Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Anthtriel" data-source="post: 3870302" data-attributes="member: 13764">The idea behind the role model is that there are certain functions that a party needs no matter how the design is (&quot;need&quot; as in, a party will perform a lot better if the function is present), so you might just as well acknowledge it in class design instead of having useless classes that are only good at stuff no one cares about (3E Monk and Bard).If you give classes the chance to get better at those functions than the classes which traditionally fulfill them, you risk having classes that overshadow other classes (Codzilla).Besides, for your specific examples: A fighter that fulfills a leader function would become a healer without mutliclassing into cleric. You could never do that and I don't see why you should now.If you give a wizard the ability to make him a defender or a striker, then that means he can tank as well as a fighter or do as much damage as a rogue. I don't see why wizards should be allowed to do that. They could never outtank the fighter. They could outdamage the rogue, but then again, they made the rogue nearly useless in most editions of the game, which was obviously a flaw.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Anthtriel, post: 3870302, member: 13764"] The idea behind the role model is that there are certain functions that a party needs no matter how the design is ("need" as in, a party will perform a lot better if the function is present), so you might just as well acknowledge it in class design instead of having useless classes that are only good at stuff no one cares about (3E Monk and Bard). If you give classes the chance to get better at those functions than the classes which traditionally fulfill them, you risk having classes that overshadow other classes (Codzilla). Besides, for your specific examples: A fighter that fulfills a leader function would become a healer without mutliclassing into cleric. You could never do that and I don't see why you should now. If you give a wizard the ability to make him a defender or a striker, then that means he can tank as well as a fighter or do as much damage as a rogue. I don't see why wizards should be allowed to do that. They could never outtank the fighter. They could outdamage the rogue, but then again, they made the rogue nearly useless in most editions of the game, which was obviously a flaw. [/QUOTE]

Verification