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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5864358" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes. I alluded to this upthread:In 1st ed AD&D, there was a norm of non-mobility, and this is how fighters (and clerics, to a lesser extent) "defended". Whereas it was crucial for MUs and thieves not to get caught in combat, because if they did then they could find themselves well-and-truly hosed.If the combat system envisages mobility as the norm (eg 4e shift-and-charge, 3E 5' step-and-charge), then a fighter can't defend without some other mechanic in place such as marking. Whether or not you call it a role.A similar comment could be made about healing. In my AD&D days, there was very little casting of in-combat healing. I gather that 3E made it common, and in 4e it is utterly central to the dynamics of combat. If you want to keep that sort of dynamic, then someone has to be able to heal, and if you want it to have a 4e-style pacing then someone has to be able to heal without using up all their actions for the turn. And either everyone can do it, or some class(es) specialise in it.And what do you give as a trade-off for those classes that can't do the healing and can't do the defending? Better damage or better effects.In my view, then, the 4e roles aren't spun from whole cloth and imposed willy-nilly on unsuspecting gamers the world over. They reflect pressures that are inherent to the post-AD&D dynamics of the game (ie incombat movement, and incombat healing). Unless we get rid of those dynamics, we will need the mechanics, whether or not we call them roles.</blockquote>

Verification