Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Badwe" data-source="post: 4653724" data-attributes="member: 61762">my only quip with what you've said is your analysis of the roles is that really, ALL roles get to do a little bit of everything, especially damage.&nbsp; this is especially true of the leader class that often HAS to deal damage in order to heal/support.&nbsp; Also, look at the classes coming in PHB2 and you'll see almost all of them talk about a &quot;secondary role&quot; where their fringe abilities bleed into the territory of other roles.Also, I've been playing in a campaign with 3 strikers, a controller, and a leader (me), so while it's been tough, at times, to control incoming damage without a defender (in particular, the damage finding its way to the squishiest target), we are by no means gimped or ineffective as a group missing a critical role in 3e might have been.&nbsp; In this sense, I think the concept of roles are a huge success.&nbsp; They are guidelines, and perhaps just as important they frame the kind of challenges you'll need to overcome should you choose to bypass them.My only complaint with monster roles is that they are not entirely balanced.&nbsp; Essentially, every monster group is intended to go kaput, but the guidelines for mixing them into groups tends to be more about creating interesting combat situations than balance.&nbsp; IE: you don't make a group better by following a role division.&nbsp; This was evidenced when our DM threw a party of 5 artillery at us, gave those 5 artillery first attack, and the party nearly wiped.&nbsp; Sure, you combine artillery with brutes/soldiers to create 2 lines, but it really doesn't enhance those artillery a great deal the way having a defender enhances a controller/striker.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Badwe, post: 4653724, member: 61762"] my only quip with what you've said is your analysis of the roles is that really, ALL roles get to do a little bit of everything, especially damage. this is especially true of the leader class that often HAS to deal damage in order to heal/support. Also, look at the classes coming in PHB2 and you'll see almost all of them talk about a "secondary role" where their fringe abilities bleed into the territory of other roles. Also, I've been playing in a campaign with 3 strikers, a controller, and a leader (me), so while it's been tough, at times, to control incoming damage without a defender (in particular, the damage finding its way to the squishiest target), we are by no means gimped or ineffective as a group missing a critical role in 3e might have been. In this sense, I think the concept of roles are a huge success. They are guidelines, and perhaps just as important they frame the kind of challenges you'll need to overcome should you choose to bypass them. My only complaint with monster roles is that they are not entirely balanced. Essentially, every monster group is intended to go kaput, but the guidelines for mixing them into groups tends to be more about creating interesting combat situations than balance. IE: you don't make a group better by following a role division. This was evidenced when our DM threw a party of 5 artillery at us, gave those 5 artillery first attack, and the party nearly wiped. Sure, you combine artillery with brutes/soldiers to create 2 lines, but it really doesn't enhance those artillery a great deal the way having a defender enhances a controller/striker. [/QUOTE]

Verification