Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 4229012" data-attributes="member: 18490">QFT.It's true now, and it was true in the good old days as well. No one says you can't play with an unbalanced party or a party that doesn't work together well; you could in earlier editions and you should be able to do so in 4e. But that doesn't mean that a balanced party that works together won't be more effective in a tactical sense. An unbalanced but smart party can overcome their role-based tactical weakness by cleverness and thinking outside the box.4e doesn't seem to use roles as a straightjacket. Characters have lots of advantages if they play within their roles, but that doesn't mean that you can't play outside that box. The fighter will always be more tactically effective if he uses big weapons with stopping power and has a high AC so that he can soak damage. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's played D&D at all. In earlier editions, the fighter with a sword and heavy armor had a tactical advantage over the fighter who specialized in throwing darts and wore leather armor. That doesn't make Throwey McDartmaster an unplayable or unfun character, but he is less effective in combat.If that's important to you, you won't build such a character. If it isn't, you'll say screw the rules, build the character you want to play and have fun. 4e seems to reward characters who play within their role. Not provided rewards for playing outside your role is not the same thing as preventing you from doing so, and the disincentives aren't any greater than they've ever been.</blockquote>

Verification