what role/classes are more fun to play? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

what role/classes are more fun to play?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
austin_bob
Mar 30, 2009 14:45:20 From play experience, are certain archetypes and roles more involvement during combat? I.e. are melee characters shifting and moving requiring more attention than stay behind the lines guys like warlocks, wizards, or pure-wis clerics? Do defenders have enough "action" with marking and controlling aggro? Are some striker roles more fun in play for some reason (maybe a focus on getting combat advantage from flanking is tactically challenging and rewarding?). I know involved /= fun all the time, but I'm thinking I'd prefer it.

My group is jumping into 4e next week. I've been keeping up with the books, but have limited experience actually at the table with 4e. I think most of my group can handle the tactical combat, and we do play with minis and a grid. Basically, what is likely to be more fun given similar options. I.e. a druid controller, who can mix it up in melee or a stay-behind-the-lines invoker? (putting aside the nitty gritty details like excessive saves vs. fort and all that) Is a tactical warlord more strategic and involved than a laser cleric?

I realize I'm dealing with broad categories. By the same token, if there are a few roles that are very simple to play, there is at least one player in our group who might be steered to something requiring less attention during other characters actions.
#2
Ninja_Ferret
Mar 30, 2009 14:49:39 All depends on how you like to play.

Sure wizards and other AOE people require you to find a good placement to maximize your area spells and stuff. But you also require your teammates to place those enemies in the correct places.
#3
alane
Mar 30, 2009 15:17:09
are melee characters shifting and moving requiring more attention than stay behind the lines guys like warlocks, wizards, or pure-wis clerics? Do defenders have enough "action" with marking and controlling aggro? Are some striker roles more fun in play for some reason (maybe a focus on getting combat advantage from flanking is tactically challenging and rewarding?).

What's "challenging and rewarding" depends on the player.

This is one of the lessons D&D learned from the MMO world. The MMOs did extensive research and learned that different types of people play social games for different reasons, and enjoy them in different ways.

Some people want to be incredibly tough and wade into melee; others want high-speed high-damage high-risk excitement; others just want to be necessary and appreciated by their team. Some players like mixing it up with the enemies while others have a near-paranoid fear of taking a single hit (in fact I've got one of those in my game right now!)

There is no "fun class" in this game. It all depends on the player.

Is a tactical warlord more strategic and involved than a laser cleric?

Definitely. Warlord is one of the most tactical classes in the game -- tons of party movement powers, assisted attacks, and buffs. A warlord with poor tactical sense will be very ineffective; by comparison a laser cleric with poor tactical sense can still be quite useful.

Rogues are likewise very tactical. I had one player (excellent roleplayer, actually!) who tried a Rogue but just couldn't handle the movement and tactics required. She finally switched characters.

For an RPG, 4e is a very tactical overall. There's lots of movement, terrain, area control, and positioning. Players who can handle tactics are generally more effective for their party than those who can't.
By the same token, if there are a few roles that are very simple to play, there is at least one player in our group who might be steered to something requiring less attention

Probably the best class in the game for a tactics-challenged player is an archery Ranger. You can run around if you want to, but the class is effective and playable even if you just stand still and Twin Strike every round.

Tank classes are also decent for untactical players -- they are tough enough to survive poor tactical choices -- but you might hesitate to choose a tactically weak player as your party's only tank. There are times when the party's survival depends upon the tank jumping in front and pulling the hardest-hitting monsters off the rest of the party.

- Alane -
#4
mplindustries
Mar 30, 2009 15:28:50 There are very few things that can be said about this without knowing your playstyle. However, it is virtually objective that Rangers are the least interesting. If you like topping damage charts, then you'll like them, but you do virtually nothing except damage. And not even interesting damage, mostly repetitive damage. Oh this power gives me three shots instead of two? Ooooh!
#5
bikeninja
Mar 30, 2009 15:28:57 I love playing my rogue. I get to dart around, push folks around, and do lots and lots of damage. Heaps of damage. Dagger + CA means I very rarely miss, and there's really no reason a rogue shouldn't have CA. It sometimes takes a little extra help from my teammates, but if they're playing intelligently at all it's not hard. If they're off doing their own thing, I can still use some of my skills to get CA.

In my experience, rolling dice in new and interesting ways = fun. But then, I am easy to please. Roll dice, do damage, happy rogue.
#6
Cathartic
Mar 30, 2009 16:14:49 At low levels of play, many players will lack encounter and daily powers, so will spend most of their time spamming at-wills. So ideally, to make things more interesting, you want a character with several at-wills each of which can be used in different circumstances.

If you go for a first level ranger, it may feel like a typical combat will be:

Quarry-Twin Strike
Twin Strike
Twin Strike
Oh - what shall I do next. I know - Twin Strike

- because twin strike is such a good power. However, after they get a few more levels on them, even rangers get a few more abilities and become more interesting!

I'd also suggest that melee based characters are often slightly more interesting to play than ranged characters, since positioning is often more important, not just to gain combat advantage, but to avoid being flanked and to offer protection to the back line (even non-defenders should do this to an extent). Meanwhile, some Wizards I know permanently sit at maximum range, and fire spells using binoculars.
#7
oid
Mar 30, 2009 16:39:49 hey! rangers have been my favorite characters since 3e. i love the class. in the end any class is as useful and interesting as you play them. it's all about the role playing, once when i was playing an elf ranger (original i know but i like the combo) i used cut and run. for the shifts my ranger lept over a wall and for the attacks he rained down shots on the oger we were fighting. with imagination and alittle dramatic flare even a basic attack sounds cool.
#8
oxybe
Mar 30, 2009 17:02:39 human Swordmage multi. Wizard with stealth & thievery training.

good int, decent dex, decent con.

