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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5743482" data-attributes="member: 42582">That's probably true, but who else's sensibilities do you want me to use?Which systems have you got in mind? When I think of RQ, RM or AD&D I don't agree. But obviously there are many more systems under the sun.I think there was always something there - as the quotes from Gygax that I posted upthread indicate. I don't think the roles had quite the same mechanical expression as they do in 4e. There was nothing mechanically analogous to the defender role in classic D&D (although depending whether one followed Basic or AD&D DMG guidelines on entering and leaving melee, there could be some sort of approximation to it), and at least in my experience in combat healing was also rarer than in 4e, and so also not really a part of the combat dynamics. In my experience at least, in combat classic D&D clerics generally performed as second-rate fighters until they got access to serious attack spells like Hold Person and Flame Strike, at which point they performed as alternative MUs.I don't think it would break the power level of the game. The game is (in my view) very robust in that respect.I think it would adversely affect the dynamics of combat - although others, including (I think) [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], disagree. I find that the distribution of "responsibilities" across the PCs helps make 4e combat what it is - for example, it generates dynamic interaction between the "action budget" for each player, which in turn can generate intricate decision making in relation to positioning PCs in the initiative sequence, all of which in turn produces drama and tension at the table.As to what the designers should take into account - I hope they continue to produce a game that supports the sort of focused builds that 4e seems to me to be designed around. I don't particularly care whether they do it via classes or sub-classes, provided there is neither too much bloat nor too many orphaned options. This may make the game less popular than it otherwise might be. I don't know. But the game as it is seems to be popular enough to be viable, which is all that I need.OK. Putting the bloat issue to one side, I think it's much of a muchness whether new sub-classes are created under Paladin, or whether a new class is created that is a heavily armourd, divinely powered striker. For me, this falls under the "what's in a name" comment made upthread by [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION].Of course, the bloat issue shouldn't be put to one side. It is a good reason for having sub-classes. Runepriest is the most obvious class I can think of that should have been a sub-class (of Cleric). I don't have a very good understanding of Seekers, but they look like they should probably have been either a Ranger or a Druid sub-class.</blockquote>

Verification