Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 7652744" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think they might actually be pretty central. 4e's roles were combat roles, but there's roles in adventures and stories that transcend and invalidate combat roles. With the example of every faction being a class in Planescape, for example, that says that the roles are philosophical roles: we want someone to play the &quot;We think everyone is dead&quot; person and someone to play the &quot;I like to experience EVERYTHING&quot; person, etc. Or maybe even more centrally, &quot;we want someone to play the Lawful person, someone to play the Chaotic person, someone to play the Good person, someone to play the Neutral person...&quot; With the example of replacing roles with Icons from 13th Age, you've got someone who plays the &quot;Archamge&quot; and someone who plays the &quot;Dwarf King&quot; and someone who plays the &quot;Crusader.&quot; Those become the roles you want to see in your games. Those are roles much more relevant to the playing of those games than &quot;striker&quot; or &quot;defender.&quot;Of course, even in 4e, the difference between a role was just one little game mechanic. Either you had extra dice, or you used a mark, or you had a 2/round heal, or you had an area effect/tenacious status effect. Is that little difference enough for an entire character identity?&quot;What roles are my players interested in playing?&quot; is probably a very relevant question to ask when coming up with your own classes, but maybe for DMs, &quot;What roles does my world/setting/campaign plot enable?&quot; might be even better. Though thornier to answer pre character gen. But perhaps using villains as construction elements can help there: if you're playing the Temple of Elemental Evil, maybe evil cultists and divine priests and elemental-themed character classes would be more relevant?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 7652744, member: 2067"] I think they might actually be pretty central. 4e's roles were combat roles, but there's roles in adventures and stories that transcend and invalidate combat roles. With the example of every faction being a class in Planescape, for example, that says that the roles are [I]philosophical[/I] roles: we want someone to play the "We think everyone is dead" person and someone to play the "I like to experience EVERYTHING" person, etc. Or maybe even more centrally, "we want someone to play the Lawful person, someone to play the Chaotic person, someone to play the Good person, someone to play the Neutral person..." With the example of replacing roles with Icons from 13th Age, you've got someone who plays the "Archamge" and someone who plays the "Dwarf King" and someone who plays the "Crusader." Those become the roles you want to see in your games. Those are roles much more relevant to the playing of those games than "striker" or "defender." Of course, even in 4e, the difference between a role was just one little game mechanic. Either you had extra dice, or you used a mark, or you had a 2/round heal, or you had an area effect/tenacious status effect. Is that little difference enough for an entire character identity? "What roles are my players interested in playing?" is probably a very relevant question to ask when coming up with your own classes, but maybe for DMs, "What roles does my world/setting/campaign plot enable?" might be even better. Though thornier to answer pre character gen. But perhaps using villains as construction elements can help there: if you're playing the Temple of Elemental Evil, maybe evil cultists and divine priests and elemental-themed character classes would be more relevant? [/QUOTE]

Verification