@Steve and Scott: Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold. There is simply no reason for a non-magical power only working once per day or encounter every day or encounter.Exhaustion and limit break would be my first thoughts. Its certainly not "Oh I forgot how", which you use to invalidate it and make it look bad. It don't have a 4E book on me to see how crazy daily powers get.
I'm not sure if they stole that design from MMOs anyway, a lot of DnD things have cool downs or x/day, even if it isn't great balance. X/encounter is probably a better balance, or at least I would think. ToB had maneuvers, which were all per encounter abilities you could recharge mid fight. I really liked that system over fire and forget, and it was easier to run and involved less "Wait! I need to sleep 8 hours to get all my stuff back!"
I should add pathfinder and 3.x both have lots of things that only work so many times per day(even mundane things!). I prefer x/encounter myself, but ymmv I guess.
Exhaustion has nothing to do with a character consistently only being able to perform a power once in a given time-span.
It's less of a problem with resources slowly running out, which depicts fatigue much better. I did have my problems with ToB because it used prepared sp..., I mean maneuvers - rather than a slot system and overall maneuvers known, or a power point equivalent -, which also amounted to the same "forgetting" of stunts after performing them. (Recharging mid-fight only applied to the Warblade. Crusader and Swordsage had to take a feat which required them to do basically nothing mid-combat for one round.)
There is an inherent disconnect between the game mechanic and the narrative here.
You hate ToB? Well that's probably your problem. Martials getting nice things. You also happen to repeatedly use the word forget, when people are telling you its not forgetting, and it really doesn't help.
So, MMOs. We could get back to that topic.
So, every once in a while I see someone blame a problem in table top gaming on MMOs, or relate something unrelated to MMOs to them that they don't particularly like in a tabletop setting. Its like MMOs are some anathema to table top gaming, creating this problem with bad players and playstyles.
Why is that?
I play both tabletop RPGs and MMOs. Right now, my choices are Star Wars: Edge of the Empire and Star Wars: The Old Republic. I am thankful for MMOs because without them I would never get any "player" time. I'd be stuck GMing 100%. It requires no prep on my part, save for the occasional homework on a class, a profession, or an "instance" (ex. dungeon, flashpoint, raid). I don't think MMOs are evil. They are just a different spin on things.
In the end, they are both GAMES. It is amazing to see people get so worked up over a game, especially when [INSERT SOCIAL ISSUE YOU CARE ABOUT]. IMO, same goes for professional sports, comic books, or any other leisure activity. It's okay to have a gripe or discuss an issue. But getting all bent out of shape or starting some hobby-related holy war over any of these things is silly... perhaps even unhealthy.
I like Coke. I dislike Pepsi. I wish no ill will toward Pepsi drinkers. Please do not call me names for liking Coke. Please do not try to convert me by telling me why Pepsi is superior.
Change the colas to MMOs, RPGs, or what have you, and my general attitude remains the same. The end.
I don't think MMOs are evil. They are just a different spin on things.
** spoiler omitted **...
Regarding your social commentary: There's one notable difference between MMO vs TTRPG and Coke vs Pepsi - people drinking Pepsi don't make it hard for me to drink Coke while MMOs hiving off players do make it harder for me to find a full table of players. That's one thing guaranteed to jack up any rivalry between games, editions, or other passtimes - competition for that which is most scarce - the participant's time.
I agree that super-intense rivalries, hatreds, arguments, and whatnot are unnecessary (and unwarranted), but I understand why they are more intense than what people choose to drink.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bill, actually Coke vs Pepsi does make it harder for me to drink coke. Because of exclusive licensing deals for restaurants, shopping centers and even sporting events, I literally can't buy a coke at a huge number of eating/drinking establishments or stores.
It also means I can't just say "I want diet coke" at a restaurant without being asked "is pepsi okay?" And then I have to say "Not really, get me mountain dew then." and I have to totally change my answer because of a minute difference!
Usually the same place I game at doesn't happen to sell video games though, nor force me to make a choice between the two. I've actually gotten a few players out of MMOs because that's what got them interested in the hobby.
@Steve and Scott: Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold. There is simply no reason for a non-magical power only working once per day or encounter every day or encounter.
If you use that line of reasoning in-game, what would prevent a character to notice that these stunts only work once in a given span of time? And why would a character try to use powers after they are expended? It's just bad storytelling, and that's why they are not narrativist, but rather gamist in nature.
