sounds like a typical case of grognard logic without flipping through the book.
kill 'em and take their stuff, to use an rpgnetism. :P
I just really hate this "I might as well play WoW" bullshit. I mean, you can still roleplay perforing and cooking and all that shit. it just doesn't have a die roll and DC associated with it anymore.
That, and I don't understand why people are so upset to see Multiclassing and PrCs go. a "Talent Point system" just, and I feel bad for saying this. works better.
you're pretty much preaching to the choir here man
we have the same discussion every month or so thereabouts, someone comes in all clutching their bum like wizard$ of the coa$t violated them anally by turning their sacred cows into hamburger
So, I've been having a hard time finding anyone to play 4ED with. for some reason, my area is still having a serious problem with 3.5 purists. (people butthurt about Bards being replaced with "MMORPG style tanks" (Warlord), Druids and Monks being gone, PrC's and multiclassing getting replaced with "Talent Trees". and such.) how am I ever going to find anyone who will consider giving the new system a try?
You might point out that:
1) Warlords are not tanks. Nor are they intended to be a replacement for the Bard. It's more similar to the 3.5 class called "Marshall" if anything.
2) Wizards has recognized the lack of monks and actually went so far as to give a very helpful way of adjusting the ranger to replace them. Available for free on the website. Which they didn't have to do, by the way, they're actually responding to players who wish that there were still monks in the core game.
3) They've made similar suggestions for Druids and Bards, though not actual class modifications (which a DM and player could work on themselves). In the particular case of bard, the playtest article in Dragon Magazine (which is free of charge online at the moment) for Artificers is a great substitute that requires mostly some changes to flavor to basically replace the role and style of the Bard.
4) Animal Companions can be easily used with the rules for Mounts in the DMG.
5) "Paragon Paths" are the functional equivalent of PrC's using the new game mechanics. They have class and feature requirements just like PrC's, are only available at certain levels like PrC's, differentiate your character from other characters of his same class like PrC's, and grant additional abilities just like PrC's.
6) Multiclassing is not gone. It is simply no longer broken or exploitable. You actually have to consider the tradeoffs that come with it rather than just automatically pick up a ton of starting class features. This is a good thing.
7) "Talent Trees" are a thing of D20 modern and Star Wars: Saga Edition. The system of Powers is quite a bit different.
8) They could maybe get over themselves and give a short adventure in the back of the DMG called "kobold hall" a try. It won't turn them into a pillar of salt just to spend a few hours with the new system.
If they refuse to listen to this stuff or actually read the book without constantly comparing it to 3rd edition, I don't know what to tell you man.
Some people like to complain but will keep playing a new system anyway. But some people get so attached to their own knee jerk opinions that they're unwilling to let them go even when they are wrong because they don't want to admit they were wrong.
Hopefully your friends will prove to be the former and give the game a try.
you're pretty much preaching to the choir here man
we have the same discussion every month or so thereabouts, someone comes in all clutching their bum like wizard$ of the coa$t violated them anally by turning their sacred cows into hamburger
Oh, Okay then, I'll probably just make a post in this E-mail group that people in my area put out, trying to get these facts out to people so I can get them to play.
Clawshrimpy on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
I liked having a guy called an assassin due to his PrC, not a Rogue/Ranger Hybrid with a brutal scoundrel ranged spec.
Whats stopping you from calling him an assassin now? Ive got a rogue that I call a Monk. I can't wait to play him. Really, I dont understand why people get so butthurt over something so minor as some fluff.
Well, after many, many assurances from WoC that there "will be no 4th edition", I sunk a decent amount of cash into 3.5 books over time. For that reason alone it will be some time before I'll even touch it. Not to mention the fact that they've messed with the core, extensively. Having played for over 20 years, I find it insulting. 4th edition, in my opinion, is only an attempt by WoC to cater to video gamers in order to expand thier sales base.
I.....I don't know what to say. People were willing to choke down the costs for all those damn supplements, and now they're upset at 4th being a "greedy grab for cash and catering to the vidja crowd?" I..... I hate my area.
Well, after many, many assurances from WoC that there "will be no 4th edition", I sunk a decent amount of cash into 3.5 books over time. For that reason alone it will be some time before I'll even touch it. Not to mention the fact that they've messed with the core, extensively. Having played for over 20 years, I find it insulting. 4th edition, in my opinion, is only an attempt by WoC to cater to video gamers in order to expand thier sales base.
I.....I don't know what to say. People were willing to choke down the costs for all those damn supplements, and now they're upset at 4th being a "greedy grab for cash and catering to the vidja crowd?" I..... I hate my area.
I'd love to know when WOTC reassured this guy that there would be no 4th edition, personally.
The core was messed with hugely from 2 to 3.0, as well, so as a 20-year vet that should be something he understands.
I don't really see what's wrong with a company expanding their sales base (read: making there be more people to play with!), honestly. This doesn't even have to be his opinion, this is pretty much a stated strategy from WOTC.
Anyway, whatever. If you have an FLGS, go post a notice on the board looking for players to try 4e. You'll get a few.
So do i. Are you sure its not your firewall? If yes, and it probably is then nothing will make either program work, except changing the port to one not protected.
Goumindong on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
It's Vista. Trick is that I'm not comfortable messing with my landlady's router, so I'm stuck with on-computer meddling only, and I'll be in other locations for awhile, as well.
I can connect in XP, but only using a Gateway, and I can't seem to get that to work in Vista. I'll keep trying off and on, but I'll probably just end up getting one of the players to host for me for a few sessions until I can get back to my XP comp, and just throw their butts outdoors so I don't have to worry about Fog of War issues.
I.....I don't know what to say. People were willing to choke down the costs for all those damn supplements, and now they're upset at 4th being a "greedy grab for cash and catering to the vidja crowd?" I..... I hate my area.
I don't really see what's wrong with a company expanding their sales base (read: making there be more people to play with!), honestly. This doesn't even have to be his opinion, this is pretty much a stated strategy from WOTC.
It seems to me that the majority of DnD players that hate 4E don't like that the game is being made more accessible. Video games supply a ready to play scenario, while previous versions of DnD were largely do-it-yourself.
Now that there are a half-dozen different goblins with different roles to choose from instead of having to give a basic goblin class levels, 4E haters are bitter that new players don't have to sink as much time into preparing.
There are also 4E haters that think of 4E as "baby's first DnD." I've seen threads where 3.5 advocates have suggested using 4E as training wheels before graduating to "big boy DnD."
Hexmage-PA on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
The only accomplishment to making unique monsters in 3rd edition was making a technically correct statistics block. Making a functional monster was a nebulous affair that was either completely disastrous or utterly useless, with very little in-between. Especially at high levels.
Well to be fair, Hexmage, for those players who value infinite complexity (also known as anal-retentive ruleswhoring for "fun" and profit), 4e COULD be called training wheels.
Of course, to be fair in another arbitrary direction, when a thing is as broken as 3.5, sometimes you just have to kill it with fire and try something new.
KrataLightblade on
LEVEL 50 SWORD JUGGLER/WIZARD!
0
Options
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
There are also 4E haters that think of 4E as "baby's first DnD." I've seen threads where 3.5 advocates have suggested using 4E as training wheels before graduating to "big boy DnD."
This makes me want to slug somebody. Didn't they try this once before already with basic D&D and AD&D?
I dungeon mastered my first 4th edition game tonight, and we had lots of fun! The initial encounter where a few bandits used a girl as hostage that was to start off the adventure got a bit hairy (as I suspected it would) as a few players took the first opportunity to spring at them when they tried to make their escape. What was supposed to be a smooth exit turned into headlong flight for the bandits, but that turned out to be just as satisfying to the players.
Now they are tracking their quarry through a drake-infested forest, fighting wolf drakes and other beasts. Low level fighting is so much more interesting now, I am so grateful to be rid of the endless stupid misses that plagued low level play in 3rd edition. I expect it will take some time for me to be able to find the difficulty sweet spot for fights, but I can see the potential is there for really cool tactical and challenging battles.
One puzzling thing I have noticed though, is that my wizard and warlock has generally been hitting less than my other characters. With no proficiency bonus from a weapon their to hit has been +3, as opposed to the values ranging from +5 to +7 the other characters have. Is this supposed to be made up by generally lower reflex and will values ?
