Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7232622" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>That's too bad, because they are an arbitrary list of classes chosen only for backwards compatibility with editions other than 4e (or there'd be a Warlord - no, I will not ever shut up about that).</p><p></p><p> Nod. Prior to, Class had existed at the intersection of Source and Role. Post-Essentials, sub-class did. The functional difference was that you could have different class features emphasizing a different role, while still leveraging the existing list of powers. That's the exact same insight as Abdul mentioned, above, in the context of consolidating powers by source. </p><p></p><p>Functionally, having powers by source and roles by class is about the same as having powers by class and roles by sub-class, the main difference being there are more classes, and some of them are going to be redundant if you follow through and give each all 4 roles...</p><p></p><p> That'd at least give you a reason to have multiple martial strikers or arcane controllers or whatever... </p><p></p><p> The HotFw Berserker captured that particularly well, Rage was a switch that changed your role. </p><p></p><p> That's a legacy from when the Bard was a not-so-great class (or proto-PrC, for that matter). The Bard concepts makes a good deal of sense as a leader, and could make some as a controller (not the blasty kind). That's really about it. </p><p></p><p> Fits with the Cleric as the original leader (healer), but clashes with it's secondary-controller role (which goes way back, because it's always been a full caster with condition-inflicting and area-damage spells).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> That's a pretty good idea. Non-supernatural characters in D&D suffer from a profound lack of versatility relative to Tier 1 classes, while they may never be able to engage in conjuring up a variety of named damage types, <em>ex nillo</em> creation, or any of the myriad things magic writes onto it's blank check as a matter of course, being able to fairly easily switch roles by changing gear & tactics would be a level of versatility, one that could be un-matched by classes that get their role support primarily from more fixed class features.</p><p></p><p>Obviously, S&B and heavy-armor works for the Defender role, TWF, GWF, & Archery; also fairly obviously, lighter armor for Striker; Pole-arms, martial arts, & thrown weapons (and archery, again) and lighter (even no?) armor could work for control, going on past builds & powers, like the 3e reach-based battle-field-control builds, and powers like blinding barrage, for instance. </p><p></p><p>The Leader role doesn't seem much to speak to weapons & gear, though. Separate Warlord class for that would make sense. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p> Yes, that's what it's called - IDK what the big deal was about it, though. :shrug:</p><p></p><p> Works. Hm... works for Avenger, too. </p><p></p><p> Oh, please, no. Not the Grizzly Adams thing. Seriously, the Ranger got some companions at name level, and could cast Animal Friendship around the same level. How did that become Animal Companion in 3e, anyway? </p><p></p><p>Just drop the class rather than go there. </p><p></p><p> Works in 13A. That's how Lurkers tended to work, and the upshot was that the pay-off had to be overwhelming to be relevant. Meh. I still feel the thief should just be folded into the fighter. That is, if you can get the fighter to seamlessly go either DEX or STR, like in 5e (see 5e's done a few things well).</p><p></p><p> I'm seeing less and less reason to break these two out. </p><p></p><p> Not ideal. The wizard has been the most versatile class in every edition, making it something of an advanced/special case. As a baseline that's problematic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7232622, member: 996"] That's too bad, because they are an arbitrary list of classes chosen only for backwards compatibility with editions other than 4e (or there'd be a Warlord - no, I will not ever shut up about that). Nod. Prior to, Class had existed at the intersection of Source and Role. Post-Essentials, sub-class did. The functional difference was that you could have different class features emphasizing a different role, while still leveraging the existing list of powers. That's the exact same insight as Abdul mentioned, above, in the context of consolidating powers by source. Functionally, having powers by source and roles by class is about the same as having powers by class and roles by sub-class, the main difference being there are more classes, and some of them are going to be redundant if you follow through and give each all 4 roles... That'd at least give you a reason to have multiple martial strikers or arcane controllers or whatever... The HotFw Berserker captured that particularly well, Rage was a switch that changed your role. That's a legacy from when the Bard was a not-so-great class (or proto-PrC, for that matter). The Bard concepts makes a good deal of sense as a leader, and could make some as a controller (not the blasty kind). That's really about it. Fits with the Cleric as the original leader (healer), but clashes with it's secondary-controller role (which goes way back, because it's always been a full caster with condition-inflicting and area-damage spells). That's a pretty good idea. Non-supernatural characters in D&D suffer from a profound lack of versatility relative to Tier 1 classes, while they may never be able to engage in conjuring up a variety of named damage types, [i]ex nillo[/i] creation, or any of the myriad things magic writes onto it's blank check as a matter of course, being able to fairly easily switch roles by changing gear & tactics would be a level of versatility, one that could be un-matched by classes that get their role support primarily from more fixed class features. Obviously, S&B and heavy-armor works for the Defender role, TWF, GWF, & Archery; also fairly obviously, lighter armor for Striker; Pole-arms, martial arts, & thrown weapons (and archery, again) and lighter (even no?) armor could work for control, going on past builds & powers, like the 3e reach-based battle-field-control builds, and powers like blinding barrage, for instance. The Leader role doesn't seem much to speak to weapons & gear, though. Separate Warlord class for that would make sense. ;) Yes, that's what it's called - IDK what the big deal was about it, though. :shrug: Works. Hm... works for Avenger, too. Oh, please, no. Not the Grizzly Adams thing. Seriously, the Ranger got some companions at name level, and could cast Animal Friendship around the same level. How did that become Animal Companion in 3e, anyway? Just drop the class rather than go there. Works in 13A. That's how Lurkers tended to work, and the upshot was that the pay-off had to be overwhelming to be relevant. Meh. I still feel the thief should just be folded into the fighter. That is, if you can get the fighter to seamlessly go either DEX or STR, like in 5e (see 5e's done a few things well). I'm seeing less and less reason to break these two out. Not ideal. The wizard has been the most versatile class in every edition, making it something of an advanced/special case. As a baseline that's problematic. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E
Top