Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Al'Kelhar" data-source="post: 4518709" data-attributes="member: 7884">IME:1st and 2nd edition D&amp;D rewarded the player who planned and used their limited resources wisely.&nbsp; These players tended to play wizards, because planing and resource management were fun.&nbsp; In these editions, there was not the breadth of spells available in 3E, and spellcasters had fewer of them.&nbsp; Because of this, players of all classes got to contribute and had fun in the combats.3rd edition D&amp;D rewarded the player who knew most about the rules and the options available to them in those rules.&nbsp; Many of these players played wizards because flexibility and power were fun.&nbsp; Other classes, at higher levels, got shafted.4th edition rewards no-one.&nbsp; Everyone's on a level playing field.&nbsp; A first-time player of 4th edition is as capable in combat as a long-time grognard.&nbsp; Combat is simplified, dumbed down, and as interesting as chess.I am a planner.&nbsp; I like harbouring my limited resources for the situations where they can be used to best effect.&nbsp; I like being an expert in the rules.&nbsp; I play wizards.&nbsp; I have been playing a wizard in 4E since the edition came out.&nbsp; I don't like the 4E wizard; it has none of the attractive characteristics of wizards from previous editions.I agree with the poster who said that, in their experience, the players who liked playing &quot;simple&quot; classes in 3E like 4E, and the players who liked playing &quot;complex&quot; classes in 3E don't like 4E.&nbsp; This has been my experience, too.And further, the wizard gets doubly-shafted in 4E - it's no longer a glass cannon, it's a glass pistol.&nbsp; Its powers are no greater than any other class (viz. the laser cleric) but it has the least hit points and the worst armour and weapon proficiencies of any class.I'mnot a 4E hater.&nbsp; It's just that, in 4E, I'm no longer special.&nbsp; I'm forced to mix with the hoi polloi.&nbsp; And that irks me.Cheers, Al'Kelhar</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Al'Kelhar, post: 4518709, member: 7884"] IME: 1st and 2nd edition D&D rewarded the player who planned and used their limited resources wisely. These players tended to play wizards, because planing and resource management were fun. In these editions, there was not the breadth of spells available in 3E, and spellcasters had fewer of them. Because of this, players of all classes got to contribute and had fun in the combats. 3rd edition D&D rewarded the player who knew most about the rules and the options available to them in those rules. Many of these players played wizards because flexibility and power were fun. Other classes, at higher levels, got shafted. 4th edition rewards no-one. Everyone's on a level playing field. A first-time player of 4th edition is as capable in combat as a long-time grognard. Combat is simplified, dumbed down, and as interesting as chess. I am a planner. I like harbouring my limited resources for the situations where they can be used to best effect. I like being an expert in the rules. I play wizards. I have been playing a wizard in 4E since the edition came out. I don't like the 4E wizard; it has none of the attractive characteristics of wizards from previous editions. I agree with the poster who said that, in their experience, the players who liked playing "simple" classes in 3E like 4E, and the players who liked playing "complex" classes in 3E don't like 4E. This has been my experience, too. And further, the wizard gets doubly-shafted in 4E - it's no longer a glass cannon, it's a glass pistol. Its powers are no greater than any other class (viz. the laser cleric) but it has the least hit points and the worst armour and weapon proficiencies of any class. I'mnot a 4E hater. It's just that, in 4E, I'm no longer special. I'm forced to mix with the hoi polloi. And that irks me. Cheers, Al'Kelhar [/QUOTE]

Verification