Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 4521107" data-attributes="member: 61155">I honestly haven't seen a specific answer on this topic, aside from the standard claim that 4E is somehow less accepting of roleplaying (which, I think, has been pretty largely shown to be a meaningless claim.)  That might be it, but like I said - I feel this was more of a problem in previous editions. I saw countless games where debates broke out over clerics being forced to play as healers, and other roles definitely were equally present.  Yes, 4E has suggested roles, but there is not in any way a "you're doing it wrong" vibe except the one you are yourself placing into the text. The vast majority of classes have secondary roles they fill. Healers have been made so they can actually interact in combat while doing their thing. And all the classes really participate in winning every fight.  Sure, you might get a bad group of players that for some reason can't imagine a paladin designed to deal damage - but that is a problem with the players, not the edition.    Like I said, I really do think this might be an issue that some elements were viewed through a biased lens, and made it harder to see what is there. I can certainly understand your concerns - they just aren't supported by the experiences of anyone I know playing the game, or what the rules themselves seem clearly capable of.   But why is the elements you prefer somehow the better ones? Is the concept of a minstrel more core to the D&D fantasy elements than a warleader? The concept of someone who channels the power of nature more core than the concept of someone who bargains with dark forces for power? Are gnomes and half-orcs really more worthy, or was it simply that they were there first? I can think of countless elements I might have liked to see in the 3.0 core rules that weren't there. But I don't see their absence as a flaw in the games - there simply isn't enough room in the rules to contain every player's personal preference, and deciding arbitrarily that one thing is 'required' over another is, frankly, ridiculous. Claiming that your personal preferences are what define a system as complete is entirely absurd. You can certainly claim it is what makes you prefer one system over another! But stating it is somehow an objective failing of the game is a completely meaningless criticism.   What is it you want out of a multiclassed character? Is it a character who is equally adept at multiple elements? Because 4E lets you do that, and well. You don't get to stack class features from every class, admittedly. But I don't think that has anything to do with concepts - just, once again, mechanics.  But the multiclassing is only part of the character customizability - for that, we need to look at 4E feats, which have become vastly more useful for defining characters. You can use Skill Training to become good at whatever skills you want without needing to multiclass. Without doing any multiclassing, you can have a fighter who picks locks, hides in shadows, and evades fireballs. You can have a wizard who wields a greatsword and wears heavy armor. Redefining basic elements of a character is much more feasible in 4E - and that, combined with the multiclassing system, is what I think helps make it more versatile than it might initially appear.</blockquote>

Verification