Why the anger

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
Why is everyone so against the old school need a cleric to heal? Unless you take the old school healing non weapon  prof. And then you get 1 or 2 hp back..   In 4 th edition you get the same arguments. But now instead of people saying damm we need a cleric.   They say damm we need a leader or controller. Is it not the same? Justa different need to make the game run?   I see so many posts saying my group consists of this.....and people reply be careful you need such n such with that part make up....yet call 1 and 2 edition players grogNards for needing a cleric
I think this post might be misplaced. This is the 4E General Discussion board. In 4E, which is a brilliant game if you haven't tried it, you don't "need" a character in the party to be a leader, but it sure helps. That being said, whoever decides to play the leader has all kinds of options - cleric, warlord, bard, shaman, ardent, runepriest, warpriest, sentinel, artificer, skald....it's great that the mechanical desire to have someone who can heal doesn't tie someone down to a highly specific fluff role of divine servant of the gods.

Anyways, you might be looking for the D&D Next discussion, where people are talking about the next edition, not the current one.
Why is everyone so against the old school need a cleric to heal? Unless you take the old school healing non weapon  prof. And then you get 1 or 2 hp back..   In 4 th edition you get the same arguments. But now instead of people saying damm we need a cleric.   They say damm we need a leader or controller. Is it not the same? Justa different need to make the game run?   I see so many posts saying my group consists of this.....and people reply be careful you need such n such with that part make up....yet call 1 and 2 edition players grogNards for needing a cleric



1. People are against it becuase it limits the partty options if there has to be a cleric in every party.
2. Well, inestead of just having to have  a cleric you could have 
Ardent
Bard
Shaman
 Cleric
Warlord
Etc...
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Why is everyone so against the old school need a cleric to heal? Unless you take the old school healing non weapon  prof. And then you get 1 or 2 hp back..   In 4 th edition you get the same arguments. But now instead of people saying damm we need a cleric.   They say damm we need a leader or controller. Is it not the same? Justa different need to make the game run?   I see so many posts saying my group consists of this.....and people reply be careful you need such n such with that part make up....yet call 1 and 2 edition players grogNards for needing a cleric



It wasn't that people were against Clerics, it was the playstyle of Clerics in previous editions was the problem. The Cleric's job in earlier editions was to be the party's babysitter or the designated driver. There was a whole bunch of cool stuff that he didn't get to do because he was expected to conserve his spells to heal the party, and when he was healing, he wasn't doing anything else for the turn. That's why it was usually the last person to make a character who got stuck with the Cleric, or the group's martyr gave up the character he really wanted to play and bit the bullet so the party could have a Cleric.

4E improved the Cleric and made it more dynamic by introducing minor action healing, which allows the Cleric player to do cool stuff and heal. The Leader role was created so that parties could be more diverse by having more than one healer option available.

No one was against the cleric, they were against the playstyle.

I too enjoy 4 e.  I am just noticing a lot of anger or hatred to other editions,  and I am noticing a lot of 4e players seem to like to call others grognards. Because of their love of other editions.  And you right you don't need leaders or controllers or....Clerics.  But it sure does help
I too enjoy 4 e.  I am just noticing a lot of anger or hatred to other editions,  and I am noticing a lot of 4e players seem to like to call others grognards. Because of their love of other editions.  And you right you don't need leaders or controllers or....Clerics.  But it sure does help




There is a lot of anger and resentment amongst 4E players at this point, and some of it may be displaced. Here are the issues as they relate to me.

1) 4E is by far my favorite edition. It was planned to have a ten year run, it barely got five. I say barely, because we got one new crunch product at the five year mark, and it does not look like there will be any more new 4E books on the shelves. Next is not supposed to hit the shelves until Spring of 2014, which leaves 18-20 months in which I could and probably would buy new 4E products, and will instead buy none of the "editionless" ones.

2) The new edition, while incorporating some of 4E's innovations, is leaving a lot of the things that make 4E great behind in order to move the game backwards so it can attempt to recapture lapsed players.

