Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorPain" data-source="post: 4658247" data-attributes="member: 82012">But it produces something totally different. And that is the point. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes it does. They are supposed to fight up close. It is just how you cut it. Ranged characters are supposed to fight far away. That is a role. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But roles are much more specific about what actions and strategies you can perform on the battlefield. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I don't think you are characterizing my position accurately. The alternate roles I proposed were not solutions to the problem, but examples of how roles can be cut up and defined differently. &nbsp;No. I still think the classes should have strengths and weaknesses, but they should be limited to the same tactic on the battle field every time. There should be some amount of cross over. And room for customization. I don't want my fighter to be able to do everything; but I do want him to do something besides tangling people up in the front line, and helping the rogue move around the battle. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I don't approve on insulting people on forums no matter what their position on 4E is. I am just giving my impressions of the game. I shouldn't be attacked because there have been jerks insulting one another over the new system. I would never suggest that liking one system over another reflects a persons intelligence or value. I am looking for polite and friendly exchanges of ideas...and am totally open to being wrong. I have only played two 4E campaigns, and realize I may not have seen all it has to offer. But when you use insults, it makes people more resistent to what you are proposing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorPain, post: 4658247, member: 82012"] But it produces something totally different. And that is the point. Yes it does. They are supposed to fight up close. It is just how you cut it. Ranged characters are supposed to fight far away. That is a role. But roles are much more specific about what actions and strategies you can perform on the battlefield. I don't think you are characterizing my position accurately. The alternate roles I proposed were not solutions to the problem, but examples of how roles can be cut up and defined differently. No. I still think the classes should have strengths and weaknesses, but they should be limited to the same tactic on the battle field every time. There should be some amount of cross over. And room for customization. I don't want my fighter to be able to do everything; but I do want him to do something besides tangling people up in the front line, and helping the rogue move around the battle. I don't approve on insulting people on forums no matter what their position on 4E is. I am just giving my impressions of the game. I shouldn't be attacked because there have been jerks insulting one another over the new system. I would never suggest that liking one system over another reflects a persons intelligence or value. I am looking for polite and friendly exchanges of ideas...and am totally open to being wrong. I have only played two 4E campaigns, and realize I may not have seen all it has to offer. But when you use insults, it makes people more resistent to what you are proposing. [/QUOTE]

Verification