Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5529152" data-attributes="member: 94022">Well, having played both the runepriest and the cleric, I can say that they are definitely quite different in my opinion, though that is a topic for a different thread.&nbsp; Suffice it to say that I think one of the biggest problems the runepriest has is the inclusion of &quot;priest&quot; in its name which has lead to many of the beliefs that it really should just be a sub-class of the cleric.&nbsp; To be fair though, I think it could be legitimately argued that just about all of the classes could be designated as a sub-class of about 3 or 4 different base classes.&nbsp; Again though, I think that's an issue for a different thread.&nbsp;As to your comment about meaningful choices in front of the character builder vs. meaningful choices at the table, I actually agree to an extent.&nbsp; As important as I think having meaningful choices in the character building phase is, I believe that meaningful choices in play (or at the table as you describe it) are far more important.&nbsp; In other words, I see choices at the table being a railroading issue, and generally speaking, railroading should be avoided.&nbsp;Your collaboration comment is interesting.&nbsp; I think the &quot;issue&quot; with 4ed is that it really is set up so that you no longer need to have certain classes or roles in the group.&nbsp; That is, its certainly possible for a group to survive without a leader (harder in some instances perhaps, but possible).&nbsp; Same with the other roles.&nbsp; This, I think, is a bit of a shift away from past editions.&nbsp; Previously there were times where you absolutely needed an arcane caster, and life without a healer was next to impossible and could lead to the 5 minute work week.&nbsp; In fact, I remember the common joke at one time was &quot;Last one to the table has to jump on the cleric grenade&quot;.&nbsp; A cleric was seen as essential, yet boring.&nbsp; As such, I think this is actually a strength of 4ed in general, but I do see what you are talking about. &nbsp;Getting the group together is often seen by DMs (including myself) as the responsibility of the players.&nbsp; In other words, its up to them to decide why they are adventuring together.&nbsp; Add this to the fact that it was &quot;known&quot; that you would have a cleric and a wizard (for instance) in the group and it made it pretty easy for the guy building the fighter to put in some background that would create interesting interactions for the group.&nbsp; The fighter could, for example, say in his background that he has always hated clerics for what the church did to his sister, and leave it at that.&nbsp; You knew there would be a cleric in the group and now there's the potential for animosity.&nbsp; Now, its not even guaranteed that there'll be a caster in the group.&nbsp; On the one hand, it makes it a bit easier to create a character because you don't necessarily need to worry about what the rest of the group is doing, but you are right in that it also I think can lead to less of a group identity, which is kind of ironic since 4ed is far more about teamwork than prior editions were.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riastlin, post: 5529152, member: 94022"] Well, having played both the runepriest and the cleric, I can say that they are definitely quite different in my opinion, though that is a topic for a different thread. Suffice it to say that I think one of the biggest problems the runepriest has is the inclusion of "priest" in its name which has lead to many of the beliefs that it really should just be a sub-class of the cleric. To be fair though, I think it could be legitimately argued that just about all of the classes could be designated as a sub-class of about 3 or 4 different base classes. Again though, I think that's an issue for a different thread. As to your comment about meaningful choices in front of the character builder vs. meaningful choices at the table, I actually agree to an extent. As important as I think having meaningful choices in the character building phase is, I believe that meaningful choices in play (or at the table as you describe it) are far more important. In other words, I see choices at the table being a railroading issue, and generally speaking, railroading should be avoided. Your collaboration comment is interesting. I think the "issue" with 4ed is that it really is set up so that you no longer need to have certain classes or roles in the group. That is, its certainly possible for a group to survive without a leader (harder in some instances perhaps, but possible). Same with the other roles. This, I think, is a bit of a shift away from past editions. Previously there were times where you absolutely needed an arcane caster, and life without a healer was next to impossible and could lead to the 5 minute work week. In fact, I remember the common joke at one time was "Last one to the table has to jump on the cleric grenade". A cleric was seen as essential, yet boring. As such, I think this is actually a strength of 4ed in general, but I do see what you are talking about. Getting the group together is often seen by DMs (including myself) as the responsibility of the players. In other words, its up to them to decide why they are adventuring together. Add this to the fact that it was "known" that you would have a cleric and a wizard (for instance) in the group and it made it pretty easy for the guy building the fighter to put in some background that would create interesting interactions for the group. The fighter could, for example, say in his background that he has always hated clerics for what the church did to his sister, and leave it at that. You knew there would be a cleric in the group and now there's the potential for animosity. Now, its not even guaranteed that there'll be a caster in the group. On the one hand, it makes it a bit easier to create a character because you don't necessarily need to worry about what the rest of the group is doing, but you are right in that it also I think can lead to less of a group identity, which is kind of ironic since 4ed is far more about teamwork than prior editions were. [/QUOTE]

Verification