3) Dragon content, which is now the only place we are going to receive new crunch, is down to an average of one or two crunchy articles a month. 413 was an exception, but the Drow themes in 413 are very narrow in focus, and seem like material that was planned for and cut from Menzoberranzen so it could be an "editionless" product.

4) There is still a lot of material before 4E can be considered "finished." And it is material that we will never see. They have hinted at new Sentinel seasons, new Blackguard vicess, new Cavalier virtues, and new Monk builds. This month's article dealing with three of the Planescape Factions makes me hungry for themes for the other 12, which we will probably never get.

5) There are rules that need to be fixed or cleaned up, things that have been hanging for a long while that will probably never be addressed, like Beastmaster Rangers.

This is the source of my disappointment. I'm sure others have their list of things. I still champion 4E, and am saddened that it was killed before its time.
Numbers 4 and 5 are the big ones for me.  I don't hate the older editions, but I don't want to go back to playing them either and there are good reasons I switched to 4E in the first place rather than play pathfinder.

Its annoyance with WOTC lack of quality control.  There is a lot of stuff they haven't bothered to support or fix.  A lot of the fixes are fairly easy and shouldn't be that much work on their part, but they haven't bothered to do them.

And all of this was after they explictly came onto the forums and asked us in large and very prominent threads what they needed to fix and in response we gave them detailed and in a lot of cases fairly easy fixes.  Some of it they fixed, but they ignored a lot of it.  My favorite was not fixing dire radiance even though they were republishing the power and had the perfect oportunity to fix it.  They finally fixed it, but only after tons of people pointed out once again that in its original form it made proper stat allocation near impossible.

Its a whole bunch of little things like the battlemind still not having a good MBA.  And avengers having one, but only if they go power of skill.  I am pretty sure staff explictly said they realized this was a problem when they nerfed melee training, but its been about two years now without a fix.

And the whole Templar mess up was embarassing.  Take what was at the time the weakest class from PHB1 and nerf it, while barely changing the more powerful classes from PHB1 in their equivalent articles.

We finally got a few decent seeker powers, but that took about two years even though it was an obvious need.

And a lot of essentials material has been fairly poorly done.  Death domain warpriests, cavaliers, vampires, binders, etc. and there hasn't been enough support to make up for the poor design.
I too enjoy 4 e.  I am just noticing a lot of anger or hatred to other editions,  and I am noticing a lot of 4e players seem to like to call others grognards. Because of their love of other editions.


Welcome to the internet.  Where everybody hates everything except for the stuff that they don't.  And sometimes not even then. 

The thing is, every edition has their loud fan and loud detractors.  The main reason you are seeing a lot of 4e-related hate is because its the current edition (and because the internet phenomenon has evolved to make voicing your opinion almost effortless).  This story has repeated itself every time something new has come out and changed something.  The same thing happened with 3.5e, 3e, 2e, rock music, the automobile, germ theory, heliocentricism, and crop rotation....

Just keep in my that its usually a very tiny minority that fight with empty insults.  Even in the most heated discussions, most people are reasonably reasonable and respectful of other people's views, even if they don't necessarily agree.  But at the same time, the labels are sometimes warranted.

I've seen discussions where people were correctly called out as "grognards" not because their love their preferred edition (which is perfectly fine), but instead because they stubbornly denounce everyone's else preferences as bad-wrong fun, refuse to view matters objectively, hold a false sense of superiority, and/or deny comprise enjoyment of all.  Again, people who actually, really deserve the label don't pop up too often, but entire threads can go up in flames when they do. 

And with the next edition of D&D in the works, and the developers looking towards player feedback on how to shape it, an increase in such instances is to be expected.

And you right you don't need leaders or controllers or....Clerics.  But it sure does help



In 4e, every role sure does helps.  But at the same time, no role is absolutely needed.  Your party is not doomed to failure if you don't have that one specific class or build that the game mechanics demand that you have.  And this gives groups more freedom to play what they want rather than what they have too.  No one has to feel stuck with the short straw that no one wanted.  And while this is most obvious with clerics, it's not the only occurrence. 

