|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 1:51PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
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."
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 1:53PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2011
|
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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 1:59PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
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)
my handbooks & builds
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 2:01PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 8:19AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2006
|
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?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 26, 2012 - 4:34AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2011
|
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
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 26, 2012 - 8:35AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
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?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 26, 2012 - 10:24AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 26, 2012 - 11:13AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 26, 2012 - 11:59AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2009
|
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....
We summoned a devil once. All we used was the D&D books, too. It was pretty kwazy.
God of Arrested Development and Intelligence 
Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander
Pie-Cooling-On-A-Windowsill of the House of Trolls
In the morning HK'll be sober but you'll still be a meatbag.
I know I misspell "Danke" in my posts. It's an inside joke.
"Ten cents gets you nuts." -George Michael
Spoiler:
Show
''Being president is like running a cemetery: you've got a lot of people under you and nobody's listening.''
—Bill Clinton
You are not a moral man. There are not enough middle fingers in the world for you.
Actually, Santa just didn't like you. However, you weren't on the Naughty List, so he had to give you something "better" than coal.
I'd take coal. Heating your house is expesive, and engery cost arn't going down.
Mabey if i beat enough homeless people, i won't have to be cold this year. 
"Heroes"...I wish I had those. I remember in my first-ever campaign one PC went around shootin all the unconscious baddies in the head to gain Dark Side Points...
Whaaaaaat?!??
Wow...way to waste perfectly good potential slaves.
Er...no wait I mean..uh...something not evil!
(Quotes screwed up on the next one, won't give the poster's name. It's in the Best Lines thread on the D&D forum)
First, an experience from a game I played in a few years back. Our DM didn't like 3.5 as a whole but liked parts of it. So he hands us a big ass rules packet for his modified FR campaign, complete with quotes from important NPC's on the front. I can't remember most of the HRs, just that some how gods like Cyric and Bhaal existed at the same time, despite the obvious problems there. In the end the game became a problem more because of the railroading than the HRs, but it ended with this classic line, after our ranger tried to disarm the strange woman following us WITH HIS BOW: DM: You just killed (insert random noble sounding name here) JP: Was she important? Jack: Dude, she's quoted on the front of the rules packet!
"Why in the wide,wide, world of all things irrational would I help you?
-Daniel Jackson
"Fun will now commence."
-Seven of Nine
"Excellent."
-Mr. Burns.
Whey is a crotch.
Cut the last encounter on your way out after dealing with the Darth. He's the BBEG. Treat him as such. Play up that Darth Revan is THAT much of a badarse. When the shuttle landed, I had no less than 13 JEDI MASTERS step off the shuttle. The PCs were slack-jawed. After the meetup with Bastila (as she's carrying Revan's body), only TWO jedi masters remained with her. Let me tell you, the player whining about not getting to fight Revan himself shut up pretty quickly when he saw that.
There's so much you can do with insanity, especially when it has alot of resources.
1. Cleric cast protection from fire on Tank.
2. Tank goes in and get surrounded by enemies.
3. Wizard cast fireball and blows them up.
4. ???
5. Profit
I go by the saying," If it ain't friendly fire then it's not working."
|
|
|
