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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 3789554" data-attributes="member: 10397">That depends somewhat on the class, and on the nature of the roles. Some classes have always only really been suitable for one role. Some have always been able to fill multiple roles, in a balanced way. Some have attempted to be the "jack of all trades, master of none" in a balanced way, such as the bard, and come out sucking because without extreme rules knowledge and min/maxing, they can't actually do much of anything well.   It's also tied to the concepts behind the CLASSES. I think some of us have a fear of the "roles" eclipsing the actual nature and concept of the classes. As I mentioned, some classes have always more or less filled one role or type of role, both mechanically and conceptually, within combat. The Fighter would be the big example of this. However, if you look at the Wizard, its a bit different. Coneptually, the Wizard is supposed to be a master of magic, one who spends his life studying the arcane in order to basically muck around with reality. By nature, he can and should be able to create many different effects, and therefore potentially fullfill multiple roles. And the Wizard has built in vulnerabilities that balance this, such as low hit points, Fort saves, AC, and extreme vulnerability to grappling and the like.  I dont want to see the Wizard spell list being stripped down to consist almost entirely of "controller" spells....battlefield control, area effects, and mind control. Likewise, I don't want to see Fighters given almost exclusively defensive options because they are "defenders." The Fighter should be the Fighter, and the Wizard the Wizard first and foremost, before any specific role. As long as they remember that, I think the roles will be helpful.   A 4 Wizard party wouldnt be nearly as effective as a 4 Cleric party. Because, as I mention above, while wizards can do many different things, they still have weaknesses...including weaknesses that they can't really address. In particular, their low HPs, low Fort saves and vulnerability to grappling monsters/effects are major weaknesses, and since they lack Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Spell Resistance or hardly any spells to boost saves or HPs, they are ongoing vulnerabilities.  The Cleric is far and away the most powerful class in the game. Not only can a Cleric do most of the things the other classes can do...often as well or better...they have no meaningful ongoing weaknesses. Good HP, good AC, Good Fort saves and really good Will saves, plus Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Spell Resistance, energy resistance spells, save boosters, healing etc etc.  The Cleric is an example of a class that goes too far the other direction. The Cleric is a super-class that not only can do almost anything, but more importantly has no mechanical drawbacks of any kind. It will need to be addressed in 4e.  This is true. But I dont think classes should be locked into a single "role" either. Many of the actual concepts of the classes allow for balanced mutability and variety in abilities and aproach, and this should not be changed for the sake of "roles"</blockquote>

Verification