Testing The Correlation Between Class Preference And 4E Love/Hate

[firesnakearies]

So, I have a theory. Let's see how the poll turns out.

For those of you who are largely happy with 4E, especially its classes, powers system, and resource management model . . . did you typically prefer spellcaster-types or non-spellcaster-types in earlier editions?

For those of you who are more dissatisfied with 4E, particularly the classes, powers system, or resource management model . . . did YOU typically like spellcaster-types or non-spellcaster-types before?

If you were/are neutral on one or both of these issues, then never mind. Your opinion doesn't count.

 

[DeusExMachina]

If you were/are neutral on one or both of these issues, then never mind. Your opinion doesn't count.

Yes it counts. If 90% of the people are neutral on these issues, you know your poll has little significance...


Anyway, I am largely happy with 4e and in earlier editions I usually played rogues or arcane/psychic spellcasters, preferably crossovers between the two (assassins, psychich warrior/rogue). Make of that what you will...

 

[Tigerbunny]

Happy with 4E, rarely played spellcasters in any previous edition.

LOVE playing spellcasters now. They no longer are all or nothing, either total domination or basically useless. And they don't routinely die before they get to be cool.

 

[firesnakearies]

Wow, I really dislike this "poll" system. So, I post the thread, thinking I'll get to make my poll before it goes up. Then it keeps kicking me back to the poll screen because my answers are too long, and then it tells me that I had to have posted the poll within 10 minutes of posting the thread!

Gah, so now I have a thread that's supposed to be a poll, with no poll.

Boo.

 

[mmadsen]

For those of you who are more dissatisfied with 4E, particularly the classes, powers system, or resource management model . . . did YOU typically like spellcaster-types or non-spellcaster-types before?

I would say that I'm dissatisfied with 4E, and I prefer non-spellcaster-types -- although I tend to DM.

I love the idea of giving non-spellcasters meaningful tactical options; I just wish those options weren't so divorced from "reality".

 

[firesnakearies]

I love the idea of giving non-spellcasters meaningful tactical options; I just wish those options weren't so divorced from "reality".

I wonder why everyone seems to have no problem at all with Wizards and Clerics who are totally "divorced from reality", but anyone with a sword in his hand had better be exactly like the next door neighbor in real life...

 

[Grazzt]

I would say that I'm dissatisfied with 4E, and I prefer non-spellcaster-types -- although I tend to DM.

I love the idea of giving non-spellcasters meaningful tactical options; I just wish those options weren't so divorced from "reality".

Same here and agree with ya

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Satisfied with 4E, and prefer to play Fighters above all else. 4E Fighter is my wet dream.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I play Wizards most often, then Paladin/Clerics followed by Monks.

I love 4th.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I wonder why everyone seems to have no problem at all with Wizards and Clerics who are totally "divorced from reality", but anyone with a sword in his hand had better be exactly like the next door neighbor in real life...

I like my wizards, clerics, AND fighters to be divorced from reality. I just want THIER reality to not be so divorced from the environment and setting.