Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5862309" data-attributes="member: 22779">Y'know I wonder if Mr Mearls is being a tiny bit sneaky.&nbsp; On one hand it looks like he's saying that roles are going to go out the window, which is cause for much rejoicing in some quarters.&nbsp; But,is exactly what a role IS.&nbsp; When you get past all the hyperbole (Roles restrict roleplay!&nbsp; Roles force us to eat brocolli) and sit down and actually look at what a role does, this is precisely what a 4e role is - advice on how a given class works in play.&nbsp; People keep thinking that the role comes first and then all the powers are built on that - fighters are defenders, so, all the powers for fighters have to be defender powers.But that isn't true.&nbsp; It might have been true for the first PHB, although, even there, it's not really accurate.&nbsp; A fighter, to keep on the same example, is a defender.&nbsp; He's got that sticky power right up front.&nbsp; But, if you actually look at his powers, there's all sorts of other stuff in there - controller bits and striker bits.&nbsp; Making a striker fighter is easy right out of the PHB 1.&nbsp; With the DDI, making a Leader fighter isn't all that difficult.Right from the outset, roles are simply a shorthand for what a class is generally about.&nbsp; But, it's never been a straightjacket.&nbsp; Mearls knows that.&nbsp; I know he knows that.&nbsp; He's written far too much of the material not to know that.&nbsp; But, people who don't play 4e, or with limited experience with the system, only see &quot;ROLE!&nbsp; YOU MUST BE THIS!&quot; so, he downplays the role role plays and still gives 4e players exactly what they're used to.I'm thinking this is a pretty sweet bait and switch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5862309, member: 22779"] Y'know I wonder if Mr Mearls is being a tiny bit sneaky. On one hand it looks like he's saying that roles are going to go out the window, which is cause for much rejoicing in some quarters. But, is exactly what a role IS. When you get past all the hyperbole (Roles restrict roleplay! Roles force us to eat brocolli) and sit down and actually look at what a role does, this is precisely what a 4e role is - advice on how a given class works in play. People keep thinking that the role comes first and then all the powers are built on that - fighters are defenders, so, all the powers for fighters have to be defender powers. But that isn't true. It might have been true for the first PHB, although, even there, it's not really accurate. A fighter, to keep on the same example, is a defender. He's got that sticky power right up front. But, if you actually look at his powers, there's all sorts of other stuff in there - controller bits and striker bits. Making a striker fighter is easy right out of the PHB 1. With the DDI, making a Leader fighter isn't all that difficult. Right from the outset, roles are simply a shorthand for what a class is generally about. But, it's never been a straightjacket. Mearls knows that. I know he knows that. He's written far too much of the material not to know that. But, people who don't play 4e, or with limited experience with the system, only see "ROLE! YOU MUST BE THIS!" so, he downplays the role role plays and still gives 4e players exactly what they're used to. I'm thinking this is a pretty sweet bait and switch. [/QUOTE]

Verification