The character doesn't have any knowledge of the fact that they're "expended". Mechanically, they're expended. Narratively, the opportunity to make use of them successfully only comes up once.
It's okay if you're unfamiliar with this sort of narrative playstyle. It requires an extra, higher layer of thinking and that might not be to everyone's taste (though the narrative flexibility it affords you is worth it, I think). You can go read up on it, and you will learn that it's a completely legitimate way of handling things that makes sense both in-world and in the metagame.
But don't try and tell us that we don't know what we're talking about.
It is NOT wrong because the fact that they have to be used in between encounters I am already aware of and didn't mention because I don't see how it is relevant to what we're talking about. Whether you (could) use it during a combat or have to use it in between combats/encounters doesn't change the fact you can go from empty to full in one shot.
You're not going "empty" to full. You're going from low hit points to high hit points. But a character's total vitality is not measured purely in hit points. It is also measured in healing surges. If you don't have all of your healing surges, you are not at "full". Stop thinking of it in terms of just hit points. That paradigm has been expanded upon in 4e. Hit points represent how much punishment your character can take over the course of roughly one solid fight. Healing surges represent how much punishment your character can take over the course of an entire adventuring day, including simulating the ability to rest up and patch some wounds between encounters. Think of it cinematically, if that helps: a character in an action or adventure movie might take a real beating during a fight scene, and barely get through it with his life. But, ten minutes later when he gets into another brawl, he doesn't start out severely hampered from the last fight (at least, not unless it's important to the story that he does); instead, he can fight just about as well as he could at the beginning of the previous fight, before he got the stuffing kicked out of him. It wouldn't make for a very entertaining film if John McClane's first fistfight resulted in a narrow, suspenseful victory, but then he stayed at that weakened state for the rest of the film. Instead, he recovers somewhat between fights and is able to continue bringing the fight to the bad guys for the whole movie.
And, again, you can't go from 0 hit points to full hit points during combat (without some really phenomenal healing abilities). The best a non-leader can normally do on his own is Second Wind, which heals 25% of one's hit points.
I never claimed to be a 4e expert, but I have played it, watched it, and gone through my 4e phb enough times to know enough about it.
No, you haven't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bill, actually Coke vs Pepsi does make it harder for me to drink coke. Because of exclusive licensing deals for restaurants, shopping centers and even sporting events, I literally can't buy a coke at a huge number of eating/drinking establishments or stores.
The ultimate first-world problem.
My 4e group plays online, via Maptools; the GM's kindly set up a load of macros for each of our powers, so I suppose it plays very much like a video game. Would that be as easy with 3.5/PF? Not sure, though we can roll a virtual d20 vs. AC the traditional way if we want to.
Personally, I feel that it works pretty well, I enjoy it a lot, character creation is an absolute doddle and there's plenty of space for roleplaying if that's what you want to do - I'm not keen on MMOs and have never played MtG, so make of that what you will.
There doesn't seem to be very much fluff at all, though, unless I'm looking in the wrong place, and that's where Pathfinder really is ahead of the pack. Plus, I never thought there was much wrong with 3.5, but then again, I'm easily pleased ;)
I do seem to remember the developers talking about adopting MMO style "roles" for 4e. They built the classes specifically around such roles, in a very real way simplifying character concepts down to an MMO style experience. Was this bad? No. It DID dramatically reduce the performance gap between optimizers and non-optimized play styles. The gap still exists it is just a lot smaller since they took the anything goes 3e style of character creation and reduced it to pre-made builds designed to serve specific MMO style roles. It IS absolutely a blast to play 4e. It is massively easy to just jump straight in as a newbie as well. And part of me loves NOT having to memorize 16 splatbooks to make a character that can keep up with the power gamers. I can just pick a "role" and play simple as that.
|
My 4e group plays online, via Maptools; the GM's kindly set up a load of macros for each of our powers, so I suppose it plays very much like a video game. Would that be as easy with 3.5/PF? Not sure, though we can roll a virtual d20 vs. AC the traditional way if we want to.
Personally, I feel that it works pretty well, I enjoy it a lot, character creation is an absolute doddle and there's plenty of space for roleplaying if that's what you want to do - I'm not keen on MMOs and have never played MtG, so make of that what you will.
There doesn't seem to be very much fluff at all, though, unless I'm looking in the wrong place, and that's where Pathfinder really is ahead of the pack. Plus, I never thought there was much wrong with 3.5, but then again, I'm easily pleased ;)
Man, you should see fluff in 2E monstrous manual. Now that was the bomb. Sometimes 2 pages of pure fluff, and a tiny stat block with a picture on top.
