Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 4658278" data-attributes="member: 10095">Totally different in that it doesn't actually fulfill a role. Otherwise, it's nothing different except to cut out two existing elements from existing roles merely to say &quot;Look, another role!&quot;&quot;I have high hit points, and I can move around&quot; doesn't tell me what it does like &quot;I keep my allies from being attacked by enemies&quot; or &quot;I take down enemies with tactical placement and high damage output&quot; or &quot;I can reshape the battlefield to hinder my foes, as well as damage groups of them at a time&quot; or &quot;I can increase the combat effectiveness of my allies by providing benefits, removing penalties, and restoring hit points.&quot;&nbsp;That doesn't tell me what they do on the battlefield. It doesn't tell me if they draw enemy fire away from others (defender), deal high damage to single targets with their melee/ranged attacks (striker), aid their allies through bonuses and healing (leader), or deal damage to groups of enemies or reshape the battlefield/tactical situation (controller). It only tells me in general terms the distance at which they will be doing... something, but not what that something actually is.&nbsp;No, classes are specific about what actions and tactics you use. A Swordmage and a Fighter fill the same role, but do it in an entirely different fashion. The fighter hampers enemies by threatening with attacks and restricting movement. The swordmage hampers enemies by mitigating damage, threatening with attacks, and changing tactical positioning (but not restricting movement). The paladin hampers enemies by inflicting damage.Three methods of performing the same role, with class, not role, determining the specifics.&nbsp;So, you're proposing adding additional roles for what reason, then? You complain that the 4 are too restrictive, but suggest making more of them with more narrow definitions, and then say that isn't even what you consider to be a solution to the problem.This is at odds with your &quot;3e fighters can grapple/trip&quot; sentiment, since that fighter would be doing the same tactic every time in order to keep his allies safe from foes.You're not being attacked. I don't care enough about you to attack you.Which is why I'm not insulting anyone.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Little Raven, post: 4658278, member: 10095"] Totally different in that it doesn't actually fulfill a role. Otherwise, it's nothing different except to cut out two existing elements from existing roles merely to say "Look, another role!" "I have high hit points, and I can move around" doesn't tell me what it does like "I keep my allies from being attacked by enemies" or "I take down enemies with tactical placement and high damage output" or "I can reshape the battlefield to hinder my foes, as well as damage groups of them at a time" or "I can increase the combat effectiveness of my allies by providing benefits, removing penalties, and restoring hit points." That doesn't tell me what they do on the battlefield. It doesn't tell me if they draw enemy fire away from others (defender), deal high damage to single targets with their melee/ranged attacks (striker), aid their allies through bonuses and healing (leader), or deal damage to groups of enemies or reshape the battlefield/tactical situation (controller). It only tells me in general terms the distance at which they will be doing... something, but not what that something actually is. No, classes are specific about what actions and tactics you use. A Swordmage and a Fighter fill the same role, but do it in an entirely different fashion. The fighter hampers enemies by threatening with attacks and restricting movement. The swordmage hampers enemies by mitigating damage, threatening with attacks, and changing tactical positioning (but not restricting movement). The paladin hampers enemies by inflicting damage. Three methods of performing the same role, with class, not role, determining the specifics. So, you're proposing adding additional roles for what reason, then? You complain that the 4 are too restrictive, but suggest making more of them with more narrow definitions, and then say that isn't even what you consider to be a solution to the problem. This is at odds with your "3e fighters can grapple/trip" sentiment, since that fighter would be doing the same tactic every time in order to keep his allies safe from foes. You're not being attacked. I don't care enough about you to attack you. Which is why I'm not insulting anyone. [/QUOTE]

Verification