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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orryn Emrys" data-source="post: 4287180" data-attributes="member: 6799">I've examined this issue at length, and I, too, believe that the issues lie within the character roles outlined by the new system.  More to the point, however, is that the system, as a whole, is constructed around them.  Classes and their powers were constructed around the dynamic between these individual roles, how they relate and compliment one another, and how they compensate for each other's weaknesses.  I just started a new campaign, and we're converting it to 4E this weekend, but I think I lucked out in that the character concepts and party concept will work well within the structure of the new rules.My players are excited.  And they are, unapologetically, ROLEplayers.  (Interestingly enough, this is why the conversions work... because the players are more interested in who their characters are beneath the stats than in how they do whatever it is they do.)With the "role" development of the new system, in order to more clearly define a character's place in the party (tactically speaking), the lines between classes are fairly firmly drawn.  Even with multiclassing, you're barely dipping into the abilities of another class.  And if you take powers that don't work well with the role you currently have, then you could seriously cripple your character.In 3.5, versatility was the name of the game.  We had 11 core classes, then more than 20 more through various (WotC) expansions, hundreds of prestige classes, an elegant (if sometimes deficient) multi-classing system, and numerous feats that allowed us to further customize our characters to the Nth degree.  The point is that most of these elements were designed to "blur" the lines... you could sacrifice versatility to be really good at one thing, or you could spread your build around to incorporate a broad expanse of powers and abilities at the cost of the overall level of power.  In any case, character "roles" were defined only by how the player chose to exploit their character's abilities.  And almost any "role" was possible for a given character, if the PC's development was directed appropriately.One of the few things I lamented in the switch from 2E to 3E was that, back in the day, my players would clearly define a character's roleplaying potential (personality, background, goals, etcetera), and then seek out the statistics that would most readily allow such development.  2E "kits" were actually quite clever in this regard, given that their statistical trade-off for the role that they suggested was quite minimal.  With 3E, my players continue focusing, to this day, on finding the collection of statistics that they haven't yet tried.  The new idea that's buried in the rules as presented in the books.  I'm not saying that they aren't creative, but the system doesn't actually require them to be, for purposes of basic character design anyway.Of course... I loved the system.  And I honestly don't think that 4E will hinder us overly much as roleplayers.</blockquote>

Verification