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: 5736917" data-attributes="member: 48965">I take it you don't read rule of 3 then... In the <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20111107" target="_blank">last Rule of Three</a>, you talked a little about roles existing in earlier editions but being codified in 4E. How do you think having these roles has affected the game? Is there anything you would change or anything you've learned from this design choice?  ...One more lesson learned: It's harder to customize a character or play against type when the class is built to serve a specific role. If you want to build a wizard who behaves like a striker by putting out a ton of damage on a single target, you can't really do it; you need to build a warlock instead. Similarly, if you want to build an axe-throwing fighter, you'll find that the fighter offers darned few ranged weapon powers; it's hard to make the fighter into a character who fights well at range. You have to create that character by figuring out which class makes that concept work (slayer or ranger, perhaps) and call yourself an axe fighter while using the chassis provided by a class in the "proper" role. Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all. Now is this the part where you tell us that even the designers and developers of the game are confused about their thoughts and 4e because of presentation or something like that?</blockquote>

Verification