Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 3760046" data-attributes="member: 24970"><joke> What is this... COMMUNISM??? </joke> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Class Roles should only be a guideline for new players. Some of the most interesting parties don't use all the class roles. Some of the most interesting classes, like the Druid, don't fit well into any one role. Now, it makes sense for Wizards to use the more "role-suited" classes in the new PHB and to introduce the concept of Class Roles... for NEWBIES. But beyond newbies, people should build their characters based on what THEY want to play, not based on a perceived need of the gaming group. If they want to make a character to fill a need, then obviously that's great, but all too often I've seen people say "Guess I have to make a cleric because the party needs one, sigh...."I don't know about you guys, but when I create a RPG character, I think of them as their own character, as if I were casting them in a book or movie, and as if they could theoretically go on adventures themselves and have a "life story" of going on adventures themselves. Their role in the party is secondary. I am not a player killer or a goof-off-for-the-heck-of-it, but the character comes first, the party is secondary.Fighters have tons more to do than swing their swords. It's soooo much better than it was in 1e or 2e. Disarm, Sunder, Grapple, Bull Rush, Power Attack, Expertise, Trip... fighters have a LOT of options which they didn't have prior to 3e. More maneuvers are always good, and it's good that 4e is apparently going to have even more of them... but... BUT...But.... frankly, most people who play fighter-type characters, in my experience, do so because it's the simplest character to play. I'm sure there are people who are into it from a roleplaying or the coolness of playing a fighter. But I have met lots of people who like playing fighters because playing a wizard or other spellcaster is more complicated and requires looking through the spell charts. Not just novice gamers, but people who have been playing for a long time and just prefer playing simple, fighter-type characters.So what's the answer to this? Well, the answer is definitely NOT "simplify spellcasters." When I say that spellcasters are for "hardcore roleplayers" I don't mean that they are into roleplaying necessarily, I mean that they're for people who are into the nitty-gritty, spell-choosing, spell-memorizing aspect. It's much quicker to just pick up a fighter-type character and play. (Well, there are feats in 3e, but...) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Obviously it's good to give fighters more combat options. BUT if the idea is to make all classes of equal complexity, then that is a bad idea. It's also impossible. In any kind of intelligently done fantasy game, a spellcaster is always going to have more options than a non-spellcaster at any given moment. Spellcasters deserve more complexity because they can do more things and they are for people who don't mind having all those options whirling around in their head at once. The difference between "Shall I power attack or regular attack? Shall I sunder or parry?" is important -- but it is way, way, WAY different from "Shall I throw a lightning bolt, summon a monster, cast plant growth, try to charm the monster, or create a wall of stone?"And if your reaction to that is, "Well, it's okay if fighters can cleave through dozens of opponents and do 200~ damage in one round, but it's game-breaking if spellcasters can do too many weird things," then... :/ Well, to each their own campaign. Now maybe they are going to make it so that the Sorcerer class is more of the "simple to play spellcaster" (like it already is) and the Wizard is more the "complicated and bookkeeping-intensive" spellcaster (like it already is). But I just don't want the fun of spellcaster to vanish by having them locked into a particular role.</blockquote>

Verification