Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SSquirrel" data-source="post: 4927477" data-attributes="member: 5202">Druids didn't turn up in our groups too often b/c if we wanted a healer, we wanted the better healer, and that meant a Cleric.&nbsp; I can count on one hand all the druids I gamed with during the 3.x era.&nbsp; Rogue and Bard were extremely similar, the Bard had spells and some other things the Rogue lacked while the Rogue had more damaging abilities.&nbsp; Detect Evil was an alignment based power and thus canned in 4E, thankfully.&nbsp; Alignment has always been one of the worst parts about D&amp;D IMO and you would frequently wind up with one of a couple of extremes:1)&quot;Detect Evil only works on truly evil things, you won't catch someone thinking something bad&quot;or 2)&quot;You can tell the farmer is thinking of cheating on his wife, do you do something about it?&quot;Turn Undead was a nice ability, but it was always weaker than a Cleric's power to start with and Paladins have a lot more Radiant powers now, which damage Undead more than normal attacks.&nbsp; 4E Paladins are actually better equipped to fight Undead.4E Paladins are the most heavily armored class, but Warriors have access to more weapons off the bat.&nbsp; This was yet another way to allow characters to differentiate their characters via feats.&nbsp; Paladin Warhorse was useless when WotC found most groups were spending lots of times in dungeons anyway.&nbsp; Multi attacks were gotten rid of and seems to have been one of the early decisions that guided development.&nbsp; Alternately to spending $35 to be a TWF, just play a melee Ranger and call him a Warrior <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I think we're just coming at the situation from diametrically opposed sides and our experiences don't sync up at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SSquirrel, post: 4927477, member: 5202"] Druids didn't turn up in our groups too often b/c if we wanted a healer, we wanted the better healer, and that meant a Cleric. I can count on one hand all the druids I gamed with during the 3.x era. Rogue and Bard were extremely similar, the Bard had spells and some other things the Rogue lacked while the Rogue had more damaging abilities. Detect Evil was an alignment based power and thus canned in 4E, thankfully. Alignment has always been one of the worst parts about D&D IMO and you would frequently wind up with one of a couple of extremes: 1)"Detect Evil only works on truly evil things, you won't catch someone thinking something bad" or 2)"You can tell the farmer is thinking of cheating on his wife, do you do something about it?" Turn Undead was a nice ability, but it was always weaker than a Cleric's power to start with and Paladins have a lot more Radiant powers now, which damage Undead more than normal attacks. 4E Paladins are actually better equipped to fight Undead. 4E Paladins are the most heavily armored class, but Warriors have access to more weapons off the bat. This was yet another way to allow characters to differentiate their characters via feats. Paladin Warhorse was useless when WotC found most groups were spending lots of times in dungeons anyway. Multi attacks were gotten rid of and seems to have been one of the early decisions that guided development. Alternately to spending $35 to be a TWF, just play a melee Ranger and call him a Warrior :) I think we're just coming at the situation from diametrically opposed sides and our experiences don't sync up at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification