Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5733116" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this is still the case. My 4e party played for 8 or so levels with no leader - only a paladin and a couple of PCs with warlord and cleric multi-classing. In combat, they made up for their lack of healing and buffing by just bringing more striking and defence to the table.Are you saying that that definition should happen during PC building, or during play? D&amp;D classes have always put limits on what can be achieved in play (eg a thief/rogue has never made a very robust front line combatant), and has always encouraged players to choose a PC build that will enable them to do what they want to do in combat. 4e doesn't seem to me very different in this particular respect.This seems to be the equivalent, in 4e, of choosing a power source. Or have I misunderstood you?What is the difference in principle between (i) choosing to play a fighter, and then choosing the combination of equipment/feats/etc that make that fighter suit your own design, and (ii) conceiving of the design for your PC, and then choosing the class that best realises that design (which in your example may be a fighter, a warlord or a ranger, or even some sort of hybrid)?Would you care to elaborate?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5733116, member: 42582"] I think this is still the case. My 4e party played for 8 or so levels with no leader - only a paladin and a couple of PCs with warlord and cleric multi-classing. In combat, they made up for their lack of healing and buffing by just bringing more striking and defence to the table. Are you saying that that definition should happen during PC building, or during play? D&D classes have always put limits on what can be achieved in play (eg a thief/rogue has never made a very robust front line combatant), and has always encouraged players to choose a PC build that will enable them to do what they want to do in combat. 4e doesn't seem to me very different in this particular respect. This seems to be the equivalent, in 4e, of choosing a power source. Or have I misunderstood you? What is the difference in principle between (i) choosing to play a fighter, and then choosing the combination of equipment/feats/etc that make that fighter suit your own design, and (ii) conceiving of the design for your PC, and then choosing the class that best realises that design (which in your example may be a fighter, a warlord or a ranger, or even some sort of hybrid)? Would you care to elaborate? [/QUOTE]

Verification