Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CardinalXimenes" data-source="post: 3948049" data-attributes="member: 58259">You've been soaking in it for thirty years.For decades, somebody's been in front keeping the monsters off the squishies. Somebody's been the glass cannon who trades cosmic nuke power for being a wimp in a nightgown. Somebody's been the healer who's not much for hurting people. Some roles have had powers explicitly tailored for them, as with the ancient presumption that magic-users should have blasty damage spells and clerics should have healy-buffy spells. Other roles have not, such as the presumption that the fighter should just hope the monsters are too dumb to ignore him and kill the one in the dress. The lack of mental concision in imagining what each role should be doing in a fight has caused a lot of blur that these clear role definitions avoid.Now, it's reasonable that you might want a character that combines multiple combat roles. You might want a beefshield who can buff, or an archer that can hold off a swarm. These roles will be available to you with cross-training feats and multiclassing- but you will not be as good a beefshield as a focused Fighter or as good a battlefield controller as a focused Wizard. If the end result isn't good enough to serve as a defender or a controller in the party without eclipsing specialists, then there's a problem, but it's an implementation problem rather than a design problem.</blockquote>