In previous editions, you "needed" a rogue in your party to handle traps.  In 3e, for example, only rogues could disable magical traps and mundane traps above of certain DC.  In 4e, any one can deal with traps.  Even if you don't play a dex-focus class, skill training and other options can give you a reasonable chance of success.  And if defeating traps doesn't appeal to anyone in the group, 4e trap design is handled different anyway, with less focus on instant death "gotcha" traps.

Likewise, you "needed" wizards to handle many common magical threats that only a wizard could handle - dispelling magic, buffing vs SoD's, divinations, enchanting items, ect.  In 4e, wizards are still useful to have, but many of the mage-only solution powers are now rituals, which are available to everyone.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
I too enjoy 4 e.  I am just noticing a lot of anger or hatred to other editions,  and I am noticing a lot of 4e players seem to like to call others grognards. Because of their love of other editions.  And you right you don't need leaders or controllers or....Clerics.  But it sure does help



There's also alot of hate directed back towards 4e, thus 4e fans tend to be very defensive as well as offensive against prior editions.


As already stated though, the 4e cleric can do alot more while also being the healer, and every party isn't sadeled with having to have a priest tag along.


I have a friend who while often likes to be vocally against 4e, does admit he had a ton of fun as a warlord, because he got to make the party be awesome. Whereas he doesn't like playing a divine servant who just makes sure the party is alive.  
I too enjoy 4 e.  I am just noticing a lot of anger or hatred to other editions,  and I am noticing a lot of 4e players seem to like to call others grognards. Because of their love of other editions.  And you right you don't need leaders or controllers or....Clerics.  But it sure does help



There's also alot of hate directed back towards 4e, thus 4e fans tend to be very defensive as well as offensive against prior editions.


As already stated though, the 4e cleric can do alot more while also being the healer, and every party isn't sadeled with having to have a priest tag along.


I have a friend who while often likes to be vocally against 4e, does admit he had a ton of fun as a warlord, because he got to make the party be awesome. Whereas he doesn't like playing a divine servant who just makes sure the party is alive.  

ALSO a lot? That makes it almost sound like there are 2 sides that started this, but that's not what I saw. What I saw was from long before day 1 the unrelenting hate was rained down. Yeah, a lot of people that actually decided to READ the 4e books and play it found out that it is a fine game. I have no use for the rest, frankly WotC would have been better off to have just banned their posts from day one. I've lost all sympathy for it, if I ever had any.

Put it this way, I don't hate any editions of D&D, I've played them all. There are quite a lot of very small-minded people that count themselves as fans of older editions however that AFAIAC can take a hike.

As for leaders in 4e the options are VASTLY larger than in any other edition, that has to be a good thing. It is also quite easy for a party to do without a leader at all. They will have some disadvantages, but they'll also have an extra striker or whatever, which largely makes up for it if you play cleverly.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I too enjoy 4 e.  I am just noticing a lot of anger or hatred to other editions,  and I am noticing a lot of 4e players seem to like to call others grognards. Because of their love of other editions.  And you right you don't need leaders or controllers or....Clerics.  But it sure does help

I'm a grognard who's played all editions and I like 4e the best.  Just sayin.  I don't really hate on older editions.

Okay, maybe on 3.x a little.  But can you blame me?  ;)

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Keep On The Shadowfell" would be hailed as a brilliant, revolutionary triumph in game design if it were followed by the words "A Pathfinder Adventure Path by Paizo."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

AFAIAC. .   ?    Sorry what does that mean. I don't mean to pick on leader or controller or what ever. My point being is fans of 4 e. (and I am one). Seem to like hating older editions reliance on a cleric!  While at the same time giving advice to newer players and Dm to be careful cause this party don't have......fill in the blank.  Even on this post I started people tell me that if you choose a leader role you don't have to be pigeon holed to one type you can be cleric, bard ardent shaman etc etc.....but fail to realize that older editions like 2 nd had kits to flesh out the so called basic cleric or rogue
People don't like the fact that you have to have a cleric or rogue at all.  People should be able to play whatever class they want without the party being crippled because you are missing a particular class. 

