Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Were the four roles correctly identified, or are there others?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6308703" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>I played an awful lot of AD&D, 20 years of it, and a lot of 4e. I don't really see it. If you wish to make a cleric with say a high WIS and a high INT and focus on rituals and buffs/debuffs you can do it. In fact you could make a pacifist that makes almost no attacks. In both 4e and 2e your character WILL be competent with a weapon, at least at low levels, you can't change that in either system. Of course in either one you can ignore weapons and be relatively ineffective with them, especially at high levels, but I don't see that as unique to either system.</p><p></p><p>In fact with 4e it is actually EASIER to make truly supportive non-combat characters in the leader role than in 2e. The weird thing with the 2e character is, you can transmogrify him in 24 hours into a combat dreadnaught just by changing his spell selection and equipment. The 4e character is much more tied to feat choices that can't easily be undone. </p><p></p><p>4e can do a LOT of off-label types of characters. You can do a sneaky fighter for instance, or a smart 'brain' rogue for instance. You could mix ritual casting into ANY of those concepts to create for instance the 'guild thief' that plays the support role for a team of high end burglars, etc. 2e lacks even the basic rules systems to build on for this kind of thing. Obviously you COULD design kits to cover each concept but kits are quite narrow and you literally have to create one for each new concept. The 4e classes are vastly more flexible. This is what lead to 3e and its free-for-all of MCing.</p><p></p><p>This was also what makes 4e able to tie specific classes to specific roles. You just don't HAVE to be a certain class in 4e to fill a specific concept. If you want to be a 'warrior' that is a striker you can pick from many different martial/weapon-using striker classes and build from there what you want. Its very tricky when you start talking about what a given 4e class can and cannot do because you really have to compare each SYSTEM in total.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6308703, member: 82106"] I played an awful lot of AD&D, 20 years of it, and a lot of 4e. I don't really see it. If you wish to make a cleric with say a high WIS and a high INT and focus on rituals and buffs/debuffs you can do it. In fact you could make a pacifist that makes almost no attacks. In both 4e and 2e your character WILL be competent with a weapon, at least at low levels, you can't change that in either system. Of course in either one you can ignore weapons and be relatively ineffective with them, especially at high levels, but I don't see that as unique to either system. In fact with 4e it is actually EASIER to make truly supportive non-combat characters in the leader role than in 2e. The weird thing with the 2e character is, you can transmogrify him in 24 hours into a combat dreadnaught just by changing his spell selection and equipment. The 4e character is much more tied to feat choices that can't easily be undone. 4e can do a LOT of off-label types of characters. You can do a sneaky fighter for instance, or a smart 'brain' rogue for instance. You could mix ritual casting into ANY of those concepts to create for instance the 'guild thief' that plays the support role for a team of high end burglars, etc. 2e lacks even the basic rules systems to build on for this kind of thing. Obviously you COULD design kits to cover each concept but kits are quite narrow and you literally have to create one for each new concept. The 4e classes are vastly more flexible. This is what lead to 3e and its free-for-all of MCing. This was also what makes 4e able to tie specific classes to specific roles. You just don't HAVE to be a certain class in 4e to fill a specific concept. If you want to be a 'warrior' that is a striker you can pick from many different martial/weapon-using striker classes and build from there what you want. Its very tricky when you start talking about what a given 4e class can and cannot do because you really have to compare each SYSTEM in total. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Were the four roles correctly identified, or are there others?
Top