with casting times, spell failure, and risks of casting spells it is entirely possiboe to do. For me 2E was as balanced as I needed. But you could certqinly take it further, retaining the wizard's breadth of options but imposing things like harsher casting times. I much prefer an approach pike this than the narrowing of class roles you had in 4E. I want my casters to be interesting and have lot of options.
And yet I've retired a 4e wizard for overwhelming the DM with all his tricks and stunts. At third level. It just took more work than overwhelming him with a previous edition one would.
No. No it doesn't. Aragorn is THE iconic Ranger. He is why they had awkward spell access. "Can I model Aragorn" has always be THE test of the Ranger class. He is why the class exists.
Aragorn is the iconic
1e ranger right down to their ability to use crystal balls as he used the Palantir. What he is not is a twin sword waving dervish of the
2e ranger. Or even that much of a
3.0 ranger whose defining feature was two weapon fighting. The ranger has changed over the years and it's only the
1e ranger that's a good fit.
Gandalf was a DMNPC demigod.
Who used maybe half a dozen spells in the whole of LoTR. But DMPC qualifies.
Modeling heroic fantasy literature has always been an explicit goal of D&D. Lord of the Rings is the 800lb gorilla in that room.
Pre 4e it fails even at Jack Vance despite the "Vancian" casting. It fails to get the Grey Mouser
at all. Ritual Caster being a 4e inovation.
When was Fafhrd keeping the bad guys off a squishy wizard?
When was he up in the face of enemies so if they took their attention off him he'd slice them open? A much better reflection of the defender. And what marking represents.
Paks did not exert 4e style field control and marking.
No. She just made sure that people dealt with her not those she was protecting. Which is what defenders do. The marks are a mechanical representation of this.
Caramon was based on D&D but still was not notably better at field control than the barmaid with the frying pan.
But he was better at getting in the way, being a meatshield, and making sure people attacked him and not his brother.
I have not read the Kushiel series.
Jocelyn was a trained bodyguard.
Defender is a job, not a powerset.
And the defender mechanics give you the tools to do the job. Rather than just standing there like a stuffed lemon as people play splat the mage.
The thing about explicit roles is that they are an entirely gamist construction and I despise their intrusion into the simulation aspects of the game.
Because getting up in someone's face is an entirely gamist construction? Because being alert of anything that's going on round you so you can punish a moment of inattention is a gamist construction?
Marking as a term isn't meant as in "with a highlighter pen". It's meant as on the football field or basketball court.
Tell me if you can. What benefit is derived from having explict roles that cannot be achieved by simply allowing the concept of roles to inform the background system design?
Given that role has no
direct mechanical input, I don't understand the question. The roles are made explicit because it makes things easier for new players. Marking from a fighter is a physical reflection of what they do, crowding, and making sure that if their targets stop paying attention they are dead.
It also gives more of a reminder for the designers to stay focussed so you don't end up with the 3.X Monk (Jack of No Trades) or the 3.X Druid. Whether you need to explicitely say which role people have at the end is neither here nor there.
