Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FourthBear" data-source="post: 4002949" data-attributes="member: 55846">I believe the primary motivation for making more explicit class roles is to address some of the &quot;problem classes&quot; in 3e.&nbsp; There were many complaints about classes like the bard and monk not being very effective in combat.&nbsp; I've often seen players complain that these and other &quot;oddball&quot; classes had a hard time contributing since they didn't seem to have a clear place to shine in combat.&nbsp; For better or ill (I generally think better), the 4e designers went back to tactical class roles in D&amp;D, looking at previous editions and CRPG design.&nbsp; By breaking it down into a few general classes of tactical roles, a class can be designed to have the minimum competency to work in that role.&nbsp; It should be noted that a class need not be designed to serve *only* in that role, but that it have as a default the attributes to serve adequately across all levels.&nbsp; From descriptions of the warlock, it will have the ability to serve as a ranged striker, able to do sizable damage to particular opponents, depending on tactical circumstances.&nbsp; Some of the other revealed class abilities of the warlock are appropriate for a controller or other class role.&nbsp; However, the warlock's class description will include default abilities that will allow it to serve as a ranged striker at all levels.&nbsp; I think this is a reasonable way to think about designing classes such that they have something to contribute while not greatly restricting them.&nbsp; It also aids in knowing if classes will overlap in central combat responsibilities.&nbsp; Will it be impossible or even difficult to have a party of all strikers?&nbsp; About as troublesome as having an all-one-class party in previous edition, perhaps less so.&nbsp; I find a more interesting question beyond whether considering combat roles is appropriate: are there any class roles that have been missed beyond the ones that the designers have named?&nbsp; Or are the class roles given too broad are there any that should be split up?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FourthBear, post: 4002949, member: 55846"] I believe the primary motivation for making more explicit class roles is to address some of the "problem classes" in 3e. There were many complaints about classes like the bard and monk not being very effective in combat. I've often seen players complain that these and other "oddball" classes had a hard time contributing since they didn't seem to have a clear place to shine in combat. For better or ill (I generally think better), the 4e designers went back to tactical class roles in D&D, looking at previous editions and CRPG design. By breaking it down into a few general classes of tactical roles, a class can be designed to have the minimum competency to work in that role. It should be noted that a class need not be designed to serve *only* in that role, but that it have as a default the attributes to serve adequately across all levels. From descriptions of the warlock, it will have the ability to serve as a ranged striker, able to do sizable damage to particular opponents, depending on tactical circumstances. Some of the other revealed class abilities of the warlock are appropriate for a controller or other class role. However, the warlock's class description will include default abilities that will allow it to serve as a ranged striker at all levels. I think this is a reasonable way to think about designing classes such that they have something to contribute while not greatly restricting them. It also aids in knowing if classes will overlap in central combat responsibilities. Will it be impossible or even difficult to have a party of all strikers? About as troublesome as having an all-one-class party in previous edition, perhaps less so. I find a more interesting question beyond whether considering combat roles is appropriate: are there any class roles that have been missed beyond the ones that the designers have named? Or are the class roles given too broad are there any that should be split up? [/QUOTE]

Verification