Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scars Unseen" data-source="post: 4660532" data-attributes="member: 10196">I'll answer that by reposting what I said a couple of pages back.&nbsp; Keep in mind I was kind of zonked out on Percocet when I posted it.I bolded the part that answered your question.Just to clear things up, I don't think that the way some of you people are looking at the class/role relationship is wrong.&nbsp; I just don't think that it is the only way to look at it.&nbsp; The biggest problem i see with a strict role/class bond is that people are going to have concepts that fall thematically under one class, but have a different combat role, and if you keep to a strict relationship you're going to eventually start having a lot of classes that are very similar in form, but different in function.&nbsp; Why do I think this is a problem?&nbsp; It worked out alright in 3E, didn't it?Well the problem is that this isn't 3E.&nbsp; The classes are no longer strict lines of power gain; they are flexible, allowing you to fine tune your character's abilities as you level.&nbsp; If you have the same class glut of 3E you will find yourself having to use feats to multiclass into variations of the same class concept, when there is already a system in place to have such variations.Now if you want to take the tactical approach and pick a role and then build a character around that then there is nothing wrong with that, but I have never played in a gaming groups that did that in my 20 years of gaming.&nbsp; Every group I have ever played in or DMed for has taken a character concept and then tried to use whatever system we were playing to mechanically define that concept.&nbsp; I don't see why there can't be room for both approaches.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scars Unseen, post: 4660532, member: 10196"] I'll answer that by reposting what I said a couple of pages back. Keep in mind I was kind of zonked out on Percocet when I posted it. I bolded the part that answered your question. Just to clear things up, I don't think that the way some of you people are looking at the class/role relationship is [i]wrong.[/i] I just don't think that it is the only way to look at it. The biggest problem i see with a strict role/class bond is that people are going to have concepts that fall thematically under one class, but have a different combat role, and if you keep to a strict relationship you're going to eventually start having a lot of classes that are very similar in form, but different in function. Why do I think this is a problem? It worked out alright in 3E, didn't it? Well the problem is that this isn't 3E. The classes are no longer strict lines of power gain; they are flexible, allowing you to fine tune your character's abilities as you level. If you have the same class glut of 3E you will find yourself having to use feats to multiclass into variations of the same class concept, when there is already a system in place to have such variations. Now if you want to take the tactical approach and pick a role and then build a character around that then there is nothing wrong with that, but I have never played in a gaming groups that did that in my 20 years of gaming. Every group I have ever played in or DMed for has taken a character concept and then tried to use whatever system we were playing to mechanically define that concept. I don't see why there can't be room for both approaches. [/QUOTE]

Verification