NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hassassin" data-source="post: 5813726" data-attributes="member: 6675228">Reasons I dislike the combat roles.1. Terminology.I think the rules should, where possible, use terms that have a meaning in the game world. I wouldn't want the PC's discussion of recruiting a cohort include "we could use a striker", because the word "striker" isn't something I think characters in the game world would use. The word "leader" is even more confusing, since it has nothing to do with who leads the party. At least "healer" would be unambiguous and something characters might use...For example, the Ranger class could be described with in-game terms like: "Rangers are protectors of nature (like wardens) who are good at survival skills. In combat situations a ranger usually either fights at a distance with a ranged weapon or moves around the battlefield with two melee weapons. He is better at avoiding attacks than going toe-to-toe with strong enemies."(As a more extreme example of describing characters using meta-game terms, surely no one would want the PHB to mention "damage per round" or "debuffing". And no, this isn't meant to refer to video games, but Char-Op terms.)2. Emphasis on combat.I don't think each and every character should be as good at fighting. There are a lot of other areas in the game, and balancing a strong non-combat role with weaker in-combat performance is in my opinion fine. Unless every character is as good at all areas of play, there's no reason combat should be a special case.Players who don't like to participate as much outside combat situations often gravitate towards combat-themed classes like the fighter. Having them contribute more to combat would be a way to balance their lower out-of-combat participation.(That doesn't mean any character should suck at combat. At least unless the player and the group are OK with that.)3. The idea that roles are static.In previous editions, a wizard has been able to change his role by preparing different spells and a fighter by switching weapons. Roles should be a tactical or strategic choice, not a character building choice. Magic items and even mundane equipment should allow a character to do things that fall under roles his class doesn't usually do well.4. The idea that all roles should be filled.This isn't something the rules say, just a kind of thinking that I've seen roles promote. I don't want to put that kind of limitations on party formation and character choices. Older editions that don't have explicit combat roles also have aspects that cause this sort of thinking, like the Rogue being the only class with Trapfinding. I'd like to see that fixed, rather than reinforced.This, together with the above point, also pushes players to thinking any choice they make in building their character that doesn't contribute to their role is somehow bad.</blockquote>

Verification