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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 4658078" data-attributes="member: 10095">Not so. Roles are WHAT characters do. Classes are HOW they do it. A Swordmage and a Fighter are both supposed to man the front line and keep their allies save from getting chewed upon, but they go about that job with different capabilities. If I could have the exact same capabilities no matter what class I play (which is what Angel seems to be saying), then there is no purpose to having classes since the lines between them disappear entirely.The opposite is true, as I pointed out above. Both Swordmage and Fighter act as Defenders, but their details and specifics are what make them differ in how they fulfill that role. Class is a specific implementation of role.And this is where we will disagree until the sun burns out. While 3e's multiclassing was ahead of 2e's, it was still broken on both ends of the spectrum: some classes it was worthless to multiclass into (spellcasters), because being an ineffective member of that class doesn't benefit you; some classes it was more than worthwhile to multiclass into because they were so frontloaded with capabilities. This problem was enough that in 3.5, they put in those PrCs in the core books to patch that up (Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, etc).I wouldn't expect a class-based system that has been class-based for over 30 years to deliver what a point-based system delivers. To expect otherwise is to have expectations removed from reality.</blockquote>

Verification