Vic on
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
Yup. It's pretty easy to boost AC with armour but Reflex and Will defences don't climb nearly as fast. Also, with wizards and things, remember that CA works for spells too, so get on in there and start flanking duders...
Fighters get a bonus that lets them hit more often, they hit 5% more often.
Swords gets a bonus that lets them hit more often, they hit 5% more often.
All weapons get a bonus that lets them overcome the fact that AC is often higher than all others and almost never the lowest defense.
Some races are better suited for their particular class and your wizard might be an off race and fighters and on race.
If you add up all of these you can get 2-5 extra attack on for your fighter versus your wizard or warlock.
When your wizards and warlocks attack, remind them to pick powers that might co-inside with the monsters they are attacking. Soldiers and Brutes have high fortitude and low reflex. Artillery and Skirmishers have low fortitude and Will(iirc). Controllers have low fort or reflex(not sure which)
Also, its a good idea to have your wizard take powers on his daily that do not require to-hit rolls.
Flaming sphere does automatic damage AND blocks a square of movement from the enemy. This makes it great against soldiers, and controllers.
Stinking Cloud blocks line of sight and does automatic damage[This makes it great for screwing up artillery]
Wall of fire does automatic damage, blocks line of sight and is hard to move through, this makes it great against everything in different situations.
Concentrate more on dailies that don't require attacks and have other effects and a low hit rate becomes less important.
A ranged burst one performed by player P can hit enemies in any of the squares listed by e with combat advantage. Why? Because the wizard has full cover against all the enemies and no line of sight. But the wizard can create the origin around the corner in squares that would have superior cover against him, because he still has LoS and LoE. Cover against the attack is determined by the bursts origin. CA is determined by the wizards square.
As you get into the paragon tier you can use arcane reach to blast entirely around walls with arcane reach.
Remember that wall of fire. It blocks line of sight, so you have CA against anything on the other side that you hit. Feel free to lob bursts through the wall and hit enemies with CA
Goumindong on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
Yes. Attacking vs. reflex/will/fortitude is superior to attacking vs. AC as AC tends to be higher than those defenses. There are some exceptions to this, but they are generally pretty rare.
I.....I don't know what to say. People were willing to choke down the costs for all those damn supplements, and now they're upset at 4th being a "greedy grab for cash and catering to the vidja crowd?" I..... I hate my area.
I don't really see what's wrong with a company expanding their sales base (read: making there be more people to play with!), honestly. This doesn't even have to be his opinion, this is pretty much a stated strategy from WOTC.
It seems to me that the majority of DnD players that hate 4E don't like that the game is being made more accessible. Video games supply a ready to play scenario, while previous versions of DnD were largely do-it-yourself.
Now that there are a half-dozen different goblins with different roles to choose from instead of having to give a basic goblin class levels, 4E haters are bitter that new players don't have to sink as much time into preparing.
There are also 4E haters that think of 4E as "baby's first DnD." I've seen threads where 3.5 advocates have suggested using 4E as training wheels before graduating to "big boy DnD."
Which is pretty hilarious, considering that D&D in general is generally seen by devotees of other systems as being training wheels.
Layers and layers of stupidity surrounding the simplest evaluation of the worth of a system:
Did I have fun playing it?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
What about everyone else?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Victory!
Leemo on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
4e is fun when maptools lets me get a decent init roll. :x
Zen Vulgarity on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
I play lots of different systems, I just like Dungeons and Dragons because it is what I started with and currently has the best tactical combat. For something that is very focused on non-combat or interaction heavy, I prefer storyteller games (Vampire and Delta Green for example).
3.5ed was an unpleasant system IMO. I never liked how you could kill a player with a single inadvertent critical hit (I roll all my dice in the open in my 4th ed games, with only a few hidden rolls for special monsters/checks that I don't want to players seeing the results of etc) and other problems. How incredibly broken the game got with high level casters was also just plain awful.
