Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cbas_10" data-source="post: 3968596" data-attributes="member: 55767">Nope.  Not even a little bit.Hack, slash, loot, optimize for the next battle....hack, slash, loot, optimize some more is a style that is lots of fun within a mindless video/computer/console game.  But it is more of a chore in a tabletop RPG.  However, I do realize that I'm in the minority; I'm far more interested in playing an interesting character, interacting with intriguing NPCs, and participating in a rich storyline.  3.X was certainly designed for adventuring and killing stuff to be the core of the game, but it was also designed to be versatile enough to support other playing styles as well.My decisions with clerics had nothing to do with deciding between hitting or healing; my decisions dealt with deciding the style of character it was going to be: should I play a totally selfless, generous cleric of Pelor...or should I play a hard-nosed, pull-your-own-weight cleric of Heironeous?Rogues have so much going for them, depending on sneak attack for the only path to success means that the versatility of their skills (and, thus, variety of character concepts) is being ignored. *yawn*Of course, wizards run out of spells.  Wizards are a more strategic character than other classes.  That is part of the challenge and appeal for me.  They also have a number of skills that few other characters possess.  Knowledges, research, and being a channel for arcane lore certainly has a place in the game...and there really are interesting things to do in the game outside of combat!Outclassed in damage at higher levels?  I've never even thought of that concept...I've never seen this possibility.  I've played a couple of mid-high level fighters and got bored pretty quickly when I started flinging multiple attacks, landing near-common critical hits, cleaving, laying waste, and more.  Fighters can be very effective AND versatile with the HUGE number of feats they get.Well, as much as I have been paranoid about classes losing weaknesses (Duh! what do you think is going to happen when the bookworm wizard that has never spent time on a battlefield encounters and ogre in a dark alleyway?  Ding! Wizard becomes a greasy puddle in the cobblestone if he can't get out of there fast.) in 4e, I doub't if it will be as bad as initially feared.  Plus, having weaknesses and drawbacks is part of what draws a group together.  We (characters in a party) not only work together, but we compliment each other's strengths and weaknesses.  It's called "working together and cooperating."I totally agree with you, and this has become my main hesitation about messing around with 4E.  Some players like all hack-and-slash; some players like micromanaged sheets of 256 types of spell components, some players like near-diceless games of social intrigue.  It's all good; I'm not of the camp of people that say everyone should play "my style."  BUT... If the game has the "deck stacked" so that it is difficult to play in a style outside of hack-and-slash, I think that will be its largest failing.D&D 3.x was pretty fun for the last 8 years (and will continue to be fun in the future...).  Hmm...I get the impression that you are asking about more specific examples.  I had the most fun as a dungeon master.  A subtle combination of creating storylines, using the rules to come up with original and interesting adversaries, being able to emphasize or ignore various rules in order to give the game "just the right mood and theme" (and without breaking the other rules in the process!).  As a player, the most fun I had was with my Privateer Captain (looked like a rogue and swashbuckler, but was a simple fighter with interesting choices of feats and skills, including Leadership).</blockquote>

Verification