Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SweeneyTodd" data-source="post: 4287095" data-attributes="member: 9391">Or, to put it another way:4e is centered around the assumption that the PCs will form a functional "party". That party is going to need to be able to handle various challenges in and out of combat. They will need to be able to work together, and not have too much duplication of roles, while covering the general bases.3.x worked exactly the same way, if your game used the CR/EL guidelines for combat encounters. A rogue x2, bard, and wizard party in 3.x was not going to find a CR X encounter the same difficulty as fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. I don't think that's a very controversial statement (again, assuming you used CR/EL as written). One key difference is that there are fewer roles in 4e, and they have more overlap. The rules as written for combat aren't balanced around having a Cleric, they're balanced around having at least one character who can fulfill the Leader role in combat.I think people are getting hung up on roles as "This is what my character must be". They're not, they're "This is the thing we need, that my character is good at." They don't overshadow your characterization and fleshing out of your PC any more than they did in 3.x. If your cool character concept doesn't fit a class that can fill the Defender role but your group needs a Defender, then talk to the rest of the group. Figure out how you guys can all play characters you'll enjoy while also covering your tactical bases. --Here's another way to look at it: 3.x's flexibility allowed you to have a campaign start off with four players bringing socially-focused PCs to a dungeon crawl. That wasn't going to work without some heavy lifting on the part of the GM, but you could do it. 4e is like, "Hey, you can do that, but you might not want to." If you want to run games that don't focus on mechanically balanced combat challenges, and you already own and like using 3.x for that, then awesome -- why not use that? There are a lot of RPGs out there, and 4e is not trying to replace them all. It's trying to do one thing, and if that's not what you want to do, it's not wrong or broken because of your preferences. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I kind of enjoy the push-and-pull effect of building interesting, dynamic characters that also can work together tactically to overcome challenges. Our group doesn't have any issues with the roleplaying side of things, and I'm looking at 4e as an opportunity to incorporate some interesting tactical stuff into the roleplaying.</blockquote>

Verification