Your role? Nothing matters but combat.

[JoeGKushner]

This is how the game has always been designed with an optimal party being mage, cleric, fighter, thief.

Well, at least that's how it's played since I've been playing (about 84' so maybe earlier editions were revolutionary or something in that matter.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

It's not funny, because there were real flames and passive aggressive postings going on everywhere here not too long ago. The 4e forum, in its short lifetime, has been a hotbed of bad feelings and seething posts that I don't see what is gained by adding to the fuel here of all places. Do we really need this right now?

Edit - Also, this forum has a disproportionate number of newbies, which means most people aren't going to "get it" and makes it more likely to cause bad feelings.

 

[VannATLC]

Try this: Describe what a "ranger" is. Maybe "paladin." Pick a class, your choice. Imagine someone wanders into the room where you're playing, or you're writing a letter to a friend who is ever so vaguely unfamiliar with fantasy roleplaying classes, and you've got about five to ten sentences to describe that class.

What info do you put right up at the top, the intro? Really. Share an example. ... Feel free to borrow text from 3rd edition, it that helps.

Er... What?

Why *would* I?

I might describe my character, Maugrimm;

Ice-cold blue eyes, piercing gaze, and a well-chiseled face look down at you. At 6'2, the well armoured, well muscled man infront of you is very imposing indeed. A heavy looking mace and a large metal shield strapped to his back only enhance the impression.
You notice his gloves are fingerless, and slightly charged around the edges, and a strange-scent wafts from a pouch on his belt. A symbol is carved into his breastplate, and you recognise it as sigil of St Cuthbert. Catching your eye, the man speaks, and his smooth, articulated voice seems somewhat at odds with the sense of domineering, barely controlled force surrounding him.


So.. That's Maugrimm.

There's a bunch of classes he could be, and I'm hoping you've got no clear idea of which one he is.. because class is an enabler of a character. Not its defining attribute.

 

[DandD]

You're playing a character with the Commoner-Class, admit it.

 

[Vaeron]

It saddens me that the part a character plays in group combat is defined as the entirety of his "role" (i.e. striker, controller, etc.), with barely a nod toward noncombat adventuring or other social interactions and goals in the gamebook's descriptive text.

In other words, it looks as though nothing other than combat is worth mentioning in this game anymore.

I'd just like to point out that I ran part of Raiders of Oakhurst with a few friends last night... an old gaming group that hadn't done much together since 2nd edition, but who were all curious about the new system.

We were only able to play for two hours, and would you like to know how many combats we had? 1. The rest of the time was investigating, talking to townsfolk, searching a burning farmhouse for survivors, and resolving a skill challenge to save someone from dying in a fire.

Perhaps, you might think, that 1 combat encounter was lengthy and that's why we only had 1. Not particularly. By some curse of the dice the PCs hit every time, and every single one of the monsters missed every time. A bad day to be a kobold.

My point is - how does changing combat mechanics change non-combat mechanics? If anything, 4e has EXPANDED non-combat interactions and rewards.

I don't understand this particular complaint. How does a characters combat role in anyway effect his roleplaying abilities? Maybe someone can break that down for me so I can grasp it.

 

[Remathilis]

Buggy... this isn't even up to your calibur...

I'd much admire it if we didn't have this argument eight months ago. Kudos for trying though.

3.5 stars/10.

Now, ready the fire arrows and acid...

 

[Wolfspider]

My own observation about playing 5 'lite' games of 4e is that my group and I have had the best RP sessions and social encounters we've had in years. Class role did not enter into the equation at all.

What do you think specifically about the "lite" 4e rules encouraged this above-average role-playing?

 

[Sashi]

They encourage roleplay by giving you your combat role for free.

If I want to be a fast talking charasmatic & diplomatic nobleman, I can be that, and THEN I choose to take levels in Rogue to be a striker. Or paladin to be a defender. Or wizard to be a controller. Unlike 3E where if I was a Wizard I'm basically barred from being diplomatic (because of a lack of class skills and skill points).

Much better.

 

[Filcher]

It saddens me that the part a character plays in group combat is defined as the entirety of his "role" (i.e. striker, controller, etc.), with barely a nod toward noncombat adventuring or other social interactions and goals in the gamebook's descriptive text.

In other words, it looks as though nothing other than combat is worth mentioning in this game anymore.

This is so AD&D.

 

[Michael Morris]

Just shut it down already. This is ridiculous.

No, what is ridiculous is you having the audacity to order around a moderator on top of attempting to vigilante moderate the other members of the board. Stop it now.