Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4653729" data-attributes="member: 30001">I don't think so.&nbsp; The only thing &quot;roles&quot; have to do with is your general capabilities in combat.&nbsp; If you want to talk to the king, or create a character who hates orcs, or whatever, the roles have no effect on any of that.&nbsp;&nbsp;Consider, as a point of logic, that A and B sharing the same characteristics doesn't mean that A is the same as B.&nbsp; The rest of what you wrote basically speaks for the differences.&nbsp; In fact, I would caution against providing a &quot;synopsis&quot; for a synopsis.&nbsp; They seem to me to be either inaccurate or redundant and run the risk of omitting important distinctions.&nbsp;&nbsp;Personally, no.&nbsp; The point of the class system was to give everyone a &quot;role&quot; to play in combat resolution that was distinct.&nbsp; Shifting between the roles is either going to result in players playing distinct roles (in which case what was the point), or a muddying of the roles so that each character pretty much has the same capabilities (which would occur if players were able to choose an optimal power from each &quot;role&quot; concept).&nbsp;&nbsp;Not in my games.&nbsp; Many players have enjoyed playing characters that support, but do not engage in, melee combat.&nbsp;&nbsp;Actually in my game in prior editions of DnD, players liked to do things other than kill stuff.&nbsp; Many players, for instance, enjoyed wizards for their information gathering abilities and utility spells like teleport.&nbsp; They liked being facilitators.&nbsp; But ultimately, *all* of the roles play a part in killing monsters.&nbsp; I think you're way over-simplifying things - a controller can kill more minions than a striker can per unit time.&nbsp; I probably should assume you've played 4E already but I'm hesitant too because this seems so obvious.&nbsp;&nbsp;But I think striker is a distinct role.&nbsp; Strikers, IME, are vulnerable.&nbsp; The striker in my game is the first one to fall in combat.&nbsp; He also does the most damage.&nbsp; The defender supports him and provides flanking so he can maximize his damage (he's a rogue).&nbsp; The cleric heals him, and the controller clears the minions so that they don't flank him and kill him (in theory, anyway).&nbsp; The striker is able to do damage that he does because of the support that the other roles give him.&nbsp; The sports team analogy has been made, and I think you should consider this if you haven't already.&nbsp;&nbsp;They are under the hood, as much as the creature's strength score is.&nbsp; And yes, I think they help with encounter design - or at least they don't hurt.&nbsp;&nbsp;You might be putting the cart before the horse here.&nbsp; A DM chooses the monster designation because it suits his concept IMO.&nbsp; For example - You don't *choose* minion if you don't want the rules that minions come with.&nbsp; &nbsp;So if you expect the monster to challenge the party by itself, then you choose a solo creature.&nbsp; Even if the creature is a &quot;minion&quot; in other terms (ie. he's working for some BBEG) it doesn't preclude him from being a solo creature in terms of his stats.&nbsp; If he's an orc, and a solo orc is not in the MM (or you can't find the one you want in the books) then you design one.&nbsp; But I infer from your statement about &quot;required designations&quot; that you're missing this point - I think.&nbsp;&nbsp;Any number of hit ponts that allows a character to jump off of a 100 ft cliff and live could be considered a stupid number of hit points.&nbsp; In spite of the hitpoints I don't think a solo monster is going to last longer than 1 or 2 minutes (of game time, not real time) in the fight.&nbsp; Ultimately, *any* differences between 4E and prior editions are going to seem stupid if you aren't open-minded about it.&nbsp; Without a more analytical definition of what &quot;stupid&quot; really means, I don't think you can really understand what 4E was trying to accomplish.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4653729, member: 30001"] I don't think so. The only thing "roles" have to do with is your general capabilities in combat. If you want to talk to the king, or create a character who hates orcs, or whatever, the roles have no effect on any of that. Consider, as a point of logic, that A and B sharing the same characteristics doesn't mean that A is the same as B. The rest of what you wrote basically speaks for the differences. In fact, I would caution against providing a "synopsis" for a synopsis. They seem to me to be either inaccurate or redundant and run the risk of omitting important distinctions. Personally, no. The point of the class system was to give everyone a "role" to play in combat resolution that was distinct. Shifting between the roles is either going to result in players playing distinct roles (in which case what was the point), or a muddying of the roles so that each character pretty much has the same capabilities (which would occur if players were able to choose an optimal power from each "role" concept). Not in my games. Many players have enjoyed playing characters that support, but do not engage in, melee combat. Actually in my game in prior editions of DnD, players liked to do things other than kill stuff. Many players, for instance, enjoyed wizards for their information gathering abilities and utility spells like teleport. They liked being facilitators. But ultimately, *all* of the roles play a part in killing monsters. I think you're way over-simplifying things - a controller can kill more minions than a striker can per unit time. I probably should assume you've played 4E already but I'm hesitant too because this seems so obvious. But I think striker is a distinct role. Strikers, IME, are vulnerable. The striker in my game is the first one to fall in combat. He also does the most damage. The defender supports him and provides flanking so he can maximize his damage (he's a rogue). The cleric heals him, and the controller clears the minions so that they don't flank him and kill him (in theory, anyway). The striker is able to do damage that he does because of the support that the other roles give him. The sports team analogy has been made, and I think you should consider this if you haven't already. They are under the hood, as much as the creature's strength score is. And yes, I think they help with encounter design - or at least they don't hurt. You might be putting the cart before the horse here. A DM chooses the monster designation because it suits his concept IMO. For example - You don't *choose* minion if you don't want the rules that minions come with. So if you expect the monster to challenge the party by itself, then you choose a solo creature. Even if the creature is a "minion" in other terms (ie. he's working for some BBEG) it doesn't preclude him from being a solo creature in terms of his stats. If he's an orc, and a solo orc is not in the MM (or you can't find the one you want in the books) then you design one. But I infer from your statement about "required designations" that you're missing this point - I think. Any number of hit ponts that allows a character to jump off of a 100 ft cliff and live could be considered a stupid number of hit points. In spite of the hitpoints I don't think a solo monster is going to last longer than 1 or 2 minutes (of game time, not real time) in the fight. Ultimately, *any* differences between 4E and prior editions are going to seem stupid if you aren't open-minded about it. Without a more analytical definition of what "stupid" really means, I don't think you can really understand what 4E was trying to accomplish. [/QUOTE]

Verification