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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="malkav666" data-source="post: 5863084" data-attributes="member: 70565">I hope you don't mind that I snipped your post down to the bits discussing the parts that you quoted from my earlier post.  In response to your offerings:1.I don't necessarily have an issue with roles from a thematic standpoint. A role based lexicon makes a lot of sense to me. I just happen to dislike them from the mechanical perspective. I feel that with a predetermined mechanical role precedent that you end up with classes that kind of get shoehorned into that role at the expense of classic representation of the trope the class was based on or ignoring things that it could do in previous editions for no other reason than just to fit better into the role.But I will say that roles in and of themselves were not a deal breaker for me with 4e, I just feel they were partially responsible for some of the "saminess" vibes I took away from the edition.2. On your second point; I am not certain whether they should be separate classes or not TBH. I tend to prefer much larger sets of options for a class and working with different builds than to have classes minced down to a single "role". But I could definitely see folks wanting it the other way. In the end with that particular question I find I cannot really answer it in a way that would promote a productive debate. I could tell you which I prefer (in this case it would be for the more broad class instead of many classes with a narrow focus), but I couldn't say which way is how it "should" be done. But it is an interesting question. Maybe even one that would deserve its own thread.Thanks for the discussion.love,malkav</blockquote>

Verification