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: 5705235" data-attributes="member: 2067">Sure. But to use an analogy, every character rolls damage. This has been true since 1e. This ability to roll damage didn't necessarily make a character the ideal damage-dealer, and doesn't mean that dealing MORE damage is a problem.I don't see that changing in a "flattened role" game. Just because we give a Fighter Sneak Attack for a round or two (when she's not defending or healing or..) doesn't mean she's dishing out as much damage over the course of a combat as the rogue. It just means if no one wants to play an optimized striker, the party is still capable of meeting the sort of "minimum requirements" for spike damage that the game assumes. Similarly, just because we give a rogue an occasional Healing Word analogue doesn't mean that the rest of a cleric's healing and buffing juices go to waste. It just means that if no one wants to play a cleric, the party is still capable of meeting the minimum requirements for healing that the game assumes. So a party without a cleric (or other leader) won't "miss" them, but a party with a cleric will certainly notice the presence of one -- they know how hard it is to keep everyone healed, and how much easier it is now!There's a balancing act here. If you make rogues useless against undead, then the DM can never run an undead campaign with a rogue in it. If you require a ranger to be able to make it through the wilderness, then a DM can never run a wilderness adventure without a ranger in it.So it makes sense that rogues can fight undead and that fighters can blaze a trail through the wilderness with some sort of minimum competency. This is 4e's "everyone can do everything" philosophy, and, personally, I think it's a good one. I think it needs to just be extended that last bit into roles, so that we don't HAVE to make someone play the Defender, if no one is interested in it. Of course, you don't want sameness. In my mind, that's where things like "Fighters and Rogues use at-wills, Wizards use Dailies, Psionics use Power Points, Druids are good in the Wilderness, and Bards are good in the Town, and not everyone is very good at Combat" and the like comes in. You change the power structure and the challenge balance so that there is a dramatic difference between playing a Bard and playing a Rogue in terms of how you approach the adventure. If the adventure is "There is a monster-filled dungeon with a MacGuffin in it," then the Rogue might sneak past the mosnters, while the Bard might talk with them. And in either case, the Fighter and the Druid can both do a little something, even if it's not their true niches. That's a bit broad and unspecific, but it gives you an idea of the kinds of differences a class can bring to the table, without making only Bards capable of Diplomacy (forex). True enough, but you have to be careful about the line between "cannot" and "would prefer not to." Every character has HP, so every character can take a hit. The game wouldn't be very fun if Wizards died at one hit, and Fighters could take 20. At the same time, Wizards have significantly less HP than fighters. So while wizards CAN take a hit, and might choose to do so for a round or two if they're the toughest wizard in a party of wizards, they would prefer not to, especially when a fighter is around. Exclusivity is not the greatest design, since it always forces someone's hand. SOMEONE has to play the cleric if the cleric is the only healer. SOMEONE has to play the fighter if the fighter is the only defender. The DM can't use undead regularly if the party doesn't contain the one class that can deal with undead effectively (cleric?), or does contain the one class that cannot deal with undead effectively (rogue?).Personally, I want to be able to give every player and every DM the option to do whatever strikes them as fun without mandating that they do any particular thing. This requires a broad balanced base that anyone can do, but it doesn't require sameness.</blockquote>

Verification