Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Terraism" data-source="post: 5820088" data-attributes="member: 278">What I don't understand here, then, is why you've defined this character as a fighter - in any edition.&nbsp; If you're playing a cowardly weak guy who's always picked on, wouldn't he make more sense as a rogue, or maybe a warlord with &quot;I don't attack&quot; powers?&nbsp; In the former case, you'd have a martial (no magic) character who kinda creeps and hides (ohgodnottheface) around the edges of combat and occasionally manages to stab someone in an important spot, and in the latter, it's a character who's shouting &quot;hit the big guy not me hit the big guy!&quot; and his party is kindly obliging.[EDIT] I will concede what Minigiant pointed out - yes, it's true that 4E roles don't allow &quot;I'm useless in a fight&quot; as a character option.&nbsp; I'd argue that it's not at all an issue with the idea of roles, however, just part of the design philosophy that expects all characters to be able to contribute to every arena of the game, social or combat.If it's important to people that such not be the case, I could see a case being made for a fifth defined role: &quot;none&quot;.&nbsp; For people who just plain don't contribute in a meaningful way.&nbsp; I'm still curious, by the way, how you would define that weakling character in, say, 3E or 2E, class-wise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Terraism, post: 5820088, member: 278"] What I don't understand here, then, is why you've defined this character as a fighter - in any edition. If you're playing a cowardly weak guy who's always picked on, wouldn't he make more sense as a rogue, or maybe a warlord with "I don't attack" powers? In the former case, you'd have a martial (no magic) character who kinda creeps and hides (ohgodnottheface) around the edges of combat and occasionally manages to stab someone in an important spot, and in the latter, it's a character who's shouting "hit the big guy not me hit the big guy!" and his party is kindly obliging. [EDIT] I will concede what Minigiant pointed out - yes, it's true that 4E roles [i]don't[/i] allow "I'm useless in a fight" as a character option. I'd argue that it's not at all an issue with the idea of roles, however, just part of the design philosophy that expects all characters to be able to contribute to every arena of the game, social or combat. If it's important to people that such not be the case, I could see a case being made for a fifth defined role: "none". For people who just plain don't contribute in a meaningful way. I'm still curious, by the way, how you would define that weakling character in, say, 3E or 2E, class-wise. [/QUOTE]

Verification