Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5733336" data-attributes="member: 42582">I like the concept of runepriests! (I'm not sure about their mechanical implementation, though - I suspect they should have been a cleric sub-class.)I also don't mind battleminds, because they are the D&D equivalent of a class in Rolemaster Companion 3 - the Noble Warrior - which is a mentalism-using paladin variant, and I once GMed an RM game with an interesting Noble Warrior PC.Seekers, on the other hand, don't speak to me at all.But that difference, surely, can be at the level of fiction - just as in classic D&D much of the difference between weapons is at the level of fiction (particularly in the days before variable weapon damage).As some of these threads turn around and around, I realise that I'm becoming more and more aware of how important differences at the level of fiction, rather than just in the mechanics, are to the way I play the game. And also that, in 4e's design, keywords are a central anchor of the fiction to the mechanics. So for the difference between Healing Word and Inpsiring Word, the difference between Divine and Martial as keywords - which signify, in mechanical terms, the different character of those abilities as story elements - is enough for me.Sure, although not everyone expects the intricacy of 4e's combat mechanics either. It's the intricacy of the mechanics that means that good play depends upon different PCs doing different things, which in turn creates the design pressure towards roles (at least, that's my take on it).But what I was trying to get to, in my comment about expectations, is that I don't expect to find "stance"-based round-by-round roles in D&D. It's true that earlier editions of the game, with looser action resolution rules for combat, have been looser in the relationship they make between class and role. But I can't think of anything in those editions that corresponds to your suggestion of taking on different roles round-to-round by adopting different "stances".Again, I'm not saying I object to it. (Burning Wheel has something a bit like it, and in a different way so does Rolemaster with its round-by-round OB/DB shifting - although these both operate only on the aggressive/defensive spectrum).But it would, for me, mark a change in what I expect as the D&D default, which is that my PC has a certain stability in the way s/he mechanically engages the situations that the game throws up.</blockquote>

Verification