|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 1:01PM
#31
|
|
|
We don't need roles to be spelled out in each individual class. That's one of the things that turned me off of 4th ed. I never decide my role first and sometimes I never fully define it. I choose my class and race and then I decide what type character in a class I want to be by choosing my abilities. I let my abilities define my role based on my choices. I hate pre-defined roles because it makes everything less interesting.
without some idea as to role you cant pick your class. if your a rogue you are not a healer for example. so when you choise the rogue class you are chosen your role to a exstent.
not to mention that your way of picking out your character seams both uncommon and not rational. 4e is desgined for you to first pick a concept, like say a moble guy who uses daggers then decide on class and feats and whatnot after that. rather then picking out a class and trying to figure out what he does afterward. the class name is just that, a name it means nothing more then you let it mean. so when you pick out the class you are not really picking out anything
again unless you suport every class being able to heal/support, defend, control, and do damage equal well you want roles. if you make then exsplicit you make sure classes can do them well.
and on the bottom line without roles you will have no balance at all (probably as bad a 3.x was with god-casters) and everyone who liked 4e, or who likes modern RPGs will not buy the game. and the 4e crowd must be won over for the game to succeed the way they want.
That's why I do not play 4e. I do not want to choose a role from the get-go. I choose what I want based on perhaps I what I already played before. I generally choose a class and then a concept. I do not want to be forced to think of a role first and then having to choose 'powers' based on that role.
No, what you are saying is untrue. You can choose whatever you want as a rogue. As a rogue you can easily be a striker or a thug. Not all clerics heal such as evil aligned clerics. I do not want pre-defined roles. If such a thing exists in 5th ed then I most likely will not play the game. Its stupid to lock players in like that.
classes are and are only sets of mechaics, they are not archatypes, they are not anything else just sets of mechanics.
your acting like you cant be certain archatypes without being certain classes, like you cant be sneaky unless your a rogue, or a dumb brute unless your a fighter. therefor if you want to be a striker dumb brute you must be a fighter who is a striker.
this is just not true, you can be a rogue who is a dumb brute, or a steathy fighter. you should pick what you want your chacter to be then pick your class becaue classes exist to help you play a concept. if you want to be a archer who was in the military then you should probably pick ranger, you can call yourself a fighter if you want of course
by your reasoning I should be able to play a rogue as a healer as easy as a striker and be as good a healer as a cleric can be. after all I picked "rogue" when I started the game but then decided to be a healer, I should not let my class get in the way of what I can do
P.S. your ignorance of roles does not mean they do not exist or never did exist.
Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I think, "oh, there's this new class i want to try that!". Other times I think of wanting to play a magical fighter so I decided on Magus in Pathfinder. I don't even know how I would do that in DnD, lol with the sorceror's base attack being so low.
Simply put some people play the game much differently than others. I do not want to play a game in which my role is defined by my class. I want to define it myself based on the abilities I want to choose. If I want to be a fighter with a bow then I can be a striker if I choose but maybe I do not want my fighter to strike. I should be able to choose that. Maybe I don't want to be a ranger. Maybe I do not like the abilities that a ranger gets. Maybe I want to be rogueish but not be a rogue. I should be able to choose that.
No, I am not saying that each class should do all the same things and have the same abilities. Of course not. I think that some roles can easily be created by multiple classes by the weapons and abilities chosen. In 5e so far you can choose to play a cleric that strikes by using Lance of Faith. You can choose to play a defender rogue. I don't think all roles can be filled by all classes. I just think they don't need to be pre-determined by the design.
so your saying not every class should be able to do every role, but that the designers should not have this in mind when they make classes. you want the rogue to be a striker but you dont want them designed to be one?
what is wrong with saying that class X has roles A and B, and you can decide what comination of A and B you want. you even said you dont want every class to be able to do every role, what is wrong with saying that the rogue cant heal, then making sure if he wants to do damage he can do enough to matter? or if he wants to control he has the tools to do it?
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes.
Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 1:16PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
We don't need roles to be spelled out in each individual class. That's one of the things that turned me off of 4th ed. I never decide my role first and sometimes I never fully define it. I choose my class and race and then I decide what type character in a class I want to be by choosing my abilities. I let my abilities define my role based on my choices. I hate pre-defined roles because it makes everything less interesting.
without some idea as to role you cant pick your class. if your a rogue you are not a healer for example. so when you choise the rogue class you are chosen your role to a exstent.
not to mention that your way of picking out your character seams both uncommon and not rational. 4e is desgined for you to first pick a concept, like say a moble guy who uses daggers then decide on class and feats and whatnot after that. rather then picking out a class and trying to figure out what he does afterward. the class name is just that, a name it means nothing more then you let it mean. so when you pick out the class you are not really picking out anything
again unless you suport every class being able to heal/support, defend, control, and do damage equal well you want roles. if you make then exsplicit you make sure classes can do them well.
and on the bottom line without roles you will have no balance at all (probably as bad a 3.x was with god-casters) and everyone who liked 4e, or who likes modern RPGs will not buy the game. and the 4e crowd must be won over for the game to succeed the way they want.
