Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5956833" data-attributes="member: 87792">On both these, me too.&nbsp; Or more accurately <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5956442-post84.html" target="_blank">I find even with just at wills different characters to be very different in play.</a>&nbsp;The reworked fighter leaves me cold and I think I'd be bored by a reworked ranger - but I do want to play a thief at some point.&nbsp; But the reworked fighter is not for me.&nbsp; It's for the player at the table who just wants to say &quot;I hit it&quot; and doesn't have a kinaesthetic tactical mind.&nbsp; Before Essentials he was struggling - but he loves the new classes because they don't make him faff around.&nbsp; Classes that are for people other than me aren't a bad thing.&nbsp;&nbsp;Depends on your class and build.&nbsp; For instance my last wizard had a very useful encounter power that did no damage.&nbsp; It really upset the bad guys when it was useful (pull 3 + slow in burst 3) but there were a number of fights it just wasn't useful in.&nbsp; And my encounter attack power of Orbmaster's Incendiary Detonation was very useful in the right place - but with two of the melee PCs having cold resistance, I could risk friendly fire with an Enlarged Freezing Burst in the way I couldn't with Orbmaster's.&nbsp; (And then there was Storm Pillar as my other At Will).&nbsp;Yup.&nbsp; Or, as I said, Wizards.&nbsp;&nbsp;And with all due respect, 4e destroys earlier editions for both Sword and Sorcery and LotR (and most of the rest of Appendix N).&nbsp; You don't need wizard and cleric to interact with about half the rules or to heal in decent time.&nbsp; Legolas can be Legolas, martial leaders lead and inspire, and you can actually play The Grey Mouser (thief with ritual casting).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5956833, member: 87792"] On both these, me too. Or more accurately [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/5956442-post84.html]I find even with just at wills different characters to be very different in play.[/url] The reworked fighter leaves me cold and I think I'd be bored by a reworked ranger - but I do want to play a thief at some point. But the reworked fighter is [I]not for me[/I]. It's for the player at the table who just wants to say "I hit it" and doesn't have a kinaesthetic tactical mind. Before Essentials he was struggling - but he loves the new classes because they don't make him faff around. Classes that are for people other than me aren't a bad thing. Depends on your class and build. For instance my last wizard had a very useful encounter power that did [i]no[/i] damage. It really upset the bad guys when it was useful (pull 3 + slow in burst 3) but there were a number of fights it just wasn't useful in. And my encounter attack power of Orbmaster's Incendiary Detonation was very useful in the right place - but with two of the melee PCs having cold resistance, I could risk friendly fire with an Enlarged Freezing Burst in the way I couldn't with Orbmaster's. (And then there was Storm Pillar as my other At Will). Yup. Or, as I said, Wizards. And with all due respect, 4e destroys earlier editions for both Sword and Sorcery and LotR (and most of the rest of Appendix N). You don't need wizard and cleric to interact with about half the rules or to heal in decent time. Legolas can be Legolas, martial leaders lead and inspire, and you can actually play The Grey Mouser (thief with ritual casting). [/QUOTE]

Verification