Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zaruthustran" data-source="post: 3968550" data-attributes="member: 1457">No. I think what the 4e hypesters are trying to communicate is not that the core classes were UNfun, but that they have serious design flaws that--if solved--could make those four classes MORE fun. One of the roles of the cleric, for example, is to heal. But since NO OTHER class could really fill that role at higher levels (a rogue, paladin, or ranger with wand is a poor substitute), clerics sometimes devolved into walking bandaid dispensers. Clerics have a phenomenal spell list, but too often they don't get to use those cool spells because they have to spend their actions (and spells per day) on the boring task of healing.That's a design flaw. It's not "broken", but it's a flaw in design. 4e is proposing that the cleric can deliver the fun that comes from helping out your buddies while still allowing the cleric player the fun of kicking butt and doing cool divine magic. Same goes for wizards. Wizards are terribly flawed--the entire party's activity cycle is determined by one player of one class. Once the wizard is out of spells the whole party has to stop, because it's just not fun to play a wizard who has "run out" of magic. It's not fun to even be in a party where you everyone else is doing cool things, but the wizard player just has his guy plink away with a crossbow every turn. Again, consumables are a poor patch for this design flaw.Rogues, same thing: design flaw. They fill the role of skill guy, social guy, traps guy, big-damage-from-striking-from-position-of-advantage guy. Every single one of those roles--everything that defines the class and makes it cool--can be taken totally obviated. If the campaign happens to go in a direction where the only foes are golems and mindless undead, the rogue is going to be sad.That's not a question; it's a statement. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> And I think it's incorrect. 4e is not all about "having no drawbacks". It seems to me that 4e class design is all about making sure each class is able to fulfill its role, all the time. In 3e, every time a fighter swings his weapon and hits, he gets to roll damage. I think that inherent dependability and reliability of fulfilling class role will be extended to all classes. That seems like a good thing. If my 4E rogue is able to get the drop on a foe, I want him to be able to get extra damage. I don't care if the target is a plant, animal, or elemental. He's a clever rogue, he's striking from a position of advantage, and he should get his Sneak Attack dice. That doesn't mean that the rogue doesn't have disadvantages, or that all classes are equally good at all roles. In a word, no. A more elegant design would be for ALL classes to be enjoyable by ALL types of players. I hope 4E's approach to basic class design, feats, and multiclassing enable this.Enjoy managing resources and planning ahead? In 3e you're limited to the wizard, and to a lesser degree the other primary casting classes. If you'd like to exercise those skills but have your guy swing a sword, you're out of luck. There's only one type of fighter: Big Dumb. You run up, you roll a d20, and you hope their HP total drops faster than yours. Your in-combat choices are limited to field position, how much to spend on Power Attack, and maybe whether or not you're going to attempt a Disarm, Trip, Sunder, or Grapple (but that's not really a choice, because the only time you'd want to attempt those tricks is if your character is specifically built for it--and if it is, that's ALL you'll want to do). I think 4E is going to put interesting choices into every class, and also extend core reliability of being able to basically fill a roll into every class.For me, the "fun" of the game is determined by the quality of the other players at the table--not by the quality of the mechanics. I've played really awfully-designed games and had a blast, and I've played decent games (like 3E) with crummy players and had a terrible time.That said, my favorite 3E (whether .0 or .5; it's the same edition and same core game) characters were characters that could do their thing all day long, and still had interesting choices and opportunities. I now realize that every single one of my 3E characters were multiclassed (which itself raises a suspicion that 3E classes are flawed), usually a bit of rogue with a bit of a spellcasting class with a bit of a +1 BAB/level class (ideally a class with a spell list, what for to be able to use wands). My favorite character was a rogue/ranger/fighter/scout/wildrunner/shadowdancer. Second favorite was a fighter 1/wizard 12.</blockquote>

Verification