Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5809828" data-attributes="member: 7006">I actually have no real problems with removing the identification of &quot;roles&quot; from the game... simply because their conception has already served it purpose.Roles were put into place for two real reasons: 1) Giving the game designers a baseline of power when creating classes, and 2) Telling players what the classes were good at.Number 1) has done its job admirably.&nbsp; The designers of D&amp;DN now know how to be more diligent in not overpowering or underpowering a class.&nbsp; We won't ever see the Bard be as ineffectual comparatively as it was back in 3E.&nbsp; They now know what a solid Bard class should be capable of and how it probably should compare to other classes of its ilk.&nbsp; They don't need assign it the role of &quot;leader&quot; anymore... because they know intuitively how it should be regardless.&nbsp; Likewise... they also know not to put so much power into the hands of the Cleric or Druid that allowed them to effectively play two or three roles at the same time and at the same level of ability as another class as they did in 3E.&nbsp; They know it intuitively now as part of good design, and don't need to explicitly say it out loud to realize it.&nbsp; And this is a good thing.And as far as 2)... I think some of that will come down to how the classes are described in the class section, some of that will come down to what theme get selected (which will probably indicate to the player in its description what style of combat focus they will probably lean towards or be good at), and some of that could come down to helpful hints in the DMG that might talk about the DM assisting the player in deciding what he wants his character to do, and what the DM can then look for within the game to point the player in that direction.&nbsp; That, and that pretty much all of us already know intuitively what classes tend to be good at, even if the term &quot;role&quot; is never explicitly used.So ditch the word if it means that much to people.&nbsp; After all, we're still going to use the concepts and party-building precepts of them anyway, because we have 40 years of gaming experience to tell us they are actually fairly useful.&nbsp; Even if we don't want to actually say it out loud.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 5809828, member: 7006"] I actually have no real problems with removing the identification of "roles" from the game... simply because [I]their conception has already served it purpose[/I]. Roles were put into place for two real reasons: 1) Giving the game designers a baseline of power when creating classes, and 2) Telling players what the classes were good at. Number 1) has done its job admirably. The designers of D&DN [I]now know[/I] how to be more diligent in not overpowering or underpowering a class. We won't ever see the Bard be as ineffectual comparatively as it was back in 3E. They now know what a solid Bard class should be capable of and how it probably should compare to other classes of its ilk. They don't need [I]assign[/I] it the role of "leader" anymore... because they know intuitively how it should be regardless. Likewise... they also know not to put so much power into the hands of the Cleric or Druid that allowed them to effectively play two or three roles [I]at the same time and at the same level of ability[/I] as another class as they did in 3E. They know it intuitively now as part of good design, and don't need to explicitly say it out loud to realize it. And this is a good thing. And as far as 2)... I think some of that will come down to how the classes are described in the class section, some of that will come down to what theme get selected (which will probably indicate to the player in [I]its[/I] description what style of combat focus they will probably lean towards or be good at), and some of that could come down to helpful hints in the DMG that might talk about the DM assisting the player in deciding what he wants his character to do, and what the DM can then look for within the game to point the player in that direction. That, and that pretty much all of us already know intuitively what classes tend to be good at, even if the term "role" is never explicitly used. So ditch the word if it means that much to people. After all, we're still going to use the concepts and party-building precepts of them anyway, because we have 40 years of gaming experience to tell us they are actually fairly useful. Even if we don't want to actually say it out loud. [/QUOTE]

Verification