I was the guy who liked playing clerics in older editions and primarily play leaders in 4E, but I also like that I have also played in parties in 4E that did fine without anyone who could heal.

(I think AFAIAC : as far as i am concerned)
And yet they were still the cleric or thief. Every group HAD to have a militant priest and a shady scofflaw just because, and spinning them a little bit this way or that with a kit didn't change the situation.
My point being is fans of 4 e. (and I am one). Seem to like hating older editions reliance on a cleric! 



This is not a 4e phenomenon.  Forced reliance on the cleric has been a long standing complaint well before 4e was conceived.  Bad design is bad design.  Forcing someone in your group to play X when no one wants to play X means that someone is going to have to martyr their fun for the sake of everyone else.  And this situation cropped up often enough to become a common complaint in the fandom for years to the point of parody.   

Remember than many fans of 4e are/were also fans of previous editions too, and have seen or experienced this issue first hand.  Fans of all editions "like hating older editions reliance on a cleric!"

While at the same time giving advice to newer players and Dm to be careful cause this party don't have......fill in the blank. 



Because 4e parties are design to work best when working together as a team, if your party lacks in a certain capacity, you need to take that lack into consideration so you can capitalize on your strengths while mitigating or hiding your weaknesses.  This is basic strategy.  And if you're new, you may not realize the purpose or importance of the capacities you are missing or be unaware of that you are missing them in the first place.

For example, a party full of sturdy pikemen and agile swordsmen can easily cut through anything in their way.  At least until the first time they get curb-stomped by a dragon.  Suddenly, bows and wands become very attractive.

Even on this post I started people tell me that if you choose a leader role you don't have to be pigeon holed to one type you can be cleric, bard ardent shaman etc etc.....but fail to realize that older editions like 2 nd had kits to flesh out the so called basic cleric or rogue


At slightly varient cleric and rogue is still a cleric and rogue.  While 4e leaders all heal, they are still very different from each other in both flavor and mechanics.  They're not just repaints of the same class.  And, again, you don't even need a rogue at all to perform the functions that used to be exclusive to it.

So you can play what you want and the game can still function just fine and everyone can be satisfied with their character choices.  Why is this a bad thing?  And why is wanting this trend to continue a bad thing?

Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
FireclaveFire clave. I understand what you are saying and agree on most of it...buff functions that used to be exclusive to each class is what made it fun....now everyone can detect and remove traps, or detec magic etc or heal.  It like saying. Look a bunch of monsters and the fighter saying ..well your not relying on me are ya ?   As for playing with strategy is that not all edition and taking into account (from the Dm) that you may not have a (Mage or rogue or cleric) so you compensate and they find extra potions of healing etc etc. like in any edition
FireclaveFire clave. I understand what you are saying and agree on most of it...buff functions that used to be exclusive to each class is what made it fun....now everyone can detect and remove traps, or detec magic etc or heal.



Too much exclusivity kills diversity. When you have four players, and sombody NEEDS to be the Rogue, somebody else NEEDS to be the Cleric, and somebody else NEEDS to be the Wizard, only one player of the whole group gets to play "something else."

Granted, 4E has roles, but there are at least five classes of each role, and each performs their role in different ways with different strengths. Now, when you don't have a Rogue, but you still need "stealthy guy," the Ranger, Avenger, Warlock or Assassin can step up. If you don't have a Bard, and you need "talky guy," the Paladin, Cleric, Rogue or Warlord can step up.

It like saying. Look a bunch of monsters and the fighter saying ..well your not relying on me are ya?



If you have a Fighter or Knight, then sure you are. If no one wants to play a Fighter, there are tons of other options for Defender, and even a few Strikers or Leader builds who can sub as a Defender if no one wants to play a Defender at all (Clerics and Barbarians both have powers that impose marks).

