Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5822870" data-attributes="member: 1879">I can't speak for anyone else, but no. That's not whay I'm saying, this is:Roles are the central driving focus of class design in 4e.4e has many elements of class design that I do not like.I do not like powers so gamist and abstract that I cannot imagine how they could conceiveably work. I'm not talking about magic btw.I do not like niche protection.I do not like making everyone, including the basket weaver, into a Vancian character.I do not like the universal complexity that demands every class be played by someone with systems mastery equivilent to a 3e spell caster. I didn't play many casters in 3e, because I cannot, at my age, be bothered reading through thousands of spell descriptions. YMMV.I do not like the inflexible siloing of 4e class design structure.I'm told that some of these things were fixed (Or broken, apparently) late in 4es life. I wouldn't know, I only have the base three books. I'm glad to hear they finally acknowledged and tried to fix things towards the end. The same thing happend towards the end of 3e, and it was some of the best stuff written for the system like the Bo9S as they started to explore the design space for 4e.But from these things I conclude that 4e style explicit roles carry a lot of very negative baggage, and they do it for a benefit which I think is fairly minimal.Since even the most ardent of 4e style role supporters seem to be telling me that they failed utterly in their job of allowing WotC to control what happened on other peoples tables I'll ask again: Why should explicit roles exist in 5e?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 5822870, member: 1879"] I can't speak for anyone else, but no. That's not whay I'm saying, this is: Roles are the central driving focus of class design in 4e. 4e has many elements of class design that I do not like. I do not like powers so gamist and abstract that I cannot imagine how they could conceiveably work. I'm not talking about magic btw. I do not like niche protection. I do not like making everyone, including the basket weaver, into a Vancian character. I do not like the universal complexity that demands every class be played by someone with systems mastery equivilent to a 3e spell caster. I didn't play many casters in 3e, because I cannot, at my age, be bothered reading through thousands of spell descriptions. YMMV. I do not like the inflexible siloing of 4e class design structure. I'm told that some of these things were fixed (Or broken, apparently) late in 4es life. I wouldn't know, I only have the base three books. I'm glad to hear they finally acknowledged and tried to fix things towards the end. The same thing happend towards the end of 3e, and it was some of the best stuff written for the system like the Bo9S as they started to explore the design space for 4e. But from these things I conclude that 4e style explicit roles carry a lot of very negative baggage, and they do it for a benefit which I think is fairly minimal. Since even the most ardent of 4e style role supporters seem to be telling me that they failed utterly in their job of allowing WotC to control what happened on other peoples tables I'll ask again: Why should explicit roles exist in 5e? [/QUOTE]

Verification