningful options for doing something new with a different class.The differences are subtle; they're not dramatic and obvious and meaningful, they're fiddly and particular and detailed. There are there, but the similarities vastly outnumber them, and the similarities are what make me numb. Especially when compared to how dramatically different even 3e classes were (less different than the 2e classes, more balanced, but still bold enough to try power systems as different as Incarnum and Psionics).</blockquote>

Verification