Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 4286621" data-attributes="member: 58105">Well, I think 4e is a fine board mini game: by design it could have been a nice sword&sorcery game if it did not fail on some directions it chose to took -and I believe it did so due to legacy reasons. I guess they should have mixed the defender and leader class and perhaps give some of the defender to the striker class too. So end up with two different but at least reasonable weapon combat classes. One that represents he who knows how to inspire his comrades and analyze combat and one that represents he who delivers and exploits the chaotic fury of combat. IMO the plain defender roles and designed classes just do not make any real sense, yet they seem to be 4e's chosen of the sword in the sword&sorcery genre.  But then they would end up with just three roles. Would that be acceptable? Dunno. But why not? And in the above context I also believe they should have included rules and mechanics for groups and formations and that PCs can control. Here they could have also made alignments interesting.</blockquote>