Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3980187" data-attributes="member: 1003">Totally agree! I was referring to the Roles (in-combat and out-of-combat).&nbsp; I was wondering if the suggestion that there are only four Combat Roles, and all groups must have all four Roles, was the hindrance.&nbsp; The idea that non-combat Roles are handled with Feats is much more promising, since it's a lot more open-ended.But more to the point, in pre-4E there was no &quot;Defender&quot; role so there was no &quot;Someone has to play a Paladin or Fighter&quot; assumption built in to the rules.&nbsp; There was one less psychological block to saying &quot;Let's all make Rangers and Thieves and play a Sherwood Forrest campaign.&quot;&nbsp; It's like the 3E &quot;Someone has to play the Cleric&quot; problem, only x4.Can you just ignore all that baggage and still play a Striker-only campaign? Sure! But perhaps 4E is actively discouraging this kind of creative campaign design by building in the Roles assumptions.I'm not even 100% sure this is correct. I was thinking out loud and trying to engage in discussion, but I'm not sure I'm communicating my point well.Now this is the best argument to allay my concerns - IF it really gets you to the 90% mark.&nbsp; That's probably all I can reasonably ask for.&nbsp; My concern is that limiting groups to everyone picking one of the four Roles caps you at 50% or less of possible D&amp;D scenarios that D&amp;D is actually the best game for (as opposed to playing some other game, like Cthulu or Dragonstar).Thank you for your kind and helpful contribution to this thread. It heightens the intellectual level of the discussion to a truly rarefied level.&nbsp; Just so we're clear though I currently play 8th level Armiger/Man-at-Arms in an Iron Heroes campaign, a noble Knight of Waterdeep who in certain circumstances (such as when out-numbered 5:1 or more) he is more effective in melee than all of the other members of his group combined.&nbsp; In other circumstances he is only rivaled by one of his companions and has actually considered putting Skill Points in &quot;Saving the Elf's Butt Again.&quot;So in fact, I roll dice all the time, the only Courtesans are on my arm, and you can try harder to actually post something substantive and thoughtful next time. Thanks!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 3980187, member: 1003"] Totally agree! I was referring to the Roles (in-combat and out-of-combat). I was wondering if the suggestion that there are only four Combat Roles, and all groups must have all four Roles, was the hindrance. The idea that non-combat Roles are handled with Feats is much more promising, since it's a lot more open-ended. But more to the point, in pre-4E there was no "Defender" role so there was no "Someone has to play a Paladin or Fighter" assumption built in to the rules. There was one less psychological block to saying "Let's all make Rangers and Thieves and play a Sherwood Forrest campaign." It's like the 3E "Someone has to play the Cleric" problem, only x4. Can you just ignore all that baggage and still play a Striker-only campaign? Sure! But perhaps 4E is actively discouraging this kind of creative campaign design by building in the Roles assumptions. I'm not even 100% sure this is correct. I was thinking out loud and trying to engage in discussion, but I'm not sure I'm communicating my point well. Now this is the best argument to allay my concerns - [B]IF[/B] it really gets you to the 90% mark. That's probably all I can reasonably ask for. My concern is that limiting groups to everyone picking one of the four Roles caps you at 50% or less of possible D&D scenarios that D&D is actually the best game for (as opposed to playing some other game, like Cthulu or Dragonstar). Thank you for your kind and helpful contribution to this thread. It heightens the intellectual level of the discussion to a truly rarefied level. Just so we're clear though I currently play 8th level Armiger/Man-at-Arms in an Iron Heroes campaign, a noble Knight of Waterdeep who in certain circumstances (such as when out-numbered 5:1 or more) he is more effective in melee than all of the other members of his group combined. In other circumstances he is only rivaled by one of his companions and has actually considered putting Skill Points in "Saving the Elf's Butt Again." So in fact, I roll dice all the time, the only Courtesans are on my arm, and you can try harder to actually post something substantive and thoughtful next time. Thanks! [/QUOTE]

Verification