NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4574965" data-attributes="member: 72317">Which brings me back to my earlier point. Who dictated that a party has to consist of the standard 4 roles - a fighter, rogue, healer and mage? This party makeup works admirably when new players are trying to get a feel of the game, since they possess a reasonably wide spread of effective abilities amongst all of them, and so should be able to tackle a wide variety of challenges. But it seems extremely stifling, both tactically and creatively. The classic 'Fighter tanks, rogue flanks, cleric heals, wizard blasts' is but one of many different ways in which a party can approach and fight (and frankly, I now find that makeup very unsatisfying and boring to play). If a class was weak to begin with, then it wouldn't really matter if it had a clearly defined role or not, people will likely still not use it as there are probably superior alternatives. Being a "5th wheel" will just mean that the party may have to be more creative in overcoming certain challenges (for example, if there is no dedicated healer in the party, then the role of healbot may have to fall on the rogue, who accomplishes this by UMD'ing wands of CLW/vigor), but it certainly shouldn't spell the end of your adventuring campaign. You are right in that a lot of classes in 3e did not have clearly defined roles, such as psychic warriors, duskblades and druids. But to me, that is part of their allure. Their role is what I make of it. I get to decide how they are played, rather than it being hard-coded into their mechanics.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification