Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5808297">Any difference you're making here is entirely splitting hairs.We all know a rogue is a striker, regardless of if he's got a little gold star over his head that marks him as a striker.&nbsp; I think this will play in very very importantly into how they integrate essentially similar classes, or classes with very different roles(like cleric, druid, ect...).&nbsp; Will putting &quot;striker&quot; in front of &quot;wizard&quot; prevent him from being a controller?&nbsp; Will putting &quot;leader&quot; in front of cleric prevent him from being a healer?&nbsp; ect...For certain classes, it's explicit that you are X and can only be X because the system is designed solely around X concept where X is all you are.&nbsp; For other classes, it's less explicit and in the end where it will matter most, I think it will be interesting to see if Wizards decides to split every class with more than one role into unique classes unto themselves, or combine &quot;core variants&quot; into &quot;themes&quot; or &quot;advenement paths&quot; for core classes.If the former I think roles will be incredibly explicit, but it won't matter since we'll know we're playing a templar or a hospitalier because of their specific role.&nbsp; If the latter I agree that roles should be more implied given the varitiey the class posesses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 5808297"] Any difference you're making here is entirely splitting hairs. We all know a rogue is a striker, regardless of if he's got a little gold star over his head that marks him as a striker. I think this will play in very very importantly into how they integrate essentially similar classes, or classes with very different roles(like cleric, druid, ect...). Will putting "striker" in front of "wizard" prevent him from being a controller? Will putting "leader" in front of cleric prevent him from being a healer? ect... For certain classes, it's explicit that you are X and can only be X because the system is designed solely around X concept where X is all you are. For other classes, it's less explicit and in the end where it will matter most, I think it will be interesting to see if Wizards decides to split every class with more than one role into unique classes unto themselves, or combine "core variants" into "themes" or "advenement paths" for core classes. If the former I think roles will be incredibly explicit, but it won't matter since we'll know we're playing a templar or a hospitalier because of their specific role. If the latter I agree that roles should be more implied given the varitiey the class posesses. [/QUOTE]

Verification