Thread: Critical-Hits.com Editorial

Check out my latest editorial on Critical-Hits.com where I speak about the origins of classes and roles and how it translate to today's D&D.

Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric, and Thief

People who leave comments here and at the link get Cool Points

I enjoyed your commentary, and agree with its sentiment. No more Edition Fighting! We're all just a bunch of misfits who roll dice. Save your bile for the evil duke who kidnapped your mom.

Good article Matt.

What I've seen as one of the common criticisms, and comments leveled at 4e is that the game is "too video-gamey". By following the thread all the way up to the "root", the original game classes themselves, the comments would be more accurate if stated as video games are "too D&Dish".

Another criticism I've seen is that the classes all feel the same. This, I believe, is a criticism that is based more on "reading" the game rather than "playing" the game.

With the broadly defined roles that 4e has "introduced" into the game, I've found great variation in play with different classes. Even more stark in the comparison is how different classes within the same "role" feel in play. You don't even have to go very far to see how this works. The fighter, swordmage and warden, three defender classes, each have a very individual "style and feel" in actual play. One interesting point is that the difference becomes even more pronounced as the classes go up in level. With the introduction of Skill Utility Powers in PHB3 it is easy to see how the customization of each class can also go in very diverse directions.

You bring up a great point about people seemingly reading through the game instead of sitting down to play. While not everyone fits into this category, I feel a large portion of detractors have not sat down and played any significant amount. Good points, Vic.