Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 4527334" data-attributes="member: 8835">I like the idea where this thread is pursuing.&nbsp; Here's my thoughts:I take it as a relative truth (true enough) that WotC is trying to make all classes &quot;not suck&quot; during combat.&nbsp; Basically, it's all nice getting into your role, but it sucks if you make a sub-optimal build and the powergamer outshines you.&nbsp; So all the rules changes (even in 3e, with minimal character scores and stat increases) have been about improving character power.Basically, you can roleplay a talky elf that kicks butt just as well as one that doesnt' but the kick-butt elf is probably more fun.So in that vein, I assume that 4e's combat focus for classes is good enough, for making combat fun for everyone.&nbsp; (I don't have 4e, so can't verify).A big complaint I've seen here, and got from my friends, is that it's hard to do other kinds of characters.&nbsp; For instance, the super sneaky doesn't fight thief.&nbsp; Or the wizard who never gets into combat.I have no problem with characters having a &quot;secondary&quot; role that isn't combat.&nbsp; Just tack it on (or adjust the class where overlap occurs).Over the years, I've seen PCs that focus on the following (which I see as ideas for roles):recon/stealthblack ops/wet work (solo assassination against unprepared foe)summoner (conjures things to do all work/fighting)diplomatlady's manmaster of disguise/con manleader (business, political, military)non-combating aid in combat (helps, but avoids actual fighting)Illusionist (always uses illusions)Charmer (always uses charms)I see the standard wizard specialist classes as examples of a play style (even in combat/avoidance of combat).&nbsp; I've seen some PCs avoid fighting (making attack rolls, avoiding getting hit) but doing things during the fight that help/hinder (usually while hiding).&nbsp; The social emphasis is also common (many folks who want to be debonair also want to kick-butt, so it's a good example).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 4527334, member: 8835"] I like the idea where this thread is pursuing. Here's my thoughts: I take it as a relative truth (true enough) that WotC is trying to make all classes "not suck" during combat. Basically, it's all nice getting into your role, but it sucks if you make a sub-optimal build and the powergamer outshines you. So all the rules changes (even in 3e, with minimal character scores and stat increases) have been about improving character power. Basically, you can roleplay a talky elf that kicks butt just as well as one that doesnt' but the kick-butt elf is probably more fun. So in that vein, I assume that 4e's combat focus for classes is good enough, for making combat fun for everyone. (I don't have 4e, so can't verify). A big complaint I've seen here, and got from my friends, is that it's hard to do other kinds of characters. For instance, the super sneaky doesn't fight thief. Or the wizard who never gets into combat. I have no problem with characters having a "secondary" role that isn't combat. Just tack it on (or adjust the class where overlap occurs). Over the years, I've seen PCs that focus on the following (which I see as ideas for roles): recon/stealth black ops/wet work (solo assassination against unprepared foe) summoner (conjures things to do all work/fighting) diplomat lady's man master of disguise/con man leader (business, political, military) non-combating aid in combat (helps, but avoids actual fighting) Illusionist (always uses illusions) Charmer (always uses charms) I see the standard wizard specialist classes as examples of a play style (even in combat/avoidance of combat). I've seen some PCs avoid fighting (making attack rolls, avoiding getting hit) but doing things during the fight that help/hinder (usually while hiding). The social emphasis is also common (many folks who want to be debonair also want to kick-butt, so it's a good example). [/QUOTE]

Verification