Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5743147" data-attributes="member: 42582">A big part of conflict resolution in 4e is combat. PCs are built for it; so are monsters. So the way in which combat plays out is a big part of the fiction. And role is a significant contributor to the way in which combat plays out - and hence to the fiction.Role also feeds into paragon paths, which contribute to the fiction.The contribution, I think, has two elements: giving the PC a clear identity in the fiction; and creating combats that are fictionally dramatic, and in which the various PCs play memorable parts.(Of course other RPGs have dramatic combats with memorable fictional parts being played by the PCs. But I think this is one thing that 4e does particularly well. And tightly defined combat roles help this.)I don't think the game should create options that undermine the play experience it offers. Reasonably tightly defined roles are part of what makes the 4e combat mechanics work.Using builds/sub-classes rather than classes reduces power (especially utility power) and feat bloat. But you seem to think it does something else as well. I'm not sure what you think that something else is, though.What you say is true, but from a practical point of view I find that one thing I don't miss in 4e is the rules' relative indifference to power source as an element in action resolution.</blockquote>