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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zaruthustran" data-source="post: 3718596" data-attributes="member: 1457">I hear you, but I think this is a good example of one of 4E's design goals in action: this edition is supposed to let you play your character the way you've always meant for him to be played.It seems to me that role = a character's job in combat + the source of the power that enables him to do that job. With that assumption:I think Roy's player would jump at the chance to more mechanically fill the Leader role. And just because cleric was mentioned as an example of Divine Leader, I don't think Durkon's player would at all be attracted to that role. He'd want to fill the Defender role, for sure. And Belkar getting his class abilities from a divine source? No way. <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=":)" /> He's a Ranger only because he likes to track and TWF; in 4E he'd surely choose a class that let him do those things but would toss any sort of divine influence out the window.I'm with you on V, though. James mentioned that one example of battlefield control is the Fireball. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification