Simia Saturnalia said:I thought it was really Ted Turner?
(Everybody that doesn't get that loses points.)
CAAAPTAIN PLANET!
Simia Saturnalia said:I thought it was really Ted Turner?
(Everybody that doesn't get that loses points.)
Aust Diamondew said:Hmm. I'd guess for two reasons.
1) D&D groups typically have 5 players (don't know if this is true or not).
2) There were 4 traditional roles, warrior, thief, mage, priest. While 4e changes these roles, I guess they want to stick at least somewhat with the old way.
Ryan Stoughton said:Exactly like the title. If there are 4 roles to be covered, why will 4e expect 5 players?
Because there are NOT 4 roles to be covered. That is the main issue. There are four roles that each class is one of, but the important thing is that a party in 4e does not need to have those roles covered, so it currently seems. A party might consist of all strikers and defenders or some other combo and still be roughly able to handle the things a party with all four roles covered.Ryan Stoughton said:Exactly like the title. If there are 4 roles to be covered, why will 4e expect 5 players?
hahaGundark said:This can only mean one thing......
DMPCs are now core.....
You heard it here first folks!!!!
Dr. Awkward said:Someone has to carry the gold.