Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4419553" data-attributes="member: 48965">I just wanted to point out that you're examples are based specifically on combat &quot;role&quot;.&nbsp; I think it's very probable that different players want to explore different archetypes in an rpg, and not all of these are based on combat effectiveness.&nbsp; Was Jason or Odysseus as capable in combat as Hercules or Achilles?&nbsp; Nope, yet as a child I found reading their adventures more entertaining.&nbsp; If I want to play a trickster who out thinks rather than browbeats his way through problems, then I'm not going to care if my characters combat effectiveness isn't on par with Krog the berserker, I am perfectly willing to sacrifice that in order to have a wider selection or better bonuses in skills and feats that cater to the archetype I've selected.In the previous edition &quot;role&quot; was much more widely defined than &quot;striker&quot;, &quot;leader&quot;, &quot;defender&quot;, and &quot;controller&quot;...there were actually roles that had nothing to do with combat, and more to do with the part of the game the player enjoyed. I had no issues as far as &quot;spotlight&quot; since the role my players chose gave me all the information I needed to cater my adventures to what they would enjoy with an equal spread for all.&nbsp; Problem solving for my&nbsp; spellcasters, combat for my fighters/barbarians, skill use for my rogues and a mix for classes like Rangers or multi-classers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4419553, member: 48965"] I just wanted to point out that you're examples are based specifically on combat "role". I think it's very probable that different players want to explore different archetypes in an rpg, and not all of these are based on combat effectiveness. Was Jason or Odysseus as capable in combat as Hercules or Achilles? Nope, yet as a child I found reading their adventures more entertaining. If I want to play a trickster who out thinks rather than browbeats his way through problems, then I'm not going to care if my characters combat effectiveness isn't on par with Krog the berserker, I am perfectly willing to sacrifice that in order to have a wider selection or better bonuses in skills and feats that cater to the archetype I've selected. In the previous edition "role" was much more widely defined than "striker", "leader", "defender", and "controller"...there were actually roles that had nothing to do with combat, and more to do with the part of the game the player enjoyed. I had no issues as far as "spotlight" since the role my players chose gave me all the information I needed to cater my adventures to what they would enjoy with an equal spread for all. Problem solving for my spellcasters, combat for my fighters/barbarians, skill use for my rogues and a mix for classes like Rangers or multi-classers. [/QUOTE]

Verification