Roles are so LIMITING!

[Charwoman Gene]

So exactly how does this relate to your quote above that started this thread?

Pinotage

It doesn't, we've moved on.

neener neener neener

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm not failing to see anything, I'm way smarterer than you and and you think you see it.

I see it and *gasp* I reject the conclusion as fallacious. *Scandalous*

I'd like some examples of Role expansion. One that actually refers to combat which is all the 4e roles reflect.

Amen.

 

[Cadfan]

Huh? Care to say what you really want to say?

In 3e, the rogue had what, like 2 cool combat abilities inherent to his class, plus the selection of about 5 core combat abilities through feats, most of which were anti-synergistic with the rogue's other class abilities?

Now, he's got an estimated... what, we got a rough idea from a leak about the druid, it was something like 80 combat tricks?

So we paid our ability to play a rogue class character who power attacks with a light mace, or the ability to blow ridiculous amounts of feats in order to shoot a shortbow badly, and in exchange we got a ton of different options to take what used to be summed up in "sneak attack" and expand it into lots of cool, variety filled options.

I look at this and I see an expansion of detail that really excites me. People who levy your complaint see a character that can't use a mace anymore, and in a crabbed kind of way, insist ridiculous things like that there are only two types of rogues now. Because apparently "sneak attacks with a light mace" and "sneak attacks with a shortsword" are very different, but a Book of Nine Swords level of combat options makes all characters the same, because, in addition to the huge number of combat options, a binary combat style choice (not available in 3e, incidentally) was made available at level 1. Or something.

Well, narrowing the focus was probably necessary in order to create the detail and facets we now get to enjoy. So apparently my fun required the destruction of your fun. Sorry.

 

[Kzach]

I think you've forgotten what it is you're trying to argue.

The argument is what he's arguing. It's certainly not for our sake.

 

[Mirtek]

If D&D should take anything from WoW with regard to class roles then it should be the option to completly break out of the role.

Many classes in WoW can be skilled to fullfill completly different roles. If you have a retribution paladin he is not a leader with a little bit of striker, he is a striker who has become completly unable to fullfill either the healer or the tank role. If you skill a warrior as arms/furry, he is not a defender with a little touch of striker, he is a striker who is unable to fill out as defender.

If the roles are more or less fixed and the option to try to break out still leaves you a "tank with a little bit striker" then the roles are indeed LIMITING.

THIS -> Sorry, you can't be the melee striker in platemail with greatsword. Platemail is a defender thing, if you want to be the melee striker you have to be the guy in leather. While you can give your platemail defender a greatsword, it will cause you to lose some defender ability and add a little bit of striker ability, but in the end you will still be more defender than striker. <- is what people who are concerned that the roles will be limiting are fearing. And I really hope that this will not be the way that the class/role thin works

 

[Kzach]

Huh? Care to say what you really want to say?

Pinotage

He did.

And signing your posts every single time is really annoying.


KZ

 

[hong]

THIS -> Sorry, you can't be the melee striker in platemail with greatsword. Platemail is a defender thing, if you want to be the melee striker you have to be the guy in leather. While you can give your platemail defender a greatsword, it will cause you to lose some defender ability and add a little bit of striker ability, but in the end you will still be more defender than striker. <- is what people who are concerned that the roles will be limiting are fearing. And I really hope that this will not be the way that the class/role thin works

This is a good argument why armour should be purely cosmetic. Like in Guild Wars, for example.

 

[Kzach]

If you have a retribution paladin he is not a leader with a little bit of striker, he is a striker who has become completly unable to fullfill either the healer or the tank role.

Or the striker role.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Or the striker role.

Hah! Good one, and most original. You forgot the "LOLRET", though, so only 8/10.

Brad

 

[Cadfan]

THIS -> Sorry, you can't be the melee striker in platemail with greatsword. Platemail is a defender thing, if you want to be the melee striker you have to be the guy in leather. While you can give your platemail defender a greatsword, it will cause you to lose some defender ability and add a little bit of striker ability, but in the end you will still be more defender than striker. <- is what people who are concerned that the roles will be limiting are fearing. And I really hope that this will not be the way that the class/role thin works

I can understand that fear, but its based on a misconception. A greatsword doesn't make your character less of a defender and more of a striker. It increases your damage at the expensive of your AC in comparison to a sword/shield fighter, but that doesn't make you a striker. "Striker" means more than "high damage," it also means mobility at the expense of durability. And that's not what "plate armor" says to me.