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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 4379567" data-attributes="member: 59219">On roles: I will admit that the statement that roles have been a part of D&D from the beginning has some truth to it.  I think though that my issue is in terms of degree, and in terms of causality. In my previous games, people took on roles, generally speaking as a result of: 1) Class - - a wizard has a different role than a fighter 2) Other choices - - an illusionist has a different role than a wizard, a fighter specialized in the mancatcher has a different role than a fighter who uses an axe, and a rogue with ten ranks in Disguise and Bluff has a different role than one with ten ranks in Move Silently and a set of feats that key off of sneak attack damage. 3) Play style - - The player's style will change the impacts of 1 and 2, above, and of course there's a bit of a cycle, where #3 here will influence to some degree their choices in the first two. The three of these together indirectly create the role. I'm not saying that these aren't present in 4E, but I think that the concept of roles as defined in 4E to some extent REVERSES the causes.  I think about my role first, and it has a huge impact on other choices.   Also to a large extent the team emphasis is also changing the game.  If I play a Paladin, the team depends on me being a defender.  Not only does this dictate the powers available, which reinforce that role, but it dictates to a large extent how I must play.   And again, I'm not saying which is better here, but to me it seems obvious that things are a bit reversed and therefore different.   From a team effectiveness standpoint this might actually make MORE sense - I don't think it's easy in 4E to recreate my cleric with Weapon Focus: Hvy Lance, and from a team standpoint maybe that's good, as it's hard to figure out where he fits.    Even moreso for my rogue who through DM permission lost all Sneak Attack in return for more focus on Disguise and Bluff.   That character is likely impossible in 4E, because of the new levels of homogeneity in skills, and because everyone is good at something in combat even if you don't want to be. D&D has always, even well before 4E, had some kind of roles and shorthand for character description - 'Brawler Half-Orc', 'Gnome Illusionist', 'Lockpick', but the mechanism and flow of the system is radically different, and I firmly believe that in prior editions it was far easier to create a character which, while perhaps not optimal for a team, did not easily fit into an established role.  You could always choose to make a head-bashing half orc, or a noble defending paladin, but you could also create a wizard who specialized in summoning cats -- the character might not be particularly useful, but it was an option.</blockquote>

Verification