Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6930482" data-attributes="member: 996">I'd think one role per class would help with that.&nbsp; The guy with the consecrated weapon and holy symbol blazoned on his shield always on the front line, protecting his friends?&nbsp; Paladin.&nbsp; Drop the class/role distinction and is he a Paladin or a Cleric?Could get complicated if you have too many classes - more so if you try to make each unique mechanic work uniquely for each role on top of that.The HotFW Berserker seemed like a good take on that.&nbsp; Of course, it did involve breaking the 1 role/class mold.Again, except for breaking out rogue, that's looking like Class = Source instead of Class = Role, it'd certainly be simple &amp; intuitive that way.&nbsp; Yeah, it /almost/ worked in 4e.&nbsp; Most classes had enough variety in applicable skills to participate almost all the time, and many had rituals or the odd out-of-combat utility on top of that, but, as quantum-leap-improved as the martial classes were over all other editions, they still fell short, the Rogue &amp; Ranger were solidly niche out of combat, and the fighter prettymuch out in the cold (and the Warlord not much better).If the game had continued to advance from 4e, it'd've had out-of-combat Roles, maybe even Roles for each pillar, instead of falling back to the AD&amp;D non-solution of DM-mediated situational balance-of-imbalances.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6930482, member: 996"] I'd think one role per class would help with that. The guy with the consecrated weapon and holy symbol blazoned on his shield always on the front line, protecting his friends? Paladin. Drop the class/role distinction and is he a Paladin or a Cleric? Could get complicated if you have too many classes - more so if you try to make each unique mechanic work uniquely for each role on top of that. The HotFW Berserker seemed like a good take on that. Of course, it did involve breaking the 1 role/class mold. Again, except for breaking out rogue, that's looking like Class = Source instead of Class = Role, it'd certainly be simple & intuitive that way. Yeah, it /almost/ worked in 4e. Most classes had enough variety in applicable skills to participate almost all the time, and many had rituals or the odd out-of-combat utility on top of that, but, as quantum-leap-improved as the martial classes were over all other editions, they still fell short, the Rogue & Ranger were solidly niche out of combat, and the fighter prettymuch out in the cold (and the Warlord not much better). If the game had continued to advance from 4e, it'd've had out-of-combat Roles, maybe even Roles for each pillar, instead of falling back to the AD&D non-solution of DM-mediated situational balance-of-imbalances. [/QUOTE]

Verification