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: 5738933" data-attributes="member: 48965">No one is claiming combat role includes archetype, in fact the hard coding of combat role to an archetype is the very thing we are arguing against. I feel like you really are misreading the entire argument being placed forth.   Yep, and yet by the fluff and class abilities wizard and warlock are not interchangeable as archetypes. They encompass different fiction, different skills, different proficiencies, different class abilities, etc.  As an example... any wizard I create will be a scholar as pertains to arcane lore. It is presented that way in the fiction of the class (how the wizard learns and casts magic) and it is presented that way through the mechanics ( if you are a Wizard you will always have Arcana trained, you will have a spell book with spells, etc.).  The Warlock on the other hand accomodates the practitioner who gained his power through a pact with a powerful being. This is presented that way in the fiction and in the mechanics...He has a pact, has no actual spells in a spellbook, and he may or may not have learned anything about arcane lore (Arcana is an optional skill for him). This is just a very simple example of a pretty big difference in the two archetypes these classes represent, there are alot more when you get into skills available, weapon/armor proficiencies/implements/etc. I don't really understand how you see them as the same archetype with just a differing combat role... they clearly aren't... and after reading that Rule-of-3 article, I would say the developer/designers of 4e agree... at least to a certain point with my argument.   No what we want is for our combat role not to be dependant upon the archetype/class we choose. What I am saying is that I want the archetype of a monk as presented in the fiction and non-combat rules of the game and be able to pick the combat role I want for said archetype. There's no reason a monk should be a striker only... A monk could be a controller, a defender, or even a leader if combat role wasn't so explicitely tied to the monk archetype/class in 4e.   What are you talking about by role? If you mean combat role, then I will contend that I have never claimed combat role = archetype... So I would argue that you have been misreading the argument being placed forth from the beginning and that maybe you should re-read what has been posted so far to get a better grasp of what is being discussed.</blockquote>

Verification