Search results

No. If you want to insist on using the 4e roles as you do, fine. But that doesn't change the facts. I also won't excuse the terrible names given to what the 4e roles were supposed to encompass. The designers shouldn't have tried to pick single words to encompass them.

The armor would probably be damaged, perhaps beyond the point of repair.

And everyone also knows the combat involves both offense and defense. To call the fighter a defender is to make them choose between the two, and the rogue has no business at all being called either. The rogue is a back-up character, and a sneaky character who sometimes tries to backstab for...

AC was a modifier. It got smaller the better it was because it brought down the attack roll.

Only you can know if any strategic advice is useful at your table. The reason a label would be a mistake is because so many people rejected the notion. Too many fans do not want one. Even if they were designed sensibly, I suspect they'd still reject them for the same reasons. People don't...

It's about freedom to make your own setting how you want. I can't speak to whether anything in it was made as a parody, funny or not. In my experience, there are two kinds of campaigns with DragonLance. The first is Ansalonian. This typically brings in elements from the novels, but depending on...

In your specific case, what would you like the setting to have? What do you dislike about FR or Greyhawk?

I never saw a player do anything of the kind, but I believe people who say they saw it, so I say there were roles for some people. I wouldn't want the game to tell players what the combat role of the characters of a given class is, though. Even if it's useful strategic advice, it should be...

I've always run a happy balance between the two. The story has usually be very well written (or so I hoped), and it's really most important, but the game comes in at just less than 50/50. The game style is like a sacred right you can expect as a player. You bend enough to let the DM tell...

I think it's true in every edition.

It's entertaining. It was never punitive. In a sense, it rewarded success and survival, and made it much harder to have a high level character ever, but it was just entertaining.

1) There is a different take on the races and plenty of new ones to choose from. This makes the setting very flavorful and gives it charm. 2) There is also a different take on character classes and magic. They feel more fleshed-out and more integrated into the world. Play a noble knight or a...

I mean everything should be decribed under character classes, with no combat roles labeled or summarized. The strategic ideas encapsulated particularly by the 4e roles should also be presented only as one possible formulation. The four core classes make a separate point, like every other class...

Some things that were agreed upon earlier in the thread were - some people could always see the 4e roles in earlier editions of D&D going back to 1st Edition AD&D - some people could not see the 4e roles, or indeed, any trace of them, before 4e How do you reconcile those two positions? It's...

It's difficult to watch. There should be more focus.

It's useless. Take a look at the fighter, which is your example. The fighter was not a defensive character, he wasn't always heavily armored, he was adept at dealing damage to large numbers of targets and he typically was both a ranged combatant and a melee combatant. The fighter always varied...

Horrifying. If I had known, I may never have played 2nd Edition.

It happens. It doesn't mean the same people wouldn't do better if given a second chance, though. I have said again and again, "just listen to the fans", and I doubt this will ever be bad advice.

I would do the same.

I am the one who is unimpressed. You can call a fighter a defender if you want, but that is not the case in the game as it is intended to be played.