Let me break this down Barney style for you: You can go from 1 hp to full at one time by burning these surges and using no special equipment i.e. healing kits, potions etc. It doesn't matter how you want to phrase it that's what it affords you. We've gone over this in other threads. Hp isn't so abstract as losing hp means nothing when half hit points makes you bloody and take penalties. So clearly, at least at half hp, you have suffered a physical, substantial wound...that disappears PERMANENTLY by "walking it off" like coach always told us to do.
And I have no idea why you A) assume you know what the F**K you're talking about in how much 4e I've played or keep referring to John McClain when he is CLEARLY hampered by the damage he takes in movies. He hobbles with his feet cut and staggers when his arm is bleeding in the 3rd one just for TWO examples.
You don't have to break it down barney styles, people know you can do that already I think. The thing is your doing that out of combat, while resting, while trying to get back on your legs and bandage yourself. Its not your character miraculously healing all of his wounds like new. Fluff it how you want, but I think your exaggerating and blowing a small thing out of proportion. Of course, the other alternative is to constantly depend on needing a medic of some sort, which not everyone is a fan of.
So... about MMOs? Oddly enough, in most MMOs I've played you do need a healer of some sort. That's a downside I never liked.
|
|
Are you sure that was from the 2e MM? I seem to remember it having different color and format scheme and all the pictures being color.My 4e group plays online, via Maptools; the GM's kindly set up a load of macros for each of our powers, so I suppose it plays very much like a video game. Would that be as easy with 3.5/PF? Not sure, though we can roll a virtual d20 vs. AC the traditional way if we want to.
Personally, I feel that it works pretty well, I enjoy it a lot, character creation is an absolute doddle and there's plenty of space for roleplaying if that's what you want to do - I'm not keen on MMOs and have never played MtG, so make of that what you will.
There doesn't seem to be very much fluff at all, though, unless I'm looking in the wrong place, and that's where Pathfinder really is ahead of the pack. Plus, I never thought there was much wrong with 3.5, but then again, I'm easily pleased ;)
Man, you should see fluff in 2E monstrous manual. Now that was the bomb. Sometimes 2 pages of pure fluff, and a tiny stat block with a picture on top.
It was the first stat block i could find by googling '2e monstrous manual'. And I'm just thumbing through my Monstrous Manual. All the pictures are black and white. I guess an older printing?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can use as many healing surges as you want (that you have) at one time. I remember that from playing and watching an official game played on youtube. So, to say "no, you can only heal x amount with this so you can't heal from low to full" when you can use as many as you have at once to do the same thing is ridiculous.That's wrong. The only time you can spend healing surges unrestricted is when you have time to rest between encounters (and even then, when you run out of surges you're done). During encounters, you are limited to how many you can spend by the abilities that allow you to spend them.It is NOT wrong because the fact that they have to be used in between encounters I am already aware of and didn't mention because I don't see how it is relevant to what we're talking about. Whether you (could) use it during a combat or have to use it in between combats/encounters doesn't change the fact you can go from empty to full in one shot.
I never claimed to be a 4e expert, but I have played it, watched it, and gone through my 4e phb enough times to know enough about it. I wouldn't sit here and argue about what the best Rituals are, but I can look at it and know what I like and what I don't like.
How is this truly functionally different from a party with a quiver of CLW wands?
Not just the explanation and color of how it's described, or "how it makes sense". How is it fundamentally different from the ebb and flow of action during a session?
I don't think its stupid, that's your opinion. I'm not going to call it stupid because I don't think its stupid. I'm not against characters having a built in health reserve.
Now, about MMOs? I keep saying that but its still all about 4E...
|
|
MMO's aren't evil. The pervasive mentality that comes from playing them for days on end is. It reduces roleplaying to skipping text. It reduces quests to mindless grinding and getting mcguffins. It is not it's fault. It's a game, it has limitations, unlike tabletop games whose only limitation is imagination of a person.
What i hate though is people approaching a tabletop RPG with an MMO mentality. MAN does that grind my gears.
Actually, in tabletops I have infinite options with homebrew, and I can even add in 3rd party(MMOs don't do modding). I've always found MMOs far more specific about what your playing than tabletops.
I also don't think 4E is an MMO, nor like one.
Let me break this down Barney style for you: You can go from 1 hp to full at one time by burning these surges and using no special equipment i.e. healing kits, potions etc.
