Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MarkChevallier" data-source="post: 5815219" data-attributes="member: 55538">I'm sorry, I don't think that's true in Fourth Edition. The combat role of &quot;the Fighter class&quot; doesn't match the breadth of scope belonging to the fantasy archetype of &quot;a Fighter&quot;. It is limited, highly limited, in part because it must adhere to its role of defender and in part because it can't steal the tactical niche possessed by certain other character types.The combat roles of 4E are peculiar to the tactical combat game of 4E, which is essentially unique to it. It didn't exist before then; in other editions, when tactical combat took a hand, the tactics used were based much more in &quot;real-world&quot; notions of what would be useful in battle, and less on specific, game-coded, bonuses and abilities which rewarded particular kinds of tactics. About the closest thing to it was the idea of flanking in 3E, which gave rogues and others specific bonuses with Sneak Attack. 4E saw the success of that kind of thing and stretched it out to make of it, essentially, the entire game. Having done that, the next step was to give each class something to do in that tactical game, and given the artificiality and game-like nature of it, the easiest way to do that was to define roles that each could perform, thus putting classes in particular kinds of broad categories that had nothing to do with their description or characteristics and everything to do with the existence of the tactical game.Without such a tactical focus, all you need is a return to the idea of &quot;this character excels in melee combat&quot;, &quot;this character is better at range&quot;, &quot;this character stays out of trouble and tries to help&quot;, &quot;this character is an excellent bodyguard&quot;; all of these based, not in class, but in the play preferences of the individuals. Some classes will be better than others at each role, but they are not straitjackets which define the class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MarkChevallier, post: 5815219, member: 55538"] I'm sorry, I don't think that's true in Fourth Edition. The combat role of "the Fighter class" doesn't match the breadth of scope belonging to the fantasy archetype of "a Fighter". It is limited, highly limited, in part because it must adhere to its role of defender and in part because it can't steal the tactical niche possessed by certain other character types. The combat roles of 4E are peculiar to the tactical combat game of 4E, which is essentially unique to it. It didn't exist before then; in other editions, when tactical combat took a hand, the tactics used were based much more in "real-world" notions of what would be useful in battle, and less on specific, game-coded, bonuses and abilities which rewarded particular kinds of tactics. About the closest thing to it was the idea of flanking in 3E, which gave rogues and others specific bonuses with Sneak Attack. 4E saw the success of that kind of thing and stretched it out to make of it, essentially, the entire game. Having done that, the next step was to give each class something to do in that tactical game, and given the artificiality and game-like nature of it, the easiest way to do that was to define roles that each could perform, thus putting classes in particular kinds of broad categories that had nothing to do with their description or characteristics and everything to do with the existence of the tactical game. Without such a tactical focus, all you need is a return to the idea of "this character excels in melee combat", "this character is better at range", "this character stays out of trouble and tries to help", "this character is an excellent bodyguard"; all of these based, not in class, but in the play preferences of the individuals. Some classes will be better than others at each role, but they are not straitjackets which define the class. [/QUOTE]

Verification