I'll concede that 4th edition is broken in places as well, but it's nowhere near as bad as 3.5. It may not have the same freedom to make whatever you want, but fuck that, I'd rather it be balanced first and that you have five people at a table all of whom contribute. This is opposed to one player who gets so powerful he annihilates everything while the other four are bystanders. That's not good to me and it's why I ceased playing 3rd edition and went back to playing Vampire, Promethean and Delta Green.
What is Delta Green? I know how storyteller works(is there a modern, non-vampire storyteller system out there?)
Delta Green is basically an X-files like version of Call of Cthulhu, but with a focus on the Mi-go and how they are infiltrating the US government by making fake aliens (Greys). It has lots of awesome elements like the Germans resurrecting the dead in WW2 as Zombies to fight the US/British troops at D-Day, the US government figuring out what was happening at Innsmouth and invading the place (and wiping the whole lot of them out) etc etc. The two main source books, Delta Green and Aftermath are probably two of the best source books ever made for any game system I've ever owned.
Best of all, it succeeds in still being fundamentally the same system as Call of Cthulhu, but basically has its own unique tone and feel. I've never played regular (non-DG) Call of Cthulhu since getting those books.
I'll concede that 4th edition is broken in places as well, but it's nowhere near as bad as 3.5. It may not have the same freedom to make whatever you want, but fuck that, I'd rather it be balanced first and that you have five people at a table all of whom contribute.
I would actually argue that 4e is more flexible. Sure you don't have the million PrC's to choose from, but really, how many of those were good? I don't remember that many that were worth it, and from those there were a handful that were just silly and broken beyond repair.
With 4e each character has the chance to choose between 4 or so powers each level and there wont be many (at least not that you play with) that choose the same power set. Then you get the option of multiclassing and taking powers from other classes by replacing your powers, this makes it even less likely that you will have a copy of someone else's character. And then on top of that, you can take one of the paragon paths of your multiclass class, giving you around 10 or so choices for that. By the time you finish with the character (IE: get to 30 and have your epic destiny pull you out into NPC territory) you have created a completely unique character, not counting all the RP you've gone through with your character.
In 3.5 (which is the only other version of D&D Ive played) level 20 fighter A was the same as level 20 fighter B with the exception of a couple feats. This was pretty much the same for all the classes. The PrC's added a level of complexity but then like I said earlier, I thought most of them were not worth taking or just terribly broken.
Well, if you saw a level 20 fighter at your table, I'd consider your table to be different than the norm. If I ever saw more than 4 levels of fighter on a character, the only reason would be to get more feats to combine with some obscure PRCs ability in a futile attempt to match a caster in combat. Because a pure class fighter can't. He is sort of able to at low levels(Though SoDs rule supreme at this point), then it just goes downward from there.
In 4th ed though, you don't have to deal with that. Classes are reasonably balanced in regards to eachother, making them all viable choices for your players instead of having to go "I want to play a guy who hits stuff with a sword" - "Make a cleric."
Posts
That, and I don't understand why people are so upset to see Multiclassing and PrCs go. a "Talent Point system" just, and I feel bad for saying this. works better.
we have the same discussion every month or so thereabouts, someone comes in all clutching their bum like wizard$ of the coa$t violated them anally by turning their sacred cows into hamburger
You might point out that:
2) Wizards has recognized the lack of monks and actually went so far as to give a very helpful way of adjusting the ranger to replace them. Available for free on the website. Which they didn't have to do, by the way, they're actually responding to players who wish that there were still monks in the core game.
3) They've made similar suggestions for Druids and Bards, though not actual class modifications (which a DM and player could work on themselves). In the particular case of bard, the playtest article in Dragon Magazine (which is free of charge online at the moment) for Artificers is a great substitute that requires mostly some changes to flavor to basically replace the role and style of the Bard.
4) Animal Companions can be easily used with the rules for Mounts in the DMG.
5) "Paragon Paths" are the functional equivalent of PrC's using the new game mechanics. They have class and feature requirements just like PrC's, are only available at certain levels like PrC's, differentiate your character from other characters of his same class like PrC's, and grant additional abilities just like PrC's.
6) Multiclassing is not gone. It is simply no longer broken or exploitable. You actually have to consider the tradeoffs that come with it rather than just automatically pick up a ton of starting class features. This is a good thing.