That's why I do not play 4e. I do not want to choose a role from the get-go. I choose what I want based on perhaps I what I already played before. I generally choose a class and then a concept. I do not want to be forced to think of a role first and then having to choose 'powers' based on that role.
No, what you are saying is untrue. You can choose whatever you want as a rogue. As a rogue you can easily be a striker or a thug. Not all clerics heal such as evil aligned clerics. I do not want pre-defined roles. If such a thing exists in 5th ed then I most likely will not play the game. Its stupid to lock players in like that.
classes are and are only sets of mechaics, they are not archatypes, they are not anything else just sets of mechanics.
your acting like you cant be certain archatypes without being certain classes, like you cant be sneaky unless your a rogue, or a dumb brute unless your a fighter. therefor if you want to be a striker dumb brute you must be a fighter who is a striker.
this is just not true, you can be a rogue who is a dumb brute, or a steathy fighter. you should pick what you want your chacter to be then pick your class becaue classes exist to help you play a concept. if you want to be a archer who was in the military then you should probably pick ranger, you can call yourself a fighter if you want of course
by your reasoning I should be able to play a rogue as a healer as easy as a striker and be as good a healer as a cleric can be. after all I picked "rogue" when I started the game but then decided to be a healer, I should not let my class get in the way of what I can do
P.S. your ignorance of roles does not mean they do not exist or never did exist.
Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I think, "oh, there's this new class i want to try that!". Other times I think of wanting to play a magical fighter so I decided on Magus in Pathfinder. I don't even know how I would do that in DnD, lol with the sorceror's base attack being so low.
Simply put some people play the game much differently than others. I do not want to play a game in which my role is defined by my class. I want to define it myself based on the abilities I want to choose. If I want to be a fighter with a bow then I can be a striker if I choose but maybe I do not want my fighter to strike. I should be able to choose that. Maybe I don't want to be a ranger. Maybe I do not like the abilities that a ranger gets. Maybe I want to be rogueish but not be a rogue. I should be able to choose that.
No, I am not saying that each class should do all the same things and have the same abilities. Of course not. I think that some roles can easily be created by multiple classes by the weapons and abilities chosen. In 5e so far you can choose to play a cleric that strikes by using Lance of Faith. You can choose to play a defender rogue. I don't think all roles can be filled by all classes. I just think they don't need to be pre-determined by the design.
so your saying not every class should be able to do every role, but that the designers should not have this in mind when they make classes. you want the rogue to be a striker but you dont want them designed to be one?
what is wrong with saying that class X has roles A and B, and you can decide what comination of A and B you want. you even said you dont want every class to be able to do every role, what is wrong with saying that the rogue cant heal, then making sure if he wants to do damage he can do enough to matter? or if he wants to control he has the tools to do it?
What I'm saying is that it is perfectly fine for some overlap because of the way some may create their characters such as a ranged cleric which is possible in 5e. I don't think that only ONE role is a one size fits all- and it shouldn't be. I'd be fine if they listed possible roles as opposed to saying this class is a striker, that class is a defender and this one is the controller. It would be fine for those who pay attention to that.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 1:51PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2008
|
Guys, Guys! Let's refocus the discussion.
Let's discuss what options and elements help craft a PC to fulfill the common roles. What options, divine spells or otherwise, that help support a healer role. What options a fighter, for example, could take to be an enabler.
Let's go from the base that Haldrik gave us, focusing mostly on the Utility roles. Those are the least quantifiable and deserve the most focus to get right the first time.
DPR King Candidates 3.0How much damage should I shoot for?
Show
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR
Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR
Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR
Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR
It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
Show
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit
KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage
= DPR/(8*level+24)
KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 4:30PM
#34
|
|
|
Or in other words: Everyone is a striker so we can finnish this borring thing called combat with 2-3 die rolls each. Then we dont have to think either just use all our MDD on damage or cast magic missile 
Who playes DnD for bashing monsters anyway?
Bump.