Over the course of five minutes.
It doesn't matter how you want to phrase it that's what it affords you.
Words are important, kmal2t. As a student of Barney yourself, you should know this.
We've gone over this in other threads.
Yes, depressingly, we have.
Hp isn't so abstract as losing hp means nothing when half hit points makes you bloody and take penalties.
Bloodied is a mechanical condition and doesn't necessarily mean that you are literally covered in blood. In fact, in some cases, it would be impossible for you to show any physical signs of harm (for instance, if you had taken enough psychic damage to reduce you to bloodied, there would be no obvious outward sign of damage; in this case, the bloodied condition would be demonstrated through changes in behavior, e.g., acting winded, confused, or reckless). Also, there are no penalties for being bloodied (in fact, there are more races that gain benefits when bloodied than races that take penalties). Continue to demonstrate your robust, thoroughly adequate system knowledge.
So clearly, at least at half hp, you have suffered a physical, substantial wound...that disappears PERMANENTLY by "walking it off" like coach always told us to do.
Nah, you just patch it up, or rub some dirt on it, or cauterize it with a torch, or pop your shoulder back into place, or do any of a hundred other things that are staples of fantasy/adventure/action literature/films/games that allow a character to suffer a wound without it affecting him in the long run.
And I have no idea why you A) assume you know what the F**K you're talking about in how much 4e I've played
Look, either you're ignorant of the system, you're lying to us, or you're not intelligent enough to draw reasonable conclusions. There is no other explanation for why you have said some of the things you have said. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'm assuming that what we're dealing with here is mere ignorance. Feel free to let us know if it's actually one of the latter two, though.
or keep referring to John McClain when he is CLEARLY hampered by the damage he takes in movies.
...you realize the entire premise of the Die Hard series is to showcase just how much punishment the character can take over the course of a film and keep kicking ass, right?
It's called Die Hard for Pete's sake.
It was the first stat block i could find by googling '2e monstrous manual'. And I'm just thumbing through my Monstrous Manual. All the pictures are black and white. I guess an older printing?Are you sure that was from the 2e MM? I seem to remember it having different color and format scheme and all the pictures being color.My 4e group plays online, via Maptools; the GM's kindly set up a load of macros for each of our powers, so I suppose it plays very much like a video game. Would that be as easy with 3.5/PF? Not sure, though we can roll a virtual d20 vs. AC the traditional way if we want to.
Personally, I feel that it works pretty well, I enjoy it a lot, character creation is an absolute doddle and there's plenty of space for roleplaying if that's what you want to do - I'm not keen on MMOs and have never played MtG, so make of that what you will.
There doesn't seem to be very much fluff at all, though, unless I'm looking in the wrong place, and that's where Pathfinder really is ahead of the pack. Plus, I never thought there was much wrong with 3.5, but then again, I'm easily pleased ;)
Man, you should see fluff in 2E monstrous manual. Now that was the bomb. Sometimes 2 pages of pure fluff, and a tiny stat block with a picture on top.
AD&D 2nd edition had lots of monstrous compendiums. Some of them had color pictures but there were lots of black and white. I don't think the page linked is from AD&D 2nd edition basic Monstrous Manual because I don't remember that particular monster being there but it could one of nearly 30 Monstrous Compendium Appendices.
EDIT: For example Mystara Apendix had illustrations in color with richer layout (but still kept info in the format of the linked entry).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AD&D 2nd edition had lots of monstrous compendiums. Some of them had color pictures but there were lots of black and white. I don't think the page linked is from AD&D 2nd edition basic Monstrous Manual because I don't remember that particular monster being there but it could one of nearly 30 Monstrous Compendium Appendices.
The monster in the link above was not in the 2nd Ed. Monstrous Manual, as all the monsters in that book were in color (excluding the invisible stalker). Pretty sure that's a Mystara monster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Steve and Scott: Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold. There is simply no reason for a non-magical power only working once per day or encounter every day or encounter.
If you use that line of reasoning in-game, what would prevent a character to notice that these stunts only work once in a given span of time? And why would a character try to use powers after they are expended? It's just bad storytelling, and that's why they are not narrativist, but rather gamist in nature.
They're not stunts in game, any more than a fighter in the boxing ring thinks "Aha! I'm going to do a combat maneuver now!" I appreciate it's not for everyone, but if you accept that the ranger doesnt know they have a power called "Shot on the run" and that there is no direct relationship between the game mechanics and events in the real world, it makes much more sense (although clearly not in a way that everyone enjoys).
