Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 5951025" data-attributes="member: 16586">My experience is that classes actually feel more different in play under 4e than previous versions. While fighters may play more similar to Wizards in 4e, playing a Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Paladin, or Ranger feel dramatically different from one another in play because their abilities and features make them interface with the game and the fiction in radically different ways. Likewise playing a sorcerer feels dramatically different from playing a wizard. In previous versions of the game (3e/PF in particular) there are basically two ways to interface with the game and thus the fiction. Rangers and Fighters feel almost identical. Same goes for spell casters of all stripes.In 4e Barbarians feel like out of control rage machines. Fighters feel like disciplined combatants who take advantage of every opportunity presented to them. In 3e the Barbarian uses rage and acts just like the Fighter would.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Campbell, post: 5951025, member: 16586"] My experience is that classes actually feel more different in play under 4e than previous versions. While fighters may play more similar to Wizards in 4e, playing a Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Paladin, or Ranger feel dramatically different from one another in play because their abilities and features make them interface with the game and the fiction in radically different ways. Likewise playing a sorcerer feels dramatically different from playing a wizard. In previous versions of the game (3e/PF in particular) there are basically two ways to interface with the game and thus the fiction. Rangers and Fighters feel almost identical. Same goes for spell casters of all stripes. In 4e Barbarians feel like out of control rage machines. Fighters feel like disciplined combatants who take advantage of every opportunity presented to them. In 3e the Barbarian uses rage and acts just like the Fighter would. [/QUOTE]

Verification