Search results

you can't bring them together without having both elements. So it still has classes. But what it brings from the point based systems, is options and the ability to customize (though multiclassing and a fairly robust skill system). I am not saying it has all of the elements of a point based...

This is all in how you cut it. Instead of four roles, they could have made six for example. Or they could have focused on different things, like making it strictly damage output. When you are dealing with models, you are going to cover all your bases, but it isn't the only way to look at the...

I like point based games too. BUt sometimes they lead to characters that don't make sense, or are seriously under powered. In 3E, the taking levels in a class was how you customized. So you don't have a magic skill in 3E, but everyone can take levels in wizards if they want to.

But this concept existed, and worked in 3E; you could muticlass half your levels as a fighter and half as a cleric. I have only played in two 4E campaigns, which means I have only played two characters; A fighter and a Ranger. Personally I found myself constrained during combat as a fighter...

But having both classes and roles is overkill. At the end of the day, all defenders fuction as defenders, they can't be anything else. If you are going to have classes that matter, they should be able to take on multiple roles.

No. That is how they work in 4E because 4E is designed to work that way. But classes have traditional been a set of strengths. Roles are a construct, a way of looking at how people perform in combat. Just like social styles programs are models for looking how people interact with one another...

Then all you would need are classes, not roles. Roles are more specific functions than class. A class covers something like "can hit really hard and stay up", roles say, the guy who can hit really hard and stay up has to be on the front line to tie up enemies. It is very different. Balancing...

And the thief is meant to reflect the chaotic part of the alignment spectrum. Since D&D it has been pretty much about moral absolutes. That doesn't mean there can't be nuance within each given alignment, and it certainly doesn't mean people need to go around playing lawful stupid chracters, but...

But the thing is, this isn't the villain's book, it is the heroes'. Not saying there shouldn't be some gray, but for me, nothing beats a really bad, bad guy.

i have seen tons of debates over morality at the gaming table. Tons. D&D was actually smart by basically saying, yah in the real world morality is complicated, but this is Dungeons and Dragons, and morality is absolute.

Oh, I agree almost completely. The first part of my post really had to do with statements some had made early on in the discussion here. Personally I don't mind a little grey; but there needs to be a moral persptive. You can't just say, hey all alignments are equally valid. At the same time...

I think there is middle ground here. Obviously in discussions of morality, you are dealing with perspective. To the green tribe that lives in the moutnains slaughtering babies isn't evil, but to the red tribe living in the plains, slaughtering babies is most definitely evil. So there we have it...

Even without specific mechanical benefits, having that kind of 'relationship' with a divine entity, will create balance issues. Again, I am just going on what has been said, but when a player asks for this sort of thing, it usually isn't just a fluff thing. There are expecting some benefits...

Maybe I am just old school, but I don't get a control freak GM vibe from him. Remember it is the job of the GM to enforce the rules of the game, so that everyone has fun and the game is balanced. What this player proposed was potentially unbalancing. I know I wouldn't want another player to...

I understand why they introduced roles, and they were already starting to come in late in 3E, but personally I found them constraining. As a player it was like being handed a position on a football team. It just made combat not that fun for me. As a GM, It makes designing the encounters harder...

Oryan77, you have proven your case well. Kudos for coming here and outing yourself. It seems to me like you were being a level headed DM.

I have always been a fighter guy. And I didn't really like playing a fighter in 4E. Not really sure why. It just didn't 'fit' like the 3E fighter for me.

I based one of my settings on the Byzantine Empire. Lots of fun. Did you find any interesting source material?

I don't know; guys who take on pet projects outside of their field, are usually not reliable in my experience. That, and others in fields related to the subject, appear to reject his claims. I would treat his conclusions with caution.

Celebrim, I hadn't forgotten about the honor thy father and mother commandments; but I still think there is a strong difference and that can't just be explained as pre v post industrial. Referring to parents as being like angels is really striking to me; and it is very common among the large...