Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Terraism" data-source="post: 5819768" data-attributes="member: 278">I never really understand the argument that roles are in some way &quot;anti-roleplaying&quot; or &quot;pigeonholing&quot; characters.&nbsp; Roles are an entirely mechanical conceit - they have no bearing whatsoever on how the character is played, personality- and choice-wise.&nbsp; They exist to describe, at a glance, what a classes's primary combat strength is, and as such, I find them incredibly valuable.&nbsp; It's a quick way to narrow the mechanical field when there are twenty-some-odd classes to chose from.I think perhaps that the disconnect is on a level of &quot;what a class means,&quot; but that seems strange to me.&nbsp; I'm of the opinion that a class is a way to out-of-game define something in-game, but it's not referenced in the world at all.&nbsp; That is, a fighter (class) character doesn't necessarily introduce himself to people as &quot;a Fighter&quot;, but maybe &quot;a warrior&quot;, or &quot;adventurer&quot;, or &quot;juggernaut&quot; (or, okay, maybe &quot;fighter&quot;, but that's because it's a pretty generic word).&nbsp; A Ranger (class) might be a &quot;ranger&quot;, or a &quot;woodsman&quot;, an &quot;archer&quot; or a &quot;warrior&quot;.&nbsp; Roles are the same sort of thing.I guess that it seems to me that the complaint about roles being bad for the game looks at them in the wrong direction. You don't chose to play a fighter and become &quot;stuck&quot; playing a defender - you decide you want to be a brick wall that protects your friends and then play a fighter, because it's the most fitting, mechanically.&nbsp; If you chose that you wanted to be a fellow in heavy armor who tears things up, you play a slayer.In any case, I think the 4E roles are pretty close to spot-on, as far as how they describe the primary things people can do in combat.&nbsp; You can protect, damage, support, or interfere.&nbsp; Those map pretty straightforwardly to Defender, Striker, Leader, and Controller.&nbsp; I do think, though, that AoE damage should fall under a type of striker, not a type of controller.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Terraism, post: 5819768, member: 278"] I never really understand the argument that roles are in some way "anti-roleplaying" or "pigeonholing" characters. Roles are an entirely mechanical conceit - they have no bearing whatsoever on how the character is played, personality- and choice-wise. They exist to describe, at a glance, what a classes's primary combat strength is, and as such, I find them incredibly valuable. It's a quick way to narrow the mechanical field when there are twenty-some-odd classes to chose from. I think perhaps that the disconnect is on a level of "what a class means," but that seems strange to me. I'm of the opinion that a class is a way to out-of-game define something in-game, but it's not referenced in the world at all. That is, a fighter (class) character doesn't necessarily introduce himself to people as "a Fighter", but maybe "a warrior", or "adventurer", or "juggernaut" (or, okay, maybe "fighter", but that's because it's a pretty generic word). A Ranger (class) might be a "ranger", or a "woodsman", an "archer" or a "warrior". Roles are the same sort of thing. I guess that it seems to me that the complaint about roles being bad for the game looks at them in the wrong direction. You don't chose to play a fighter and become "stuck" playing a defender - you decide you want to be a brick wall that protects your friends and then play a fighter, because it's the most fitting, mechanically. If you chose that you wanted to be a fellow in heavy armor who tears things up, you play a slayer. In any case, I think the 4E roles are pretty close to spot-on, as far as how they describe the primary things people can do in combat. You can protect, damage, support, or interfere. Those map pretty straightforwardly to Defender, Striker, Leader, and Controller. I do think, though, that AoE damage should fall under a type of striker, not a type of controller. [/QUOTE]

Verification