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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 4325283" data-attributes="member: 63214">There's no almost here, the party is definitely the focus. The funny thing is that the party has always been the focus in D&D. You need a thief to deal with traps, a fighter to soak and deal damage, a wizard to do just about everything, and a cleric to heal. Since 1st edition. What's the difference between the collection of individuals and a team? It's the mindset, nothing else. To be sure, 4E characters are more independent than ever, each with a good set of skills, each with the ability to heal, each with the ability to damage. I think you have your criticisms backwards, because everyone is now more heroic than ever at lower levels(which is all I have been playing, so far, so I won't speak beyond that.)Okay, so  wargames are not RPG's, and 4E is not a wargame. Alright then. But there is an 'uncomfortable association.' Well, roleplaying and tactical combat are not mutually exclusive. If they are, which would be ridiculous, why would 3.X be any different? 3.X was certainly not devoid of tactical combats. You can say you don't like 4E however you want, but there are those, myself included, who play 4E as a roleplaying game and have fun, using the rules as worded and intended and everything. If you reject 4E because of the arbitrary association (I say arbitrary because there's no reason any other edition of D&D wouldn't be labeled as being associated with a wargame, especially given that D&D was created from a wargame where people roleplayed characters inside of the game, Avalon I believe it was called) then so be it. But let's just be clear of the circumstances of your rejection.</blockquote>

Verification