Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alaxk Knight of Galt" data-source="post: 5732757" data-attributes="member: 4129">I guess the point is that when you take Fighter in 4E, you are expected by the rest of the party to be the Defender.&nbsp; It's what the class says on the can.&nbsp; In earlier editions, the only class that really had that expectation was cleric (you are expected to heal, it's a violation of the social contract of the game if you refuse to).By hardcoding the combat roles into each class, the game system is creating a social contract to do what the role says you should be doing.&nbsp; I disagree with that being part of the social contract of any class (except cleric <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />) .That's why I wouldn't mind you doing a generic Power Source / Combat Role system, removing class labels.&nbsp; But when the game rules start applying roles to classes and saying this is the way every X should be, I balk.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alaxk Knight of Galt, post: 5732757, member: 4129"] I guess the point is that when you take Fighter in 4E, you are expected by the rest of the party to be the Defender. It's what the class says on the can. In earlier editions, the only class that really had that expectation was cleric (you are expected to heal, it's a violation of the social contract of the game if you refuse to). By hardcoding the combat roles into each class, the game system is creating a social contract to do what the role says you should be doing. I disagree with that being part of the social contract of any class (except cleric :D) . That's why I wouldn't mind you doing a generic Power Source / Combat Role system, removing class labels. But when the game rules start applying roles to classes and saying this is the way every X should be, I balk. [/QUOTE]

Verification