Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5819247" data-attributes="member: 1879">No. No it doesn't. Aragorn is THE iconic Ranger. He is why they had awkward spell access. &quot;Can I model Aragorn&quot; has always be THE test of the Ranger class. He is why the class exists.Frodo was a commoner who prestiged classed into Elf friend.&nbsp; Gandalf was a DMNPC demigod. Modeling heroic fantasy literature has always been an explicit goal of D&amp;D. Lord of the Rings is the 800lb gorilla in that room.&nbsp;&nbsp;When was Fafhrd keeping the bad guys off a squishy wizard? Paks did not exert 4e style field control and marking. Caramon was based on D&amp;D but still was not notably better at field control than the barmaid with the frying pan. I have not read the Kushiel series.Defender is a job, not a powerset. 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. Classes are too, to be fair, but I think they give more than they take away. 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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 5819247, member: 1879"] 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. Frodo was a commoner who prestiged classed into Elf friend. Gandalf was a DMNPC demigod. Modeling heroic fantasy literature has always been an explicit goal of D&D. Lord of the Rings is the 800lb gorilla in that room. When was Fafhrd keeping the bad guys off a squishy wizard? Paks did not exert 4e style field control and marking. Caramon was based on D&D but still was not notably better at field control than the barmaid with the frying pan. I have not read the Kushiel series. Defender is a job, not a powerset. 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. Classes are too, to be fair, but I think they give more than they take away. Tell me if you can. What benefit is derived from having [b]explict[/b] roles that cannot be achieved by simply allowing the concept of roles to inform the background system design? [/QUOTE]

Verification