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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5730850" data-attributes="member: 54877">I stil think we need sharper focus and edges with design and mechanical elements, but ability to soften those inherent in the class/character designs. For example, keep the four roles (or something very much like them). Add "role" features (replacing class features that deal with role concerns). Give every class 2 roles, not merely a secondary role with no features to back it up. So now you have: Striker/DefenderStriker/LeaderStriker/ControllerDefender/LeaderDefender/ControllerLeader/Controller ... for your strong combinations. You'll note that half of those are strikers (as with any single role), but the opening classes will probably focus more on the striker combinations rather than having a proportional division. In the first 16 classes, there might be only one each of the last two. Then I'd also allow a class, where it made sense, to trade features on one side for features on the other. A rogue would be a striker/controller who traded half of his controller features for more striker features--thus making him a bit of an "ur" striker. You need multiple role features per role to make this work. That of course is all with the current roles. I rather like the idea of "scout" as an explicit combat role. The one drawback to it is that unless you eliminate striker, it could be too narrow. However, by giving two roles to every class, you can afford for some roles to be a bit narrower.</blockquote>

Verification