Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6309219" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I don't totally disagree with you. I think things like your cleric that can't fight example are more examples of just "someone made this rule for 2e but not for 4e" because you could design the exact same class, presumably for any-E, the same way. 4e certainly is less amenable to something like "I really can't cast any combat spells", though I did make a wizard once as a test that made ALMOST no direct attacks. There were some levels where he couldn't really get an encounter spell that wasn't overtly an attack, but he did still manage to get ones that were 'less aggressive'. He had all daily powers that were effectively utilities though most of them COULD do some damage (IE things like Web). Its not QUITE the same as AD&D didn't segregate spell types, so you could literally take all utility spells if you so desired (and knew enough of them). So, I think it is fair to say we can agree that there's a lot of overlap but the two games do diverge at some point. Honestly though, in all my years of running D&D (since 1975) I have run into an exceedingly small number, probably countable on one hand, of characters that really wouldn't work in 4e but did work in some other edition. They do exist, but I think 4e is closest to "make the adventurer you want", it just doesn't do "make the weird non-hero you want" too well.</blockquote>