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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6541046" data-attributes="member: 15700">Let me add a follow up to my point earlier.  In Basic D&D, the same class (a fighter) could be (and was, depending on how the player wanted to play him or her)* Strength based.  The brutal warrior who focused on doing as much damage as possible* Dex based.  Either the heavy armor&shield type to be as hard to hit as possible, whose role was to be on the front line taking the brunt of the attacks.  * Dex based.  Ranged weapons.  The bow or javalin.  Hit and run fighter* Con based.  Has as many HP as you could get to extend your survivability.Or you could play a cleric that also fit all of the above if you wanted, in addition to a healer, protector, smiter, etc.  I don't think there is any need to talk about how a MU could focus on damage dealing spells, or utility spells, or control spells, etc, etc--filling any number of roles that could change literally every day.What people are forgetting about Basic D&D was that every weapon did the same damage (d6) unless you used an optional rule.  And every class got the same bonuses to abilities.  A cleric with a 16 STR would do more damage with a weapon than a fighter with a 15 STR forever until that somehow changed.  This allowed classes to take on these "roles" you associate with different modern classes.  Also, for the meat of the game (up to level 10), the attack matrix for fighters compared to a class like the cleric weren't really that far off.  Heck, in Basic (the version we're talking about here as per what GM said that I replied to), there is no difference in the attack matrix.  Everyone got better at the same rate when they hit level 4.When I talk about roles in D&D, I'm talking about the entire game.  If 4e changed that to mean that roles only mattered in combat, then that's a HUGE disservice to the game.  Because like the thief in early D&D, your role wasn't combat focused for one.  You still had just as much importance to the group as anyone else overall, so placing the value on combat seems to short change yourself, because D&D is sooo much more than combat.  To me, roles are based more on archetypes you want to play.  And in Basic, the roles are very basic (no pun intended) and loose.  Nothing so narrowly defined as striker, controller, healer, etc.  It was "magic user" and "fighter" and "thief" and "cleric" because each of those classes could do one of several different roles, depending on you choose to play them.  Not something automatically predetermined when you choose the class.</blockquote>

Verification