It's a similar thing to the 1 minute turns of AD&D. It's ludicrous to think a skilled fighter can only swing their sword once per round (or that it should be so regular). Indeed that isnt the intent of the rule. There is a whole bunch of implied action and the 'one attack per minute' thing is not intended to directly correlate with what's actually happening.
Even the position on the battlemat is not a direct one-to-one correspondence with where the characters are - it's representative. (Doppelgangers switch places with their opponents, spherical fireballs have square areas of effect, pythagoras's theorem holds in the game world despite walking five squares diagonally costing the same movement as walking five squares straight...)
The rules arent intended to represent reality (unlike in more simulationist games) they are just a way to objectively model how the character actions resolve. Without the narrative input of player and DM it is just a boardgame. Ultimately, it's a different style of telling a story from a more simulationist system - even though a screwdriver and a hammer can both attach two pieces of wood. A screwdriver is lousy for banging in nails.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't think 4E is an MMO, nor like one.
I actually found it to be a lot like a d20 adaptation of City of Heroes, particularly with the roles and extended (and slow) distribution of power upgrades compared to a general tabletop RPG.
So "nor like one?" Your mileage may vary on that.
|
You hate ToB? Well that's probably your problem. Martials getting nice things. You also happen to repeatedly use the word forget, when people are telling you its not forgetting, and it really doesn't help.
So, MMOs. We could get back to that topic.
Yeah honestly I've long thought and talked about this with buddies in the past. People who hate 4e often times fall all over themselves trying to point out how horrible it is that fighters may have something cool to do besides swing, swing, swing. God forbid.
This is the first edition where the idea of playing a fighter past level 8'ish or so has actually been appealing.
And if you hate the idea of fighters 'forgetting' about one of their abilities after use, let's talk about that lovely 3.5/PF wizard...
Yeah honestly I've long thought and talked about this with buddies in the past. People who hate 4e often times fall all over themselves trying to point out how horrible it is that fighters may have something cool to do besides swing, swing, swing. God forbid.This is the first edition where the idea of playing a fighter past level 8'ish or so has actually been appealing.
And if you hate the idea of fighters 'forgetting' about one of their abilities after use, let's talk about that lovely 3.5/PF wizard...
I don't think most of the 4e complaints had to do with fighters (although the marking mechanism has weathered its share of detractors as has Come and Get It). In my experience, it often has more to do with nerfing the heck out of magic in order to fit it into the same power structure as they put martial characters (tightly controlled damage + status condition). That, plus the way the fighting works with powers, transforms the feel of the D&D game into something... different. A different variety of fantasy - more wuxia or kung fu movie in style, which I think has always been in the minority in the D&D crowd.
As far as forgetting abilities, magic gets to walk on that one because, not being real, magic's rules in any game are arbitrary. Martial combat, however, is loaded down with people's prejudices and verisimilitude issues galore. Martial combat simply doesn't have the same degree of freedom as magic has.
I understand that everyone has a different opinion of the game, but you're projecting the opinions in your post like they're personality problems. In reality, I think they're easily understandable.
|
MMO jive is one of the things bugs me.
Hell, I've had people rage when I asked them not to use the lingo.
"Everybody is doing it! Get with the f@cking times man. It's all the same anyways".
I try to explain that I don't play those games.
It doesn't help.
The level of gamist vs narrative begins to be a battle at the table.
When a player says "I attack the Orc", I ask them to describe it.
Angry stare is the reply.
This is just some of my experiences with playing TRPGs with avid MMO players.
Blank stares, numbers talk, and all "RP" done in the third person, as if ordering a robot minion.
This, is my experience, of the interaction of MMO and TRPG.
functionally (mechanically) it is different based on you are using an outside source for it. Its not a class/PC function so you have to go buy it.
fluff-wise it's stupid because well..what we've been talking about. Either way I never said healing surges were the end of the world or not something that works for 4e..but lets call it what it is.
And I would say PF and others are influenced by MMOs or games in general with the influence of Final Fantasy and other stuff that use Japanese/asian culture.
That isn't what I'm asking.
How are healing surges fundamentally different from CLW wands, in regards to the flow of the game and purpose they serve?
I'm not asking about the fluff or rationalizations. I'm saying in the process of playing a game, what is the difference in their purpose?
MMO jive is one of the things bugs me.
Hell, I've had people rage when I asked them not to use the lingo.
"Everybody is doing it! Get with the f@cking times man. It's all the same anyways".
