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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Baron Von Mandrick" data-source="post: 5909934" data-attributes="member: 3269">I think it's important that the group have different roles.  4e classified the characters with a name for the role as well as the class.  In AD&D the roles were defined by what the classes could or couldn't do well.  A magic user would have low HP's and a weak AC.  Fighters knew they had to protect them because of that.Theives had few hit points, but special skills that caused them to work in certain ways.  The same was true for all the classes.In the end both systems are designed to have groups work together to maximize the strengths of each member and what they can do while minimizing the weaknesses and limitations of each character.I think that dynamic is what is most important.  If different classes can find different ways to work together within the group by selecting different or more non-traditional skill sets and feats, then that's fine if the players can find ways to work together in order to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses.  That's really all that matters.  With the right group, it can make role play more fun, and add challenges and new problem solving techniques that are part of the fun of D&D.  In some groups it may only be frustrating, and infuriating.  I think like most things, it comes down to the DM and the group playing the game.  To me it's all about working together and having different roles match their strengths and weaknesses.  What those particular strengths and weaknesses are, won't be as important.</blockquote>

Verification