Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5120016" data-attributes="member: 2067">Coming at this more from a gamist angle...I find that 4e already does this in some areas (and other editions did it, too). Your attack and skill bonuses go up with a "baseline." Even in 3e, you gained BAB points even if you never threw a punch, and 75% of classes gained some sort of spellcasting. In 4e, this extends to almost every element of gameplay -- everyone is good as they gain levels. You can choose focus (skill training or weapon focus feats). This isn't done with roles, but I think that's mostly intentional. They don't want anyone doing near-striker damage, using marks like a defender, using area effects like a controller, or healing like a leader. The roles are exclusive, and meant to reinforce the group nature of the game -- you NEED OTHER PLAYERS. You can't just do this by yourself. I think in that case, it's a fairly constructive choice, because it means that everyone contributes to success (in combat) in a unique way that nobody else (at least, if they didn't choose the exact same class and build) can really copy. Multiclassing or hybriding is 4e's nod toward this direction, giving you a limited use of iconic powers from other roles (sometimes). But the niche protection here is intentionally strong, because it doesn't want copycats. It doesn't want you to be as good a defender as you are a striker (both of which are only slightly weaker than yourself as a controller). In fact, I think a lack of this difference is part of what makes a good chunk of non-combat in 4e bland and same-y (to me). Everyone contributes the exact same d20 roll to success, in the same broad way, in skill challenges. There's not enough ways to uniquely contribute to success (your focus doesn't really matter). So, I don't think it's that fresh or new of an idea. I do think it's a generally good idea, but that there needs to be enough room for difference. Perhaps the 4e roles err too much on the "different" side and the 4e skills err too much on the "same" side, but there are good reasons for both, I think.</blockquote>

Verification