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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 4654754" data-attributes="member: 17106">The basic concept of roles is a kind of heady philosophical thing. What I'm sursprised at is the roles they chose. Leader/controller/striker/defender don't reflect at all how I look at pre-4e classes, or at the characters I saw and played.I've never seen a true leader as one might find in fantasy literature; the PCs are always a democracy of some sort. I don't know what a 'defender' is; I see all characters as being defined in combat by the offensive capabilities more than their defense. I suppose a fighter could be 'defending' a wizard by taking hits for him, but the casters could just as easily 'defend' the fighter with various spells. Controller and striker are sort of niches; rogues are generally about dealing a lot of damage to one unlucky and unsuspecting target, while certain casters may like to sit back and manipulate the battlefield with spells like summoning; status effects; other conjurations.Ultimately, though, 3e and earlier classes aren't defined by these combat roles. Fighters kind of are, but their fighting styles could make them a defender, leader, striker, or something else entirely. Rogues have always been defined more by their out-og-combat skills than by sneak attacking and backstabbing. Casters never fit into any kind of role; A necromancer is totally different from an evoker or a transmuter. A cleric is always totally different based on his deity.This meant that there were more fundamental differences between classes than the 4e power selection would represent. These differences made each class good for a different type of player. 4e's move to dumb down the class system in the name of balance and ease of play has never made sense to me.</blockquote>

Verification