Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 5783489" data-attributes="member: 5142">Not at all. It shouldn't be a case of Problem X that requires Skill Y is easily solvable by Spell Z. Why is the existence of Knock necessary? Others say because there's no rogue, but Knock perfectly performs the function of a rogue. Why can't the wizard use one of their other damage spells to simply "hammer" the lock/door like the fighter would? In both of these cases, it's not as if they are outperforming the rogue because they are essentially using their mismatched abilities for "hammering in screws," which may work, but it is not as elegant as someone equipped with a screwdriver. But there should be no corresponding spell that perfectly mimics the ability, though there should be creative ways around the problem. But the bold is the problem. Work on removing certain assumptions that are laced regarding party composition. For example, there is the assumption that parties must have healers (or at least access to a lot of healing potions/wands). But such assumptions lead to the idea of "there must always be a class to fill the role of the X." The idea of the "balanced party" needs to die. But why is it assumed that you need access to all of those abilities? See the problem yet? And I think that Rodney Thompson touched upon this idea in his <a href="http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120110" target="_blank">Rule-of-Three</a> article last week: The reduction of a need for a cleric is one of the things I enjoy most about 4th Edition, not because I don't like clerics (actually, I love clerics) but rather because it gives the party a lot more flexibility in building their characters. The advent of the leader role allowed players to fulfill the function of the healer without requiring them to adhere to the story elements that come with being a cleric. Furthermore, when working on Dark Sun the advantages became even clearer, as we could cut out the divine power source without worrying about creating a bad play experience. As a designer, that's very liberating; as a player, a large amount of social and game pressure falls away when no one class is "required" for success. That said, it raises some interesting questions about the concept of healers, and roles in general. Should the game even ask you to have a leader or healer? For that matter, a defender? A controller? Should any role be necessary, given how liberating the step from cleric to leader felt? I don't think "requiring someone to be a healer" is a sacred cow, but having healers in the game is. I wouldn't want to see D&D do away with healing, but I don't think there's anything keeping us from exploring a version of D&D where players can simply play anything they want, ignoring concepts like role and function when putting together their party. To do so, we would need to take a serious look at the way player resources are allocated in D&D, and make some adjustments to the assumptions behind the design of everything from adventures to encounters to monsters.</blockquote>

Verification