Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5971442" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I probably shouldn't respond because there are a considerable number of tangential and perhaps mutually exclusive ideas/theories going on in your post Tovec.  But I guess I will.  I have to admit, like Pemerton I too am uncertain what the thrust of your post is saying.  It seems to be saying 1 - something about roles built into character classes in 4e narrowing the scope of PC capability?  2 - something about incoherency of Monster Design/Building capabilities in 4e versus the design framework of 3e...because there isn't a stock generic for each race upon which you can build an archetype (or the many archetypes listed in the various Monster Manuals/other sources don't address the various archetypes)?3 - something about role overlap between classes and monsters being irksome in 4e?In total, like Pemerton, I would ask if these positions are from experience or theory?Regarding 1)  I would say that almost class has a very effective sub-role (or multiples).  I would say every defender is a defender/melee controller by nature.  Further, some can be built to be more than serviceable single target damage dealers, multi-target damage dealers, or support/leaders.  The classes each do have a default focus, but you can dilute that focus through the other various PC build resources (feats, theme, multi-classing, hybridizing, power swapping, paragon pathing out of your focus).Regarding 2) I would say that for every single race I could find its generic analog that maps perfectly to my expectations of it from prior editions.  I could go further and find all the archetypes required to more than adequately represent every angle (and then some) of its social system (from berserkers, to shaman, to scouts, to pack handlers, etc).Regarding 3) there is a difference between PC roles and monster roles.  Monster roles express a monster's tactics/physicality and this generally works as a more than reasonable proxy for their place in the world/their social system (or lackthereof).  It is a design tool meant to facilitate ease of handling and clear, concise, coherent mapping to a DMs expectations of how this creature should "work" consistently in play.3e handles all of these things differently (while merely intimating that some of these things exist rather than overtly expressing them)...but I wouldn't say that you can't do in 4e what you can do in 3e regarding these 3 things.  Now if in there somewhere you are asserting that on the issue of ease of PC build matching favored archetypes without having to massage the mechanics slightly or re-skin...absolutely, I'll grant you that it is certainly easier to pull off in 3e.</blockquote>

Verification