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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5736038" data-attributes="member: 48965">I'm not sure what you bringing up things outside combat role has to do with what I am discussing. When I said optimization, I was speaking to the inherent optimization that the building of a class for a specific combat role enforces upon that class. Things like the fighter's mark, the rogues backstab, or the wizards minion killer powers. The fact that your Wizard "plinks" away with magic missile and that you even recognize this as suboptimal and a "Very poor man's striker" supports my point.   Which is a much broader and rather all-encompassing level than previous editions forced it at... thus the loss of flexibility and adaptability for classes.    So will this all break down now as builds that don't share the same combat role as their class (Slayer, Blackguard, etc.) are introduced... or even moreso builds like the berserker that allow one to switch combat role in the middle of combat? Somehow I doubt it and that's why I have a problem seeing these two things as intricately connected as you seem to be making them out to be.    I would disagree, 4e is definitely moving in that direction. The problem is that because it adopted this design paradigm in the beginning... it will take alot more time, books and alot more money for 4e to accomodate that playstyle than in previous editions.   But this is adventure role, as in the role a PC plays in the overall adventure structure. A thief is suppose to be sneaky, sly and stealthy... how does that equate to "do tons of damage"? Magic-users should for the most part use magic... how does that equate that they should "kill minions and control the battlefield"? These are more archetypes (as in archetypical roles) than anything to do with how they should fight. I also disagree with the point your last paragraph makes, the fact that this was discussed and brought up means that there was at least some room for players to do what they wanted and that "role" wasn't enforced by class structure but instead was enforced by the DM's concept of it and what he felt fit the behavior of certain archetypes.   So your answer is houserule it. Well that seems no better, and alot more work, than play a different game. To each his own though.  I'm curious... the designers have gone on record as basically stating the same thing I am claiming here about 4e's combat roles... The very people who design and developed the game recognize this as a problem. Yet you don't see it?  The game is moving into an area where combat role is not hardcoded to class... but instead at the lower level of build selection (and with some classes like the Berserker not hardcoded at all). I honestly think it's a step in the right direction... maybe just too little too late though.</blockquote>

Verification