I try to explain that I don't play those games.
It doesn't help.
The level of gamist vs narrative begins to be a battle at the table.
When a player says "I attack the Orc", I ask them to describe it.
Angry stare is the reply.
This is just some of my experiences with playing TRPGs with avid MMO players.
Blank stares, numbers talk, and all "RP" done in the third person, as if ordering a robot minion.
This, is my experience, of the interaction of MMO and TRPG.
I've encountered all of those things with non-MMO players as well.
I don't think most of the 4e complaints had to do with fighters (although the marking mechanism has weathered its share of detractors as has Come and Get It). In my experience, it often has more to do with nerfing the heck out of magic in order to fit it into the same power structure as they put martial characters (tightly controlled damage + status condition).
It doesn't strike you as problematic to begin with that the magic system needed to be nerfed heavily in order to create an environment when martial characters could meaningfully contribute to the same degree as spellcasters at all tiers of play? That was one of the most consistently identified problems with the 3.5 system that the 4e designers sought to fix.
I don't think most of the 4e complaints had to do with fighters (although the marking mechanism has weathered its share of detractors as has Come and Get It). In my experience, it often has more to do with nerfing the heck out of magic in order to fit it into the same power structure as they put martial characters (tightly controlled damage + status condition). That, plus the way the fighting works with powers, transforms the feel of the D&D game into something... different. A different variety of fantasy - more wuxia or kung fu movie in style, which I think has always been in the minority in the D&D crowd.
As far as forgetting abilities, magic gets to walk on that one because, not being real, magic's rules in any game are arbitrary. Martial combat, however, is loaded down with people's prejudices and verisimilitude issues galore. Martial combat simply doesn't have the same degree of freedom as magic has.
I understand that everyone has a different opinion of the game, but you're projecting the opinions in your post like they're personality problems. In reality, I think they're easily understandable.
Yeah, me too. (Although 4E is my 'complicated' game of choice, I didnt like it at all on first read through). Ultimately, people like different things and tend to phrase 'what they like' as 'how things should be'. If you read people's declarative posts with a "In my opinion..." at the front, it makes things much easier to get where they're coming from.
I am glad 4E is very different to PF for exactly that reason - it seems to me the more diversity in approaches the better (it was an added bonus that both companies were/are actively supporting their game). I'm hopeful D&D:Next will be another completely different take - whether I like it or not being irrelevant to anything other than whether I'll play it.
When a player says "I attack the Orc", I ask them to describe it.
Angry stare is the reply.
I know I'd be upset if my DM asked me to verbally describe every attack I made as though that was somehow a requirement for undertaking an action my character is capable of performing. That has nothing to do with MMOs, and everything to do with being annoyed at a DM who wants his monkeys to dance for him.
It doesn't strike you as problematic to begin with that the magic system needed to be nerfed heavily in order to create an environment when martial characters could meaningfully contribute to the same degree as spellcasters at all tiers of play?
No. But then I never found that fighters or other martial characters couldn't meaningful contribute at all levels of play.
That was one of the most consistently identified problems with the 3.5 system that the 4e designers sought to fix.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the affliction...
No. But then I never found that fighters or other martial characters couldn't meaningful contribute at all levels of play.
YMMV, in my experience I've seen some of the martials turn into worthless trash that deluded themselves into thinking they were great. I'd much prefer a game that's intuitive and I can be certain won't be absolutely dominated by another class. Its okay for narrative appeal I guess, but not so much if I'm trying to do a group game with my friends.
Anyways, MMOs?
No. But then I never found that fighters or other martial characters couldn't meaningful contribute at all levels of play.
Whether you, personally, have or not, many, many people did find that to be the case - enough that it became one of the primary design priorities for 4e based on feedback from 3.5 players. It's practically the entire reason that the Bo9S was printed.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the affliction...
For the people who didn't notice the affliction in the first place (like yourself)? Sure. For the people who wanted to play a martial character at a table with halfway-competent spellcasters without feeling like glorified sidekicks? It was a godsend.
It's sort of like a skinny person saying that they've never had a problem with obesity and therefore we shouldn't bother making public school food healthier.
It's sort of like a skinny person saying that they've never had a problem with obesity and therefore we shouldn't bother making public school food healthier.
Or it's like saying all kids have to wear husky-size pants because the fat kids couldn't fit into the smaller sizes that other kids had no problem getting into. But, hey, use whatever spin metaphor enables you to feel better about yourself and 4e.