can fight, control & sneak like nobody's business. a great "5th wheel" for the party.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 austin_bob Mar 30, 2009 14:45:20	From play experience, are certain archetypes and roles more involvement during combat? I.e. are melee characters shifting and moving requiring more attention than stay behind the lines guys like warlocks, wizards, or pure-wis clerics? Do defenders have enough "action" with marking and controlling aggro? Are some striker roles more fun in play for some reason (maybe a focus on getting combat advantage from flanking is tactically challenging and rewarding?). I know involved /= fun all the time, but I'm thinking I'd prefer it. My group is jumping into 4e next week. I've been keeping up with the books, but have limited experience actually at the table with 4e. I think most of my group can handle the tactical combat, and we do play with minis and a grid. Basically, what is likely to be more fun given similar options. I.e. a druid controller, who can mix it up in melee or a stay-behind-the-lines invoker? (putting aside the nitty gritty details like excessive saves vs. fort and all that) Is a tactical warlord more strategic and involved than a laser cleric? I realize I'm dealing with broad categories. By the same token, if there are a few roles that are very simple to play, there is at least one player in our group who might be steered to something requiring less attention during other characters actions.
#2 Ninja_Ferret Mar 30, 2009 14:49:39	All depends on how you like to play. Sure wizards and other AOE people require you to find a good placement to maximize your area spells and stuff. But you also require your teammates to place those enemies in the correct places.
#3 alane Mar 30, 2009 15:17:09	are melee characters shifting and moving requiring more attention than stay behind the lines guys like warlocks, wizards, or pure-wis clerics? Do defenders have enough "action" with marking and controlling aggro? Are some striker roles more fun in play for some reason (maybe a focus on getting combat advantage from flanking is tactically challenging and rewarding?). What's "challenging and rewarding" depends on the player. This is one of the lessons D&D learned from the MMO world. The MMOs did extensive research and learned that different types of people play social games for different reasons, and enjoy them in different ways. Some people want to be incredibly tough and wade into melee; others want high-speed high-damage high-risk excitement; others just want to be necessary and appreciated by their team. Some players like mixing it up with the enemies while others have a near-paranoid fear of taking a single hit (in fact I've got one of those in my game right now!) There is no "fun class" in this game. It all depends on the player. Is a tactical warlord more strategic and involved than a laser cleric? Definitely. Warlord is one of the most tactical classes in the game -- tons of party movement powers, assisted attacks, and buffs. A warlord with poor tactical sense will be very ineffective; by comparison a laser cleric with poor tactical sense can still be quite useful. Rogues are likewise very tactical. I had one player (excellent roleplayer, actually!) who tried a Rogue but just couldn't handle the movement and tactics required. She finally switched characters. For an RPG, 4e is a very tactical overall. There's lots of movement, terrain, area control, and positioning. Players who can handle tactics are generally more effective for their party than those who can't. By the same token, if there are a few roles that are very simple to play, there is at least one player in our group who might be steered to something requiring less attention Probably the best class in the game for a tactics-challenged player is an archery Ranger. You can run around if you want to, but the class is effective and playable even if you just stand still and Twin Strike every round. Tank classes are also decent for untactical players -- they are tough enough to survive poor tactical choices -- but you might hesitate to choose a tactically weak player as your party's only tank. There are times when the party's survival depends upon the tank jumping in front and pulling the hardest-hitting monsters off the rest of the party. - Alane -
#4 mplindustries Mar 30, 2009 15:28:50	There are very few things that can be said about this without knowing your playstyle. However, it is virtually objective that Rangers are the least interesting. If you like topping damage charts, then you'll like them, but you do virtually nothing except damage. And not even interesting damage, mostly repetitive damage. Oh this power gives me three shots instead of two? Ooooh!
#5 bikeninja Mar 30, 2009 15:28:57	I love playing my rogue. I get to dart around, push folks around, and do lots and lots of damage. Heaps of damage. Dagger + CA means I very rarely miss, and there's really no reason a rogue shouldn't have CA. It sometimes takes a little extra help from my teammates, but if they're playing intelligently at all it's not hard. If they're off doing their own thing, I can still use some of my skills to get CA. In my experience, rolling dice in new and interesting ways = fun. But then, I am easy to please. Roll dice, do damage, happy rogue.
#6 Cathartic Mar 30, 2009 16:14:49	At low levels of play, many players will lack encounter and daily powers, so will spend most of their time spamming at-wills. So ideally, to make things more interesting, you want a character with several at-wills each of which can be used in different circumstances. If you go for a first level ranger, it may feel like a typical combat will be: Quarry-Twin Strike Twin Strike Twin Strike Oh - what shall I do next. I know - Twin Strike - because twin strike is such a good power. However, after they get a few more levels on them, even rangers get a few more abilities and become more interesting! I'd also suggest that melee based characters are often slightly more interesting to play than ranged characters, since positioning is often more important, not just to gain combat advantage, but to avoid being flanked and to offer protection to the back line (even non-defenders should do this to an extent). Meanwhile, some Wizards I know permanently sit at maximum range, and fire spells using binoculars.
#7 oid Mar 30, 2009 16:39:49	hey! rangers have been my favorite characters since 3e. i love the class. in the end any class is as useful and interesting as you play them. it's all about the role playing, once when i was playing an elf ranger (original i know but i like the combo) i used cut and run. for the shifts my ranger lept over a wall and for the attacks he rained down shots on the oger we were fighting. with imagination and alittle dramatic flare even a basic attack sounds cool.
#8 oxybe Mar 30, 2009 17:02:39	human Swordmage multi. Wizard with stealth & thievery training. good int, decent dex, decent con. can fight, control & sneak like nobody's business. a great "5th wheel" for the party.