But you know all this already. Are you arguing to argue?

I agree with Malak. 4e makes it so that you aren't forced into playing something you don't want to. Especially since the flavor of many classes is similar even though they have different roles. For example, if you want to play a wizard, but someone else is already playing a wizard and your party really needs a healer, grab an artificer, call it a wizard. Nobody is forced into something they don't want because your party "needs" one.

And you say that people aren't relying on the fighter to fight if other classes can do that. True enough, but they still need the defender to defend. 4e has really opened up options.
4e classes are more inclussive than exclusive, but that doesn't mean they all do the same thing.


Anyone can spot and disable traps yes, but without the proper skill trainings or ability scores you're much more likely to fail.


Detect magic requires training in arcana.


Anyone can heal, but leaders have much easier access to it in combat, and have alot more bonus healing, making healing surge expediatures more timely and efficient. A party without a healer is likely to run out of healing surges faster, or simply run out of ways to heal in the middle of a fight.


You still get the trap guy, the perception guy, the ritual guy, the healing guy, the defending guy. Except now you're not pigeonholed into X class and flavour to do so.


A bard with an 18 charisma and training in Diplomacy is a far better party face than the fighter with an 8 Charisma and no training.
 It like saying. Look a bunch of monsters and the fighter saying ..well your not relying on me are ya ?  



Sure we are. BUT, we could also rely on a Paladin, Cleric, Barbarian, Battlemind, Swordmage, Warden, Warlord, etc....
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
FireclaveFire clave. I understand what you are saying and agree on most of it...buff functions that used to be exclusive to each class is what made it fun....now everyone can detect and remove traps, or detec magic etc or heal.



Your thinking is way to binary.  Just because a class is able to to something well does not mean that class must be the only way of doing that thing.  Yes, many functions are less exclusive.  Other classes can potentially fill any missing role.  But it not always be easy, but will cost them resources to do so. 

While anyone can attempt to disable traps, it's hard to match the rogue's skil at it.  Rogues use dexterity as their primary, get training in thievery for free, and even have a few powers that capitalize on thievery.  Most other classes have one or the other, usually but not both.  And with the resources you use to catch up to the rogue, the rogue can use to pull himself further ahead.

Anyone can multiclass into a leader class to gain access to healing.  But usually, that healing will be in the form of a daily unless you're willing to spend extra multiclass feats to gain more healing powers, or hybrid instead, which will give you fewer uses of your primary healing power than being singled class.  And even after all of that, you'll not going to out-heal the cleric.  Even other singled-classed leaders can't out-heal a cleric.

And detect magic wasn't even a big thing.  Any spellcaster could do it.  Now, non-spelllcasters can attempt it, but its a trained-only use, so that means spending your background or a feat to get trained.  Additionally, Detect Magic is now less powerful than it used to be, and non-casters will often lack the int to get the most out of arcana.  So you're usually better off letting the primary spellcaster handle detect magic.

So everyone can attempt to disable traps,  and with effort you can do can be very good at it.  But the Rogue will still excel and with less effort.  Everyone can learn how to heal, but the Cleric still dominates.  You non-spellcasters can learn how to detect magic, but the Wizard and Bard are still the best at it.  The iconic skills of the iconic classes are still iconic.  But if, for some reason, no one wants to play any of these classes, you have other options.  And, most importantly, options that work.  Your entire game isn't up the creek without a paddle because the rogue player decided to have the audacity to try something different and play a warlock or fighter or something.

It like saying. Look a bunch of monsters and the fighter saying ..well your not relying on me are ya ?  


Again, you're thinking is way too binary.  Just because the fighter is not the keystone preventing total party collapse does not mean that is presence does not matter.  Because it does.

