Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4658950" data-attributes="member: 32536">The odd thing about this argument is that &quot;shifting the halfling into position&quot; is not part of the Defender role. That is technically the kind of thing that Leaders build their schticks around. If you spend a lot of time having your Fighter shift an ally halfling around into position, then you have already broken your Fighter outside of his designated Defender role, into a slightly more hybrid Defender/Leader role.It seems to me that your real problem is not with roles at all. You simply seem to chaff at the fairly narrow range of abilities that 4E characters possess (characters have many powers to choose from, but can only choose a few, so no character can ever use anything close to the full range of their class's potential, and thus can end up feeling like they use the same trick over and over). This is certainly a valid complaint of the 4E system, but I don't think it has anything to do with Roles.As for your proposed role involving a character with both a lot of hitpoints and a lot of mobility... I don't think such a thing is a &quot;role&quot; at all. I mean, the Barbarian is practically such a class already, and it is easily a Striker. I can also imagine a Defender that has both a lot of toughness, and a lot of mobility. Attributes like toughness and mobility are factors that can be used to construct an implementation of a role (in other words, a class), but they do not directly define roles themselves. You can theoretically create a Defender who doesn't mark and can't take very many hits himself, so long as he can still prevent his allies from getting hit by attacks. Nothing about the Defender role means &quot;just like a Fighter&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 4658950, member: 32536"] The odd thing about this argument is that "shifting the halfling into position" is [i]not[/i] part of the Defender role. That is technically the kind of thing that [i]Leaders[/i] build their schticks around. If you spend a lot of time having your Fighter shift an ally halfling around into position, then you have already broken your Fighter outside of his designated Defender role, into a slightly more hybrid Defender/Leader role. It seems to me that your real problem is not with roles at all. You simply seem to chaff at the fairly narrow range of abilities that 4E characters possess (characters have many powers to choose from, but can only choose a few, so no character can ever use anything close to the full range of their class's potential, and thus can end up feeling like they use the same trick over and over). This is certainly a valid complaint of the 4E system, but I don't think it has anything to do with Roles. As for your proposed role involving a character with both a lot of hitpoints and a lot of mobility... I don't think such a thing is a "role" at all. I mean, the Barbarian is practically such a class already, and it is easily a Striker. I can also imagine a Defender that has both a lot of toughness, and a lot of mobility. Attributes like toughness and mobility are factors that can be used to construct an implementation of a role (in other words, a class), but they do not directly define roles themselves. You can theoretically create a Defender who doesn't mark and can't take very many hits himself, so long as he can still prevent his allies from getting hit by attacks. Nothing about the Defender role means "just like a Fighter". [/QUOTE]

Verification