Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Set" data-source="post: 3968437" data-attributes="member: 41584">Hell no.&nbsp; I loved playing a Cleric, and rarely bothered to heal during combat (being more of an Inflict-monkey with the Death domain and a Wand of Cure Light Wounds to patch people up after the fact).&nbsp; I loved playing particular Fighter builds (trip/AoO specialists were particularly effective and fun, sort of like playing a blue 'denial' deck in Magic the Gathering).&nbsp; And I loved playing a Sorcerer or Wizard able to stack up metamagics and Scorching Ray the crap out of stuff.&nbsp; Rogue?&nbsp; Not so much, but it was never the Sneak Attack that mattered, I just don't care for that playstyle.So long as the classes are relatively balanced, and have actual strategic decisions to make, it should be fine.&nbsp; (And, from the sounds of it, there will still be limited use or 'per day' abilities.)&nbsp; It's easy enough to challenge a group without them having actual 'weaknesses' to exploit.Different classes should definitely appeal to different people.&nbsp; I'd never want to play a game of D&amp;D geared to only appeal to the people who enjoy to play Bards, for instance, or only Book of Nine Swords fans.It definitely doesn't look like all of the 4th ed classes will be different types of damage dealers, in fact, they sound a lot more like MMORPG party makeups, with 'support' classes and 'crowd controllers' and the like.&nbsp; I'm not sure I like that notion as much as the idea of just plain classes that can then be customized as desired.&nbsp; (For instance, I can play a Fighter or a Sorcerer as a battlefield-controller *or* a damage dealer.&nbsp; I don't have a niche handed to me, but I can sure as heck carve one out for myself.)Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Barbarians.&nbsp; I even played a Ranger / Rogue and a Bard that were fun, and those are two of my least favorite options!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Set, post: 3968437, member: 41584"] Hell no. I loved playing a Cleric, and rarely bothered to heal during combat (being more of an Inflict-monkey with the Death domain and a Wand of Cure Light Wounds to patch people up after the fact). I loved playing particular Fighter builds (trip/AoO specialists were particularly effective and fun, sort of like playing a blue 'denial' deck in Magic the Gathering). And I loved playing a Sorcerer or Wizard able to stack up metamagics and Scorching Ray the crap out of stuff. Rogue? Not so much, but it was never the Sneak Attack that mattered, I just don't care for that playstyle. So long as the classes are relatively balanced, and have actual strategic decisions to make, it should be fine. (And, from the sounds of it, there will still be limited use or 'per day' abilities.) It's easy enough to challenge a group without them having actual 'weaknesses' to exploit. Different classes should definitely appeal to different people. I'd never want to play a game of D&D geared to only appeal to the people who enjoy to play Bards, for instance, or only Book of Nine Swords fans. It definitely doesn't look like all of the 4th ed classes will be different types of damage dealers, in fact, they sound a lot more like MMORPG party makeups, with 'support' classes and 'crowd controllers' and the like. I'm not sure I like that notion as much as the idea of just plain classes that can then be customized as desired. (For instance, I can play a Fighter or a Sorcerer as a battlefield-controller *or* a damage dealer. I don't have a niche handed to me, but I can sure as heck carve one out for myself.) Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Barbarians. I even played a Ranger / Rogue and a Bard that were fun, and those are two of my least favorite options! [/QUOTE]

Verification