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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5704893" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't really dispute any of this. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> (I don't think power sources are lame, but eh, opinions.)I don't follow.Not at all. Just the idea that each character can contribute in multiple ways, rather than each character only contributing in one way.The main ways of contributing to any "race to 0" resolution scheme (like D&D combat) is to take the enemy's points, and to protect (or restore) your own points. You can expand it to "enhancing" how quickly you take points, or how well you are at protecting or restoring your own points. That's just the nature of the mechanic.That's not mandating any more similarity than saying that every class can make attack rolls and roll damage, and has an AC and HP. There's clearly a lot of diversity within those bounds. I don't understand what you're talking about. If everyone has some mechanic that lets them heal some ally's HP and gives them a little buff, that doesn't mean that the mechanic is the same for everyone. To perhaps clarify, the flattening of the roles that I'm talking about would be something like giving any 4e character one leader ability, one striker ability, one defender ability, and one controller ability.Maybe my fighter chooses Inspiring Word, Hunter's Quarry, Combat Challenge, and a first-level Hunter at-will like Rapid Shot. Then he chooses in a given round which one he can do. His class features and powers enhance his Defender and Striker qualities solidly, so he's still a very good defender. And his power choice in no way needs to overlap, say, the party Wizard (who took Rune of Mending, Chaos Power, Psionic Defense, and Hypnotism). Clearly, that doesn't exactly work out as it is, but the concept is that no one person needs to do just one thing. We can also differentiate based on the challenges that the party faces. Perhaps Fighters excel at combat, Clerics excel at personal interaction, Rogues and excel at exploration, and Wizards are excel at information-gathering. We can also differentiate based on environment: the first four are good in "dungeons," then we have Rangers (exploration - wilderness) and Druids (information - wilderness) and Barbarians (combat - wilderness) too. I'm really not saying that we need to go classless even a little bit, and I haven't the foggiest notion about where you're getting that from. Unless perhaps you're choosing to define classes based on what they CANNOT do instead of what they CAN do?</blockquote>

Verification