Roles in Roleplaying Games

[MichaelSomething]

I think this comes down to personal preference. I like my classes loosely defined so I can impose my character idea upon them. I dislike my classes strongly defined where I need to pick the class that best represents my character idea.

I think you summed up the thread!

Also, since we're talking about class...

 

[Tayne]

I think this comes down to personal preference. I like my classes loosely defined so I can impose my character idea upon them. I dislike my classes strongly defined where I need to pick the class that best represents my character idea.

I think you summed up the thread!

Also, since we're talking about class...

Yeah, this is true. At the end of the day, we live in a great time where everybody in this argument has a system to suit their preferences.

And with that, I extract myself....

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Woot! I win the Internets! /dance

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to playing my game of choice, Tic-Tac-Toe ( "O" is clearly the best class in that game)

 

[The Shaman]

What people are saying is why does my selection of the holy warrior archetype auto-regulate me to taking hits and being a blockade... When really I want to be doing damage and striking down my gods enemies like a hot knife through butter.

"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "




Would some kind soul please give [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] an Experience Point for me?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Whatever...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Saying "IMHO" neither makes this truly humble nor does it make for a good attitude. It's OneTrueWayism at its finest. I understand that you enjoy homebrewing. I also understand that some people do not like homebrewing. Whether I would never say that either side is doing it wrong. Wrong for your tastes? Sure. Wrong in a general sense, which is what I'm getting from your "humble opinion," cannot be true as long as the group has agreed that's what works best for them. I've experienced both homebrew customization and pure published material games. I like either. I will consider any player submission of homebrewed rules and have often said yes in the past, yet my players do not seem to look for this.

Stop picking a fight with someone's opinion, otherwise you'll get booted from the thread. There is nothing wrong with his attitude here, but there is something wrong with you accusing him of one true way ism.

Thanks

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Uh, Cleric made an entrance in the very first edition of OD&D... If you think it has been going downhill since before RPGs appeared...

I was playing shortly thereafter. I'm aware of that. The point is that as soon as "cleric" and "thief" got attached to mechanical packages, people started quibbling about the archetypes in their heads that went with those labels and how the package didn't match them. I believe Umbran made this point a couple of times already.

As to what should be done about it, I don't know. It would be nice if people would take labels that are specialized, in the context of what they represent, but the resistantance is enormous. See the 20 year fight to get people to treat radio buttons as single selection and a row of check boxes as multiple selection. Some UI experts arbitrarily decided to reinforce that distinction because they knew that if it were enforced, everyone would be more productive. Yet people still fight it. My boss, of all people, still wants multiple selection radio buttons.

"Fighter/Fighting Man" wasn't even an archetype when it was coined. "Warrior" was an archetype. The former has become an archetype only because D&D players have made it one.

So I think communication about games would be a lot more clear if we could have labels for mechanics that did not take on archetypical connotations. Given the resistance to that in forums, I don't know that we could ever get there.

So yeah, this aspect has been going downhill since people started attaching their own archetypical ideas to "cleric" and "thief"--and expecting everyone else to have the exact same archetypical ideas.

 

[Imaro]

Most classes that are not tied to a deity in some form don't have radiant damage

That was my point.

What edition of D&D let's you take the Paladin class with no alterations and allows him to sneak as well as a rogue(thief), or give him backstab/sneak attack? None. Why is that?

What does this have to do with our present discussion... we are discussing combat roles... not class abilities.

What edition of D&D let's a rogue class with no alterations affect undead with "radiant" power? Once again none. Why is that?

Again read what I posted above.

In D&D Classes have always existed for a particular reason they are easy to use, the leveling mechanic makes it easy to adjust, and presents instant gratification every time you level. Each Class has a "role" to play in the interaction with combat and those roles are sometimes unique and sometimes they overlap. Everyone does damage in combat, but rogues get sneak attack, why doesn't the Paladin get sneak attack damage? Because it is not in his class. But Paladins get Radiant damage to undead, and lay on hands, etc.

Combat roles are striker, defender, controller and leader...



)

Why does the Ranger Class in any edition of D&D not do "radiant" damage to Undead. Why does he have to "sacrifice" light armor, and two weapon attacks if he wants to wear Plate Armor and a Shield?

The answer to these questions is irrelevant to the discussion as again, we are talking about combat role not class (archetypical) abilities.

 

[D'karr]

The answer to these questions is irrelevant to the discussion as again, we are talking about combat role not class (archetypical) abilities.

Interesting assumption since the "archetypes" are enforced by Class Features. If they were not they'd be simply labels.

In combat the label "rogue" without sneak attack has no mechanical difference to "paladin". The same as the label "wizard" without spells has no mechanical difference to "paladin"

Without class features the archetypal labels are simply labels.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What does this have to do with our present discussion... we are discussing combat roles... not class abilities.

The role of a striker is to do lots of damage. This is accomplished by every existing striker via class abilities that allow him to do lots of damage.

The reason we keep asking for a 3E Paladin that Sneak Attacks is because Sneak Attack was the only striker mechanic in 3E. You couldn't make a paladin in that edition or any previous edition that met the current definition of striker without multiclassing or feats, which you handily turned down when suggested for 4E.