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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3968271" data-attributes="member: 48965">Okay I've noticed a trend with the hype around 4th edition.  Basically the fact that none of the four core classes were "fun" to play.  The arguments basically go something like this...Cleric: Not fun because I have to choose between healing or hitting something.Rogue: Not fun because my sneak attack doesn't work on everything.Wizard/Sorcerer: Not fun because my spells eventually run out.Fighter: Not fun because I get outclassed in damage at higher levels and my core feats suck.Okay, I can kind of understand the fighter complaint (though I wonder how the fighter will fare in 4th ed. where everybody seems highly capable in what has traditionally been his/her role)...but the rest of these just seem like arguments along the lines of "my character should have no drawbacks."  What I'm asking is...1. Do you agree with the above sentiments?<s>2. In 4th ed. as a player is it really desirable to have no drawbacks in a game about overcoming challenges?</s> 3. Shouldn't the different classes be geared towards different types of players and what they enjoy doing in the game?  I guess a prime example is the fact that there was a noble class in SWSE...not the best in a fight but certainly geared to face other challenge a parrticular player may find more enjoyable than combat. (I get the impresion every class in 4th ed. will be what could best be summed up as...different types of damage dealers.)4. What did you play that was actually fun for the 3 years of 3.0 and five years of 3.5?</blockquote>

Verification