7) "Talent Trees" are a thing of D20 modern and Star Wars: Saga Edition. The system of Powers is quite a bit different.
8) They could maybe get over themselves and give a short adventure in the back of the DMG called "kobold hall" a try. It won't turn them into a pillar of salt just to spend a few hours with the new system.
Some people like to complain but will keep playing a new system anyway. But some people get so attached to their own knee jerk opinions that they're unwilling to let them go even when they are wrong because they don't want to admit they were wrong.
Hopefully your friends will prove to be the former and give the game a try.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
I'm butthurt about not being able to craft things yet. That'll be remedied, though.
ta-daa
also what is stopping you from crafting things? just transplant 3.5's system if you really want mechanics to represent it.
Taa-daa, also the PrC could be referenced a bit easier in some instances.
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
I.....I don't know what to say. People were willing to choke down the costs for all those damn supplements, and now they're upset at 4th being a "greedy grab for cash and catering to the vidja crowd?" I..... I hate my area.
I'd love to know when WOTC reassured this guy that there would be no 4th edition, personally.
The core was messed with hugely from 2 to 3.0, as well, so as a 20-year vet that should be something he understands.
I don't really see what's wrong with a company expanding their sales base (read: making there be more people to play with!), honestly. This doesn't even have to be his opinion, this is pretty much a stated strategy from WOTC.
Anyway, whatever. If you have an FLGS, go post a notice on the board looking for players to try 4e. You'll get a few.
But butts are obviously hurt.
It's got to be all the sticks jammed up in there.
If DDI allows me to play D&D at a Starbucks, they will totally have my money forever.
You saw the Alchemy pdf, yes?
O.K. so when the guy takes his paragon path, whatever he takes, he could instead just "call it" "assassin"
As a DM i don't see what extra work i would be doing by saying assassin instead of dagger master
What do you mean? I play maptools over my wireless connection at home.
I think Zen is referring to a DM making crafting rules and the likes, not that a DM gets more work changing the name of a class.
I think.
I can connect in XP, but only using a Gateway, and I can't seem to get that to work in Vista. I'll keep trying off and on, but I'll probably just end up getting one of the players to host for me for a few sessions until I can get back to my XP comp, and just throw their butts outdoors so I don't have to worry about Fog of War issues.
It seems to me that the majority of DnD players that hate 4E don't like that the game is being made more accessible. Video games supply a ready to play scenario, while previous versions of DnD were largely do-it-yourself.
Now that there are a half-dozen different goblins with different roles to choose from instead of having to give a basic goblin class levels, 4E haters are bitter that new players don't have to sink as much time into preparing.
There are also 4E haters that think of 4E as "baby's first DnD." I've seen threads where 3.5 advocates have suggested using 4E as training wheels before graduating to "big boy DnD."
Of course, to be fair in another arbitrary direction, when a thing is as broken as 3.5, sometimes you just have to kill it with fire and try something new.
This makes me want to slug somebody. Didn't they try this once before already with basic D&D and AD&D?
Now they are tracking their quarry through a drake-infested forest, fighting wolf drakes and other beasts. Low level fighting is so much more interesting now, I am so grateful to be rid of the endless stupid misses that plagued low level play in 3rd edition. I expect it will take some time for me to be able to find the difficulty sweet spot for fights, but I can see the potential is there for really cool tactical and challenging battles.
One puzzling thing I have noticed though, is that my wizard and warlock has generally been hitting less than my other characters. With no proficiency bonus from a weapon their to hit has been +3, as opposed to the values ranging from +5 to +7 the other characters have. Is this supposed to be made up by generally lower reflex and will values ?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Swords gets a bonus that lets them hit more often, they hit 5% more often.
All weapons get a bonus that lets them overcome the fact that AC is often higher than all others and almost never the lowest defense.
Some races are better suited for their particular class and your wizard might be an off race and fighters and on race.
If you add up all of these you can get 2-5 extra attack on for your fighter versus your wizard or warlock.
