Roles - do they work?

[AngeltheTechrat]

I think any given class should have power selections that could support at least three different role "builds". And they shouldn't be locked int specializing in one of those three either.

I think it's starting to become clear that the powers are the real problem. Not the power system, but the range of powers actually available to any given class.

Oh.. Also, the Multi-Class rules are trash....

 

[FireLance]

I think any given class should have power selections that could support at least three different role "builds". And they shouldn't be locked int specializing in one of those three either.

I think I prefer your earlier idea of separating the flavor from the rules. If you want to play a martial melee striker, as long as the game stats (AC, defenses, attack bonus, damage, etc.) are about the same, it shouldn't matter whether you flavor him as a nimble swashbuckler or a brawny bruiser with a big weapon.

I do think that conceptually we should keep striker powers (say) separate from defender powers, so that the player knows what he's getting himself into. If he wants high-damage powers, he shouldn't be looking in the defender list, for example. There could be some scope for mixing the two, but I personally would only give that option to more experienced players.

 

[Spatula]

You misunderstand me. There is(currently) no build in the books that covers my character concept, so I am going to have to create one, powers and all. So I have to choose whether to make a new class(which I am loath to do) or use an existing class. So yes, it is just the word defender in the class description.

If it was just the word in the class description (which like many words, is easily ignorable), then you wouldn't have an issue.

Anyway, swashbuckler: fighter, tempest technique, take the rogue multiclass feat but swap the Thievery skill training for Acrobatics. Grab the utility power swap feat and take Tumble in place of a fighter utility. Choose the TWF and light blade and mobility powers. Done.

Except that there have always(at least since 2E kits, I didn't play 1E) been builds of the fighter class that utilized light armor(such as the one that i am creating). So your argument's down to hit points.

There was no (mechanical) customization of your character in 1e, aside from weapon choice.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

I think I prefer your earlier idea of separating the flavor from the rules. If you want to play a martial melee striker, as long as the game stats (AC, defenses, attack bonus, damage, etc.) are about the same, it shouldn't matter whether you flavor him as a nimble swashbuckler or a brawny bruiser with a big weapon.

I do think that conceptually we should keep striker powers (say) separate from defender powers, so that the player knows what he's getting himself into. If he wants high-damage powers, he shouldn't be looking in the defender list, for example. There could be some scope for mixing the two, but I personally would only give that option to more experienced players.

I didn't say anything about separating the flavor from the rules. I wanted to separate the classes from the ROLES. Still do. I think that way is through powers. Unfortunately, it's giganticaly doubtful they'll ever do it.

 

[yesnomu]

I think any given class should have power selections that could support at least three different role "builds". And they shouldn't be locked int specializing in one of those three either.

I think it's starting to become clear that the powers are the real problem. Not the power system, but the range of powers actually available to any given class.

Oh.. Also, the Multi-Class rules are trash....

The problem with that idea is that you can make a character who can do everything badly, or everything great. Neither one is something we want to see again (good riddance 3.5 bard and druid). Classes who can go one thing well and optionally another thing decently are much easier to balance, and they support teamwork between party members.

Also, the Multi rules are the cleanest and best-functioning ones we've seen in D&D so far. Now spellcaster multiclassing actually works! Wow!

 

[drothgery]

Anyway, swashbuckler: fighter, tempest technique, take the rogue multiclass feat but swap the Thievery skill training for Acrobatics. Grab the utility power swap feat and take Tumble in place of a fighter utility. Choose the TWF and light blade and mobility powers. Done.

... or if he really wants a striker-role type, he could, y'know, play a TWF ranger (which people always ignore as an option when they go on a 'I want to play a lightly armored melee type who's not a rogue' rant).

 

[ProfessorPain]

... or if he really wants a striker-role type, he could, y'know, play a TWF ranger (which people always ignore as an option when they go on a 'I want to play a lightly armored melee type who's not a rogue' rant).

I guess I would have prefered it if they ignored the role thing, and allowed you to purchase any powers you want. Maybe still have the base classes, but just have those serve as templates which you add the powers to (but if my fighter wants to buy a rogue power, let him). This would have made me much happier with the game.

 

[yesnomu]

I guess I would have prefered it if they ignored the role thing, and allowed you to purchase any powers you want. Maybe still have the base classes, but just have those serve as templates which you add the powers to (but if my fighter wants to buy a rogue power, let him). This would have made me much happier with the game.

...And would have torpedoed the game's carefully-designed balance, and any reason to have a team, rather than a bunch of self-sufficient adventurers who happen to work together.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Edit: I'm getting glitches more often today...

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Edit: ... and it's not even double- or triple-post, but rather progressively more of my full post with each one.. usually the preeceeding cutting off in the middle of sentences.