Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller Dynamic
- Thread starter Family
- Start date
PrecociousApprentice
First Post
I like the roles. Gonna keep em.
That One Guy
First Post
Good question... I think we say, "Well, we'll have ________ and we should get ________." But, I don't think it's really affecting us too much. Granted, it's useful for giving a guideline on how to play a character... which is groovy.
Edit: ...upon reconsideration, I think the roles are being ingrained into how the players use their PCs, but not in a forcing way. The roles are simply a tool for estimating 'what' the player wants to do in combat and gives them an easy way to do it. Granted, doing it well needs a tactical mind, and I think groups will learn that way of thinking quickly.
Edit: ...upon reconsideration, I think the roles are being ingrained into how the players use their PCs, but not in a forcing way. The roles are simply a tool for estimating 'what' the player wants to do in combat and gives them an easy way to do it. Granted, doing it well needs a tactical mind, and I think groups will learn that way of thinking quickly.
Thasmodious
First Post
VannATLC said:
This.
These roles are nothing new, they've been part of the Party concept since 1st edition.
MyISPHatesENWorld
First Post
Those types of roles were never a big deal in games I played. In one game, we had an entire party of what would be considered Strikers, though we covered the gamut of classes of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard (with some multiclassing and prestige classing mixed in). The other stuff was secondary to moving around and knocking the snot out of stuff. Everyone played what they wanted, everyone worked really well together and we got things done and had fun. If players like how their characters play, things tend to work out.
jeffhartsell
First Post
MyISPHatesENWorld said:
Indeed. A party of 5 fighters or rogues or whatever will play just find compared to the "ideal" group as long as everyone is happy with their character.
