Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zweischneid" data-source="post: 3882088" data-attributes="member: 11843">Hmm...Is there really a class associated with each role?I was actually hoping the roles would free up certain stereotypes and allow my to convey my image of character regardless of the class.I.e., I choose to play a cleric. As I want to fokus on high leadership, charisma, etc.., rather than.. say.. combat prowness, I tell my GM that I'm aiming for the Leader Role.Similarly, my friend wants to play a fighter specializing in thrown weapons and dirty tricks. He tells the GM he's aiming to be a controller (thereby avoiding being typecast into a defender).The third player takes a rogue. Since he likes the classical backstabbing, he'll do the obvious and be the Striker.The final player will take the Defender. But since he's the creative type, he'll use the much more customizable new 4.0 and be a Wizard, focusing on defensive magic and protection, he's now an Arcane Defender (and possibly, though not necessarily, have a streak of Gish).A different time in a different group, people might choose to play a Druid-Defender (Warrior of Nature), Paladin Striker (Holy Archer), Rogue-Leader (Charsimatic Con-Man) &amp; Wizard-Controller (Enigmatic Enchanter).Ideally, IMO, the new rules would be flexible enough to allow every class to potentially fill every role. Autolinking each class with a role would IMO be a major step backwards in flexiblity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zweischneid, post: 3882088, member: 11843"] Hmm... Is there really a class associated with each role? I was actually hoping the roles would free up certain stereotypes and allow my to convey my image of character regardless of the class. I.e., I choose to play a cleric. As I want to fokus on high leadership, charisma, etc.., rather than.. say.. combat prowness, I tell my GM that I'm aiming for the Leader Role. Similarly, my friend wants to play a fighter specializing in thrown weapons and dirty tricks. He tells the GM he's aiming to be a controller (thereby avoiding being typecast into a defender). The third player takes a rogue. Since he likes the classical backstabbing, he'll do the obvious and be the Striker. The final player will take the Defender. But since he's the creative type, he'll use the much more customizable new 4.0 and be a Wizard, focusing on defensive magic and protection, he's now an Arcane Defender (and possibly, though not necessarily, have a streak of Gish). A different time in a different group, people might choose to play a Druid-Defender (Warrior of Nature), Paladin Striker (Holy Archer), Rogue-Leader (Charsimatic Con-Man) & Wizard-Controller (Enigmatic Enchanter). Ideally, IMO, the new rules would be flexible enough to allow every class to potentially fill every role. Autolinking each class with a role would IMO be a major step backwards in flexiblity. [/QUOTE]

Verification