Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AllisterH" data-source="post: 4086655" data-attributes="member: 51325">The difference is that in 4E, many more classes require the use of some sort of marking system.In 1e/2E, you could play a non-spellcaster and not worry about placement other than general terms "Is he in melee range/ can I get into melee range with him" and since for non-spellcasters they focused on one enemy, this wasn't a problem to visualize.Spellcasters though (especially the wizard), that's an entirely different story (how else can you drop a fireball so that it just catches enemy A whose fighting against your fighter buddy or bounce a lightning bolt down a corridor to hit multiple enemies WITHOUT the use of a mini/marker system?).Of the 8 classes listed in the 2E PHB, I'd say that only the wizard (and to a smaller extent, the druid) REQUIRED using some form of visual placement system. Of the other classes, you pretty much could visualize the scenery from the DM's words and take actions based on that visualization (the thief might've been the only one depending on how stringent your DM was with the backstab requirement).4E has changed this though in that I'd say of the 7 classes we've seen (the 6 from DDXP and the Rogue) I'd say the following definitely benefit players to have some form of mini system to visualize, Warlock, Rogue, Wizard.The Fighter, Ranger and Paladin all can be done without the use of mini since they're abilities tend to either focus on 1 enemy or that themselves *stick* to one spot.Cleric could go either way depending on the power chosen IMO. That's probably why people think 4E is a boardgame in that this version of D&D, we have at least 3 classes that focus on either enemy placement or on their movement across the battlefield.</blockquote>

Verification