When your wizards and warlocks attack, remind them to pick powers that might co-inside with the monsters they are attacking. Soldiers and Brutes have high fortitude and low reflex. Artillery and Skirmishers have low fortitude and Will(iirc). Controllers have low fort or reflex(not sure which)
Also, its a good idea to have your wizard take powers on his daily that do not require to-hit rolls.
Flaming sphere does automatic damage AND blocks a square of movement from the enemy. This makes it great against soldiers, and controllers.
Stinking Cloud blocks line of sight and does automatic damage[This makes it great for screwing up artillery]
Wall of fire does automatic damage, blocks line of sight and is hard to move through, this makes it great against everything in different situations.
Concentrate more on dailies that don't require attacks and have other effects and a low hit rate becomes less important.
edit:
Other interesting things for wizards to do.
A ranged burst one performed by player P can hit enemies in any of the squares listed by e with combat advantage. Why? Because the wizard has full cover against all the enemies and no line of sight. But the wizard can create the origin around the corner in squares that would have superior cover against him, because he still has LoS and LoE. Cover against the attack is determined by the bursts origin. CA is determined by the wizards square.
As you get into the paragon tier you can use arcane reach to blast entirely around walls with arcane reach.
Remember that wall of fire. It blocks line of sight, so you have CA against anything on the other side that you hit. Feel free to lob bursts through the wall and hit enemies with CA
Something about this warforged going into the Feywild and chilling with the Unseelie Court or what have you really appeals to me.
Which is pretty hilarious, considering that D&D in general is generally seen by devotees of other systems as being training wheels.
Layers and layers of stupidity surrounding the simplest evaluation of the worth of a system:
Did I have fun playing it?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
What about everyone else?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Victory!
3.5ed was an unpleasant system IMO. I never liked how you could kill a player with a single inadvertent critical hit (I roll all my dice in the open in my 4th ed games, with only a few hidden rolls for special monsters/checks that I don't want to players seeing the results of etc) and other problems. How incredibly broken the game got with high level casters was also just plain awful.
I'll concede that 4th edition is broken in places as well, but it's nowhere near as bad as 3.5. It may not have the same freedom to make whatever you want, but fuck that, I'd rather it be balanced first and that you have five people at a table all of whom contribute. This is opposed to one player who gets so powerful he annihilates everything while the other four are bystanders. That's not good to me and it's why I ceased playing 3rd edition and went back to playing Vampire, Promethean and Delta Green.
Delta Green is basically an X-files like version of Call of Cthulhu, but with a focus on the Mi-go and how they are infiltrating the US government by making fake aliens (Greys). It has lots of awesome elements like the Germans resurrecting the dead in WW2 as Zombies to fight the US/British troops at D-Day, the US government figuring out what was happening at Innsmouth and invading the place (and wiping the whole lot of them out) etc etc. The two main source books, Delta Green and Aftermath are probably two of the best source books ever made for any game system I've ever owned.
Best of all, it succeeds in still being fundamentally the same system as Call of Cthulhu, but basically has its own unique tone and feel. I've never played regular (non-DG) Call of Cthulhu since getting those books.
I would actually argue that 4e is more flexible. Sure you don't have the million PrC's to choose from, but really, how many of those were good? I don't remember that many that were worth it, and from those there were a handful that were just silly and broken beyond repair.
With 4e each character has the chance to choose between 4 or so powers each level and there wont be many (at least not that you play with) that choose the same power set. Then you get the option of multiclassing and taking powers from other classes by replacing your powers, this makes it even less likely that you will have a copy of someone else's character. And then on top of that, you can take one of the paragon paths of your multiclass class, giving you around 10 or so choices for that. By the time you finish with the character (IE: get to 30 and have your epic destiny pull you out into NPC territory) you have created a completely unique character, not counting all the RP you've gone through with your character.
In 3.5 (which is the only other version of D&D Ive played) level 20 fighter A was the same as level 20 fighter B with the exception of a couple feats. This was pretty much the same for all the classes. The PrC's added a level of complexity but then like I said earlier, I thought most of them were not worth taking or just terribly broken.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
In 4th ed though, you don't have to deal with that. Classes are reasonably balanced in regards to eachother, making them all viable choices for your players instead of having to go "I want to play a guy who hits stuff with a sword" - "Make a cleric."