Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4524015" data-attributes="member: 22779">Really?&nbsp; What non-combat role did a Fighter have?&nbsp; Heck, how much of a non-combat role did a Barbarian have?&nbsp; What CLASS FEATURES, not skills, not feats (which any class can access) does a fighter or a barbarian or a paladin for that matter, have that give him a non-combat role?What combat role does a bard have?&nbsp; What combat role does a rogue have when facing a golem or undead or a plant?&nbsp; Heck, about the only non-combat feature any class has exclusively is spells.&nbsp; Oh, and find traps.&nbsp; Sorry, forgot that one.&nbsp; Whoo, that took a long time to list.The arguement, at least what I understand of it, is that because any class can potentially have non-combat features, all of the PC's at the table will automatically have all of them, creating characters that are mechanically identical.This is completely false.&nbsp; One player might do &quot;face&quot; while another might do &quot;knowledge guy&quot;.&nbsp; Which is identical to 3e.&nbsp; The only difference between 3e and 4e in this is that in 4e, your non-combat role is not dictated by your class.&nbsp; So, you can be a &quot;face&quot; fighter or a &quot;knowledge guy&quot; paladin or a &quot;trap finder/problem solver&quot; cleric.Isn't this a win for 4e?&nbsp; That you have more concepts open to you than you had in 3e?&nbsp; In 3e, if you wanted to be a trap finder/problem solver, you took rogue.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; Only.&nbsp; No other class could do it (ignoring non-core for the moment).&nbsp; So, if you wanted to play MacGyver, you had to play a rogue.&nbsp; Now, I can play MacGyver with any class.Doesn't that mean that I have more options in 4e?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4524015, member: 22779"] Really? What non-combat role did a Fighter have? Heck, how much of a non-combat role did a Barbarian have? What CLASS FEATURES, not skills, not feats (which any class can access) does a fighter or a barbarian or a paladin for that matter, have that give him a non-combat role? What combat role does a bard have? What combat role does a rogue have when facing a golem or undead or a plant? Heck, about the only non-combat feature any class has exclusively is spells. Oh, and find traps. Sorry, forgot that one. Whoo, that took a long time to list. The arguement, at least what I understand of it, is that because any class can potentially have non-combat features, all of the PC's at the table will automatically have all of them, creating characters that are mechanically identical. This is completely false. One player might do "face" while another might do "knowledge guy". Which is identical to 3e. The only difference between 3e and 4e in this is that in 4e, your non-combat role is not dictated by your class. So, you can be a "face" fighter or a "knowledge guy" paladin or a "trap finder/problem solver" cleric. Isn't this a win for 4e? That you have more concepts open to you than you had in 3e? In 3e, if you wanted to be a trap finder/problem solver, you took rogue. Period. Only. No other class could do it (ignoring non-core for the moment). So, if you wanted to play MacGyver, you had to play a rogue. Now, I can play MacGyver with any class. Doesn't that mean that I have more options in 4e? [/QUOTE]

Verification