Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6534224" data-attributes="member: 42582">Sure, but in AD&D there is no distinct "striker" role (for melee PCs) because there is no distinct "defender" role, because melee is sticky for everyone by default. So a skirmisher of the sort I described would be a new role in that edition, and would stand not because of damage dealt (which is what tends to make a striker stand out in 4e) but because of ability to move through melee and select a target. You wouldn't need to give such a character better default damage than a fighter for it to be an interesting option - a type of fighter/thief combo. (The 2nd ed Ranger has flavour text that alludes to something like this, but no mechanics to deliver it.)You could argue, I guess, that there is no conceptual room for new roles because the 4e roles cover all the combat concepts in D&D:* melee skirmisher = striker * sniper = striker * condition imposition and forced movement = defender (in melee) and/or controller * ranged AoE = controller and/or striker (depending on which 4e book you read) * healing and/or buffing = leaderWhat is there to D&D combat besides hit point damage and recovery, condition imposition, buffing and damage prevention, and movement? Maybe a completely new role could do funky stuff with initiative and/or surprise: the "forward observer" role. But I'm not sure there's enough design space there for it not to really play as just a type of leader/controller hybrid.</blockquote>

Verification