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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 5741202">Everyone has a different reaction to these things.  Honestly I am not sure why roles were such a turn-off for me in 4E. It was one of a number of changes I reacted pretty negatively to. It could be any number of things. I suspect it isn't just one reason but many. Part of it is it seems to really place the emphasis on combat and dungeon crawl. I know people have designed parties around combat functions for a while, but even back in 2E or 3E I never liked designing a party like that. It was just not organic enough for me. To me having three spell casters in a party was fine, not having a cleric wasn't a problem, a group of all fighters could be a blast. But for me combat was rarely the focus of the game (it had its place but how well a character performed in battle was only a part of his value to the party).  I think another reason I didn't like the role concept was it felt like the designers were holding my hand, but at the same time limiting my options. It also seemed kind of muddled having both classes and roles. In my opinion one of the things 3e got right was the multiclassing system. I really liked the flexibility of it and it was way more streamlined than previous editions. It was the one aspect of the game I felt really should be preserved in the next edition. But roles and open multiclassing are somewhat opposed notions.  At the end of the day though, I just found the concept very distasteful for some reason.</blockquote>

Verification