Community

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:13PM, greatfrito wrote:

I just had a funny little realization, too.  The vocal "we dislike (often an understatement) 4e, and most things about it" crowd seems to want Roles pushed aside, and either removed completely, or to have no mechanical effect... but it also seems to want Alignment brought to the fore, potentially with mechanical effect.  To me, that just seems completely backwards: we want no mechanical restrictions on how a given concept operates, but we want roleplaying restrictions on how that same given concept operates?

Is that just one of those "well, that's how it used to be, so that's how it should be" things?  Or do people seriously think it's more important that each class be playable however you want for combat, than it is for the class to be playable however you want for roleplaying?

I will hazard a guess but thats all it will be.  I think with alignment it is something you choose independent of your class.  I think even the pro-alignment people are mostly against LG only Paladins.  I think with role you have to be x if you are going to be a fighter.  I also think in some cases it is what the roles are and not the fact that their are roles.  A lot of fighter types want to be the striker and the defender.

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:25PM, Qmark wrote:

Mar 26, 2012 -- 11:18AM, Emerikol wrote:

I'd be happy with 3 classes
Mystic,
Fighter,
Rogue

Really, that's all it is: Magic Guy, Violence Guy, and Skills Guy.
I'm not even entirely sure "Skills Guy" needs to be a separate thing.

I was thinking lightly armored, sneaky, backstabbing guy.  Yeah I keep skills as a separate variable.

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:13PM, greatfrito wrote:

Or do people seriously think it's more important that each class be playable however you want for combat, than it is for the class to be playable however you want for roleplaying?

With alignments, your character is still playable however you want.  Your alignment is freely adjustable, but doing so may cause you to interact with the world differently (and vice versa).  But even the tangible alignment effects I want don't include class-based restrictions (save perhaps for the Druid needing to be some form of neutral, but that's a very minor desire).  I don't want the Paladin to be restricted to LG (save perhaps for the idea that a "Paladin" of a different alignment has some other class name, "Paladin" being unique for LG, and "Chevalier" being the default name of the class.  Again, very minor desire).  I think a lot of players that are pro-alignment are still against the class-based restrictions; it's just a really bad stigma from a history of a poorly implemented system.

Roles I see as a built in weakness of the freedom you have with your class.  I think a "Fighter" should be a character that accomplishes their things through physically fighting.  I see no reason why a Fighter can't be a Controller, a Leader, a Defender, etc, etc.  So I'd rather the abilities hard-boiled into the class not be related to a one or two types of roles.  The available abilities for a player to choose from should encompass all roles, and the player can decide.

Again, like alignment, I don't mind that roles exist, nor would I mind they be described.  I just don't want them to be assumed.  Like alignment.

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:13PM, greatfrito wrote:

Or do people seriously think it's more important that each class be playable however you want for combat, than it is for the class to be playable however you want for roleplaying?

Only in that Chess tends to be slightly more rules dependent than a puppet show.

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:43PM, FirstTurnKill wrote:

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:41PM, Qmark wrote:

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:34PM, Emerikol wrote:

I was thinking lightly armored, sneaky, backstabbing guy.

That's just a variation on Violence Guy.

How about Subtlety Guy?

I think "Stealth Guy" is what you meant.
Even then, "Stealth Guy" really isn't too particularly differentiated from Violence Guy.  I dunno, maybe.

What "Stealth Guy" needs is more of a redo, instead of just being a crappy fighter dependent on flanking, whose terrible hit-rolls make him miss most of the time anyway.