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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 3987487" data-attributes="member: 54843">I'm thinking it'll actually be easier for people to figure out optimal tactics in 4e, actually. Overall, I think they're actually trying to preserve and refine most of the tactical assumptions of "classic" D&D, even if those assumptions haven't been fully realized before.Take fighters as an example. In 3e, all they could really do was attack every round. If you think about it, it's really hard to "defend" anything when the class had almost zero "stickiness," at WOTC is now calling it. Your fighter charges into melee and attacks a monster, and if the monsters are non-retarded (or the DM is in a nasty mood) most of the monsters ignore him and chew on the wizard instead. Best-case scenario, the fighter gets a couple AoOs as they go by. But in 4e, the fighter will have specific powers that make it a Bad Idea for enemies to pass him by. So he can finally do what he's really been trying to do for 3 editions.Meanwhile, other classes benefit by being restricted in some ways. After having a bunch of his enchantments/illusions/necromancy/summons taken away and lots of stuff shifted to out-of-combat "rituals," the wizard player is going to figure out damn quick that his job is to shape the battlefield, largely by selectively blowing it up.I don't think increased mobility will take people long to adapt to, either. The reason characters stay put in 3e was that full-round attack were so much better than standard-action attacks. Now that this is no longer the case, I imagine people will adapt quickly. I mean, if my eladrin wizard has an ability that lets me teleport once an encounter, and I've got a troll barreling down on me... I think I just might figure out that using that ability would be a good idea.</blockquote>

Verification