While your party does not absolutely, positively need a fighter in order to survive, his presence helps a lot.  The fighter is one of the best overall defenders.  Strong defenses, easy marking, a defender feature that can stop foes in their tracks makes things considerably less dicey for their squishier allies.  And fighters have striker as a secondary, so they can dish out plentiful helpings of damage to end an encounter quicker. 

A fighter doing his thing means that the rest of the party can focus on doing their things, and overall party efficiency increases. 

Now replace "fighter" with any other class and their specialty.

As for playing with strategy is that not all edition and taking into account (from the Dm) that you may not have a (Mage or rogue or cleric) so you compensate and they find extra potions of healing etc etc. like in any edition



All to often in previous editions, there was no alternative strategy to take.  When only rogues could disable traps, your options were to have someone play a rogue or bumble into and get killed by every trap.  When only wizards could cast the high level, out of combat spells you needed to proceed, your options were to play a either play a wizard or fail any quest that needed wizard spells to complete.  And even with healing, potions and scrolls could become prohibitively expensive pretty fast.  More so if you found yourself need healing during combat or had to remove high-level conditions that only clerics could heal.  So your options were to either play a cleric, or watch your party funds it drunk up like a half keg of ale at a dwarven frat house during spring break.

If your group is perfectly fine playing the same, predictable class, role, and skill setup every single time.  But if any one in your group wanted to play something else, your whole group was SOL. 

Two people want to play a rogue?  Nope!  We need a wizard.  Someone wants to try playing a ranger.  Nope!  We need a rogue.  The cleric player is getting tired of playing Pillz'har McHealbot?  Nope!  We need a cleric. 

Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
Why is everyone so against the old school need a cleric to heal? Unless you take the old school healing non weapon  prof. And then you get 1 or 2 hp back..   In 4 th edition you get the same arguments. But now instead of people saying damm we need a cleric.   They say damm we need a leader or controller. Is it not the same? Justa different need to make the game run?   I see so many posts saying my group consists of this.....and people reply be careful you need such n such with that part make up....yet call 1 and 2 edition players grogNards for needing a cleric



1. People are against it becuase it limits the partty options if there has to be a cleric in every party.
2. Well, inestead of just having to have  a cleric you could have 
Ardent
Bard
Shaman
 Cleric
Warlord
Etc...




Frankly, we didn't have a cleric. You don't need one, they are just very highly recommended   :P

I fight for freedom. I fight for justice. I fight for honor. I fight for VENGEANCE.Beware, all you monsters, all you villains, for you have unleashed the wrath of Edward Darkforest. May your god have pity on your soul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDDGJr6LOiw&feature=share Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
I run 0e and 4e. Players have falsely believed you had to play with Class X for years, but its not true. Having a well rounded group has its advantages, but I encourage my players to play whatever they like and then enjoy creating tactics to deal with situations based on their current party make up.

Our 4e group for years was Controller + 3 Strikers and we rocked. We couldn't heal and were a bunch of paper tigers, but we built up our tactics to take advantage of our strengths and minimize our disads. It's just playing smarter and its a lot of fun.

As for old school, I love playing the Cleric. Of course, I'm the cleric who skips the healing spells for the more interesting ones.
I honestly can't remember the last time one of our 4e games had a Cleric in it. Last time I fully remmeber one was the first 2 games I ever played in about 2 years ago.
I honestly can't remember the last time one of our 4e games had a Cleric in it. Last time I fully remmeber one was the first 2 games I ever played in about 2 years ago.



My group just got a cleric recently, but otherwise most of what I see is warlords. People who like divine flare seem to either go Paladin, Avenger, or Invoker.
The bulk of the divine characters in my groups have been clerics, although I think that's mostly due to some of the players coming into the game with the expectation of the group NEEDING a 'priest'.
FireclaveFire clave. I understand what you are saying and agree on most of it...buff functions that used to be exclusive to each class is what made it fun....now everyone can detect and remove traps, or detec magic etc or heal.



Your thinking is way to binary.  Just because a class is able to to something well does not mean that class must be the only way of doing that thing.  Yes, many functions are less exclusive.  Other classes can potentially fill any missing role.  But it not always be easy, but will cost them resources to do so. 

