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

[Gothmog]

My favorite classes are clerics, wizards, and fighters, and I love 4E. All three classes are much more interesting and distinctive than in previous editions, and I don't feel like I have to hold back to keep from dominating the party in 4E when playing a spellcaster.

 

[firesnakearies]

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.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I forked this thread with an actual poll.

 

[Henry]

Largely satisfied with 4E, and I prefer playing Cleric-types (Clerics first, followed by Druids). On the other hand, I wish the Cleric class did have a bit more flavor than it has - even though it's gone further back to its roots as "healer and booster" in 1E and 2E than it was in 3E, where there were quite a few spells that I feel made him almost an effective damage-dealer as wizard-types. The flavor it's missing is more in the feel of a cleric of Moradin compared to, say, a cleric of Sune - almost no difference mechanically.

 

[firesnakearies]

I forked this thread with an actual poll.

Yay!

 

[mmadsen]

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...

What an impressive little Straw Man you've propped up there. Yes, that's exactly what I said: anyone with a sword in his hand had better be exactly like the next door neighbor in real life.

For the sarcasm-impaired, I put "reality" in quotes for a reason; the pedants are thick around here. I don't want weak, unimpressive swordsmen in my game; I just want rules that don't leave me constantly asking, "How does that work in the actual game world?"

 

[WalterKovacs]

Of the spellcasters I've played, I've traditionally gone with spontaneous over prepared in 3.5. I've played:

rogue then fighter/rogue (2e), and a ton of different stuff in 3.5 (off the top of my head, a wizard/swordmage gesault, a bard/chameleon, a fighter/ghostface killer, a rogue, a rogue/swashbuckler, a crusader, a fighter, a warlock, a warmage, a bard/cleric/divine prankster, etc ...) In general, when I did have a lot of choice for spell prep ... I was always prepping the same spells anyway, and I generally had the catch phrase of "I can do that ... tommorow". The DM'ing/adventure sort of made it hard to be sitting around making contingency scrolls or stopping to buy them in town, etc so that never became a strategy within the party. The curestick did get screentime.

In general, 4e fits into the style of play we were doing, and uses a lot of the "splat" parts of 3.5 we liked ... having the at-will ability of the warlock, or taking the reserve feat to give the other spellcaster an at-will ability, etc.

 

[WalterKovacs]

What an impressive little Straw Man you've propped up there. Yes, that's exactly what I said: anyone with a sword in his hand had better be exactly like the next door neighbor in real life.

For the sarcasm-impaired, I put "reality" in quotes for a reason; the pedants are thick around here. I don't want weak, unimpressive swordsmen in my game; I just want rules that don't leave me constantly asking, "How does that work in the actual game world?"

You meant reality sarcastically, but he obviously was meaning the straw man literrally ... it would be impossible for someone to counter sarcasm with sarcasm.

And tons of what the martial classes do are that out of the ordinary. The healing power of the warlord is one thing that keeps getting brought up, but that is a whole can of worms in terms of what hit poins represent in the game world, but what other things are constantly coming up and doesn't fit in the game world?

A quick look at all the fighter powers ... the only thing that are a bit "magic-y" are stuff relating to HP, and even then, regeneration only works while you are concious, and thus applies to the whole "tougher/less likely to go down" persona of a fighter.

A martial character is like Batman or Captain America in the world of D&D superheroes. They are still doing incredible things. They aren't flying. They aren't teleporting. They aren't conjuring things out of nothing.

 

[firesnakearies]

What an impressive little Straw Man you've propped up there.

Thanks, glad you like him. His name is Bolger.

No, but really, what you said there about wanting to know what's actually happening in the game world makes sense to me. Sorry if I came across as a bit too snarky.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.

The use of the word reality without conditions implies our own reality, knowledge of physics, and the way the world operates.

In specifying the characters' reality we apply the same process to the way things work within the fictional world which is quite different from our own.

Quite simply, if a game mechanic produces a result that an inhabitant of the world is witness to which causes the inhabitant to question his or her sanity and this becomes an everyday occurance, then everyone is insane by default or the world has consistency issues.