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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5739290" data-attributes="member: 6668292">What's the problem, exactly, with divorcing combat role from being encoded into classes? Because I think that's a question some people are trying to ask.When I play a Fighter, why is "Defender" already encoded? When I play a Wizard, why is "controller" already encoded?Why shouldn't I be able to pick "Fighter" and then "Defender", just like I can pick "Fighter" and then "Sword and Board" as my primary style? Why can't I pick "Fighter" and then "Striker" and then "Bow and Arrow" as my primary style?I mean, the PHB could have "Example Wizard: Controller" in the book. It could have "Example Fighter: Defender" in the book. It could say that the party functions best with one of each role present.What I guess I'm missing is what exactly is objectionable about having pools of "Defender Powers" and "Controller Powers" separate to choose from. Just like pools of "Arcane Powers" and "Martial Exploits" or the like. You could have the Combat Role pools be inside the Power Source pools. That is, you'd have pools of Arcane Powers, with four sections: Striker, Defender, Controller, and Leader. So, as a Wizard (Arcane Power Source), you could choose your Combat Role, and then choose an appropriate power from the Arcane [Combat Role chosen] pool for your level. And you'd get to choose a power outside your Combat Role (if you want) once every four levels, or something, letting you dip into Striker or Leader or something.Or, heck, don't even force someone to choose a Combat Role. If they want to pick all Striker powers, go for it. If they want to pick all Controller powers, awesome. If they want to mix and match, great. Maybe that's a complexity dial option right there: at base they're set, but if you want to mix and match (more complex, harder to balance), then go for it.I just don't get the problem with it in a theoretical sense. You could then give classes certain base options to help define them: god-related, nature-related, martial-related, etc. Something to mirror the Power Sources, perhaps. Then, in expansions and splat books, give out actual classes. This wouldn't be new material (as in, you could always build them yourself), but it'd be work you wouldn't have to do as a GM or player, and you could modify it on the fly pretty easily (like a really easily house-ruled class or ability, as you know what "equivalents" are). I guess you could do the same in the core book: here's the "Cleric: he's a Divine Leader with the Cure Light Wounds power" or the like.Just my thoughts on it. I think that's an easier setup for the Powers approach, personally. I don't get the objection to separating combat role from class, but maybe I'm missing something obvious. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification