Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orryn Emrys" data-source="post: 3906784" data-attributes="member: 6799">I do agree with both of your points, in as much as we actually know about the material from the conjecture supported by the article.  However, I have an additional thought on the second point.Historically, prior to 3E, the game never offered the kind of cross-pollenation of character abilities frequently associated with individual classes that it now does.  In all honesty, I was so accustomed to viewing the rules of the game as exclusively modular, i.e. different abilities were, by and large, unique to different classes, that I was overjoyed to see a "build" system in which levels were modular enough to multi-class with such simple efficiency.  Obviously, we have long since uncovered the various drawbacks of this approach to character design, but I feel the core principle is very solid and I hope to see it improved upon in 4E... and expect to, from much of what I've heard.  I have also noticed, however, that the manner in which archtypical skillsets have become so watered down by cross-pollenation, making an individual character capable of doing so many different things, has also had an effect on character role-association that was always a strong element of the game during the early years, and many players still try to associate them as well as possible.  Filling a particular role in the party helps a PC feel useful and functional without overt competition.Many of my players are roleplaying purists, far more interested in the characters' personal motivations, agendas and experiences than their unique skillsets... but these elements are still strong motivating aspects of a character's level of interaction and, more importantly, value.  Even if they are relatively invisible under the level of person-to-person interaction that more clearly defines their role in the party... i.e. he's the smart one, she's the charmer, he's the tactician, etcetera (some of which are often a marriage of the character's skills and the player's, like it or not)... they often have an obvious subconscious effect on the character's sense of self-worth.  In fact, if a party never expects anything specific from a given PC... or worse, never needs him for anything... they are all the more likely to act as individuals with little regard for how their actions affect the group.  Much of the time, this detracts in many ways from the flow and momentum of the game, even if it can add depth to a character.  In my experience, most groups end up with a mix of these elements:  characters who are useful for unique abilities as well as characters who aren't.  And that has the potential to be quite problematic.Essentially, I am not concerned about the idea of pigeon-holing certain abilities into the skillsets of specific classes, particularly if multiclassing becomes even more effective than it is... but it might depend on what abililities we're talking about.  So the jury's still out on this one.As for your initial point... I really liked the fact that 3E feets, as a general rule, had names that simply described their utility in some fashion.  I rather disagree with the idea of granting them more colorful or stylistic names, particularly in the core rulebooks.</blockquote>

Verification