Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 5976895" data-attributes="member: 882">I'm not a huge MMO player, but from the few hours I put into WoW it seemed to me that its classes showed considerably more variety in their playstyle, abilities and choices than the 4E classes.4E started from a strong standpoint, the four core classes playing these roles, but then just moved mechanics wholly from one class to another. The Warlord heals in exactly the same way as the Cleric. The Ranger and Warlock are given once per turn bonus damage, just as the Rogue. Marking showed a little more variety but had the same basic effect. As the number of classes grew, they stuck to these core effects rather too rigidly for my taste - I don't know if this was due to the AEDU structure or a fear of knocking something out of balance.I particularly noticed that they were MMOing with the Warden, and their use of Con for AC - they couldn't handle a class requiring more than two good abilities and didn't want there to be a trade-off or choice, so they covered up the hole in the design with a special class ability. Simulationism quickly went out of the window with that other feat that allowed you to choose any ability for basic attacks (to compensate for the Swordmage). Like WoW classes, the majority of abilities did absolutely nothing for a character unless they deliberately skilled themselves that way. Were one to revise 4E ala Pathfinder, I could see attacks/AC becoming entirely a function of your two key class abilities and skills being independent of abilities. Heck, why not ensure the math is always right by dictating the relevant scores in a class-level table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chris_Nightwing, post: 5976895, member: 882"] I'm not a huge MMO player, but from the few hours I put into WoW it seemed to me that its classes showed considerably more variety in their playstyle, abilities and choices than the 4E classes. 4E started from a strong standpoint, the four core classes playing these roles, but then just moved mechanics wholly from one class to another. The Warlord heals in exactly the same way as the Cleric. The Ranger and Warlock are given once per turn bonus damage, just as the Rogue. Marking showed a little more variety but had the same basic effect. As the number of classes grew, they stuck to these core effects rather too rigidly for my taste - I don't know if this was due to the AEDU structure or a fear of knocking something out of balance. I particularly noticed that they were MMOing with the Warden, and their use of Con for AC - they couldn't handle a class requiring more than two good abilities and didn't want there to be a trade-off or choice, so they covered up the hole in the design with a special class ability. Simulationism quickly went out of the window with that other feat that allowed you to choose any ability for basic attacks (to compensate for the Swordmage). Like WoW classes, the majority of abilities did absolutely nothing for a character unless they deliberately skilled themselves that way. Were one to revise 4E ala Pathfinder, I could see attacks/AC becoming entirely a function of your two key class abilities and skills being independent of abilities. Heck, why not ensure the math is always right by dictating the relevant scores in a class-level table. [/QUOTE]

Verification