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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Slander" data-source="post: 5705037" data-attributes="member: 1593">I agree that the character's role in the group should be a choice independent of class selection. To use 4E terms, I think there is plenty of design room to allow for effective Rogue Defenders, a Rogue Leaders, or Rogue Controllers.But the requirement for me is twofold a) player choice b) the "or". I'm not particularly fond of "generalists" in DnD.  The idea of a group of players each great at one thing, kinda good at everything else, or worse, pretty good at everything doesn't appeal to me at all.I strongly believe parties should be made up of interdependent characters, an interdependency based the need for a variety of skills and not simply a need for greater numbers. We're not talking about characters being dependent on other people to make it through day to day life. We're talking about characters who have made a life choice to face some of the most extreme circumstances their world has to offer. No character should be comfortable walking into any given situation.And that is not to say the system shouldn't allow generalist characters to be created. But generalists should be the result of player choice, and not a property automatically built into each class.Not classes ... characters. Characters are defined equally by what they can and cannot do. The "can" defines their contribution to the group, and the "cannot" defines why they even put up with the group to begin with.</blockquote>

Verification