But please note that the names of these tools do not have spaces in them, nor are any of them plural! It’s a common misconception, but important to use because it makes it difficult for people to use Google to find us!

Thanks again for the mention!

4E pigeonholes you into a tight, specific role. You’re not playing a Ranger; you’re playing a Striker. You’re not playing a Fighter; you’re playing a Defender. You’re not playing a Wizard; you’re playing a Controller. Don’t you dare make a Wizard that doesn’t put their high score in Intelligence or you’ll be sorry! Suppose I want to make a Fighter that is a dedicated archer?

“Well, then, you might as well play a Ranger, because he’s got martial powers that support archery.”

Oh, so the name of the class doesn’t really mean jack; Ranger is just a different flavor of Striker.

Well, in previous editions and in other games, a Fighter was a man-at-arms and he wasn’t particularly limited to melee combat as he is in 4E. I could pattern this guy in a variety of ways; from Roman Gladiator to Roman Legionnaire, from Mongolian Cavalry to Armored Knight. In 4E, he can only be a Armored Knight; the tank that goes out in front of the party, and he can’t choose very much of anything else. Sure, he can use a bow, but he has no powers to support it, so if you focus on archery as a “Fighter,” you’re only going to piss of your fellow players who are wondering what the heck you’re doing.

This game makes a lot of very flawed presumptions and forces people to play in a paradigm of its design. It presumes you’re going to have a “balanced” party. It presumes that a “balanced” party consists of a character in one of the four main roles: Defender, Leader, Striker, and Controller. With one extra to spare. Sure, the DM can adjust his game to the composure of the party, but is that really realistic? Would a villain handicap himself just because the party didn’t happen to bring a Defender?

It is true that in previous editions you wanted to have a good mix of talent and skill to bring to bear so that you can handle the widest possibility of threat, but this wasn’t forced on you like it is in 4E. I’m not saying that Mr. Wyatt and his crew went out of their way to tell everyone you must play with a Cleric and a Rogue and this and that. I’m saying that the design of the game forces you into specific roles that you really can’t branch out of. In previous editions, a Fighter could also be a sort of Controller or a Striker or even, yes, a Leader if he had to be. In this game, even if he multi-classes (which is a spare joke compared to previous editions) he’s pretty much locked in to the role by design.

This is partly what we mean when we say that 4E limits you.

The LAST THING.

Which, I like to think, is the reason that MMORPG won’t take over DnD- there are too many programmers, out there.