While anyone can attempt to disable traps, it's hard to match the rogue's skil at it.  Rogues use dexterity as their primary, get training in thievery for free, and even have a few powers that capitalize on thievery.  Most other classes have one or the other, usually but not both.  And with the resources you use to catch up to the rogue, the rogue can use to pull himself further ahead.

Anyone can multiclass into a leader class to gain access to healing.  But usually, that healing will be in the form of a daily unless you're willing to spend extra multiclass feats to gain more healing powers, or hybrid instead, which will give you fewer uses of your primary healing power than being singled class.  And even after all of that, you'll not going to out-heal the cleric.  Even other singled-classed leaders can't out-heal a cleric.

And detect magic wasn't even a big thing.  Any spellcaster could do it.  Now, non-spelllcasters can attempt it, but its a trained-only use, so that means spending your background or a feat to get trained.  Additionally, Detect Magic is now less powerful than it used to be, and non-casters will often lack the int to get the most out of arcana.  So you're usually better off letting the primary spellcaster handle detect magic.

So everyone can attempt to disable traps,  and with effort you can do can be very good at it.  But the Rogue will still excel and with less effort.  Everyone can learn how to heal, but the Cleric still dominates.  You non-spellcasters can learn how to detect magic, but the Wizard and Bard are still the best at it.  The iconic skills of the iconic classes are still iconic.  But if, for some reason, no one wants to play any of these classes, you have other options.  And, most importantly, options that work.  Your entire game isn't up the creek without a paddle because the rogue player decided to have the audacity to try something different and play a warlock or fighter or something.

It like saying. Look a bunch of monsters and the fighter saying ..well your not relying on me are ya ?  


Again, you're thinking is way too binary.  Just because the fighter is not the keystone preventing total party collapse does not mean that is presence does not matter.  Because it does.

While your party does not absolutely, positively need a fighter in order to survive, his presence helps a lot.  The fighter is one of the best overall defenders.  Strong defenses, easy marking, a defender feature that can stop foes in their tracks makes things considerably less dicey for their squishier allies.  And fighters have striker as a secondary, so they can dish out plentiful helpings of damage to end an encounter quicker. 

A fighter doing his thing means that the rest of the party can focus on doing their things, and overall party efficiency increases. 

Now replace "fighter" with any other class and their specialty.

As for playing with strategy is that not all edition and taking into account (from the Dm) that you may not have a (Mage or rogue or cleric) so you compensate and they find extra potions of healing etc etc. like in any edition



All to often in previous editions, there was no alternative strategy to take.  When only rogues could disable traps, your options were to have someone play a rogue or bumble into and get killed by every trap.  When only wizards could cast the high level, out of combat spells you needed to proceed, your options were to play a either play a wizard or fail any quest that needed wizard spells to complete.  And even with healing, potions and scrolls could become prohibitively expensive pretty fast.  More so if you found yourself need healing during combat or had to remove high-level conditions that only clerics could heal.  So your options were to either play a cleric, or watch your party funds it drunk up like a half keg of ale at a dwarven frat house during spring break.

If your group is perfectly fine playing the same, predictable class, role, and skill setup every single time.  But if any one in your group wanted to play something else, your whole group was SOL. 

Two people want to play a rogue?  Nope!  We need a wizard.  Someone wants to try playing a ranger.  Nope!  We need a rogue.  The cleric player is getting tired of playing Pillz'har McHealbot?  Nope!  We need a cleric. 




To be honest it makes sense for everyone to possibly be good at things. Humans, and demi-humans are fairly intelligent. People can learn things because they are intelligent. Just because a guy swings a sword doesn't mean he can't cast a spell, or make potions. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Games I Play:

 

D&D 4e - D&D 3.0  - Pathfinder - AD&D 2e - Call of Cthulhu - Legend of the Five Rings - 13th Age - World of Darkness - PTU - D&D B/X