A role is completely abstract. It means nothing in the Kingdom of Whatevershire. Be whoever and whatever you want to be. A healing rogue you say? Take the healing initiate or herbalism feat. Maybe you're a pious thief faithful to one of fiction's many Thieves' Gods or a hedge mage. Or with herbalism you could be a mob doctor. I would call a Maester in Game of Thrones "healing rogues."
DMAIA: DMs Against Immediate Actions - Turning 6 seconds into 15 minutes since 2008.
Vampire Class/Specialty in 2013!
Wizard: I cast Burning Hands.
Rogue: I grab a torch and a can of hairspray.
I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 7:23PM
#35
|
|
|
Or in other words: Everyone is a striker so we can finnish this borring thing called combat with 2-3 die rolls each. Then we dont have to think either just use all our MDD on damage or cast magic missile
Who playes DnD for bashing monsters anyway?
Bump.
A role is completely abstract. It means nothing in the Kingdom of Whatevershire. Be whoever and whatever you want to be. A healing rogue you say? Take the healing initiate or herbalism feat. Maybe you're a pious thief faithful to one of fiction's many Thieves' Gods or a hedge mage. Or with herbalism you could be a mob doctor. I would call a Maester in Game of Thrones "healing rogues."
a CLASS is abstract and is nothing more then a name, a role is what you do in combat and is far from abstract. are you a healer? do you take hits so others dont have to? do you kill things?
combat is by far the most important part of the system for two reason 1) a large number of people like it more then anything else, and would not play a game with boring combat 2) you cant ad lib combat, you NEED rules to see what happens. you dont need this for RP, and you only need a few simple rules for exporation. combat is why a great many people would buy the game, because that is what they cant make and what they exspent to be tested and to work out of the box.
you can play a warlord (marshal leader) and call yourself a healing rogue. that way you can keep things balanced for the large number of people who want to buy a game worth more then the paper it is printed on.
I dont know so many people cant seam to be creative enough to unlock class from architype, you can RP any class however you want you dont need it to say "Rogue" on the tin to play a rogue. learn to RP a character not to just play the class that is writen on the character sheet
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes.
Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 8:13PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
Or in other words: Everyone is a striker so we can finnish this borring thing called combat with 2-3 die rolls each. Then we dont have to think either just use all our MDD on damage or cast magic missile
Who playes DnD for bashing monsters anyway?
Bump.
A role is completely abstract. It means nothing in the Kingdom of Whatevershire. Be whoever and whatever you want to be. A healing rogue you say? Take the healing initiate or herbalism feat. Maybe you're a pious thief faithful to one of fiction's many Thieves' Gods or a hedge mage. Or with herbalism you could be a mob doctor. I would call a Maester in Game of Thrones "healing rogues."
a CLASS is abstract and is nothing more then a name, a role is what you do in combat and is far from abstract. are you a healer? do you take hits so others dont have to? do you kill things?
combat is by far the most important part of the system for two reason 1) a large number of people like it more then anything else, and would not play a game with boring combat 2) you cant ad lib combat, you NEED rules to see what happens. you dont need this for RP, and you only need a few simple rules for exporation. combat is why a great many people would buy the game, because that is what they cant make and what they exspent to be tested and to work out of the box.
you can play a warlord (marshal leader) and call yourself a healing rogue. that way you can keep things balanced for the large number of people who want to buy a game worth more then the paper it is printed on.
I dont know so many people cant seam to be creative enough to unlock class from architype, you can RP any class however you want you dont need it to say "Rogue" on the tin to play a rogue. learn to RP a character not to just play the class that is writen on the character sheet
I don't think a class is just a name. A class has fluff and mechanics that define it like a story about that class in of itself. I think of a role as simply something that 4e implemented that gets in the way of what I want to play. I don't need a predetermined role to know that I want to cast spells, be sneaky, hit stuff, or heal the party. All that is determined by what you choose to do with your class, feats, traits, and skills. Pre-defined roles are unneccesary and lock a player into it as opposed to allowing them to build whatever role they want within the class they are playing. I understand that not every class can fill multiple roles on its own.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 9:28PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I dont know so many people cant seem to be creative enough to unlock class from archetype, you can RP any class however you want you dont need it to say "Rogue" on the tin to play a rogue. learn to RP a character not to just play the class that is writen on the character sheet
A class is exactly two things: it is a fluffy conceptual archetype, and it is the set of game mechanics for expressing what that type of character does. The crunch follows directly from the fluff.
That's not saying you can't change things. It is good and expected that you should change things to fit your character. That's a two-way street, though. Many DMs seems to be fine with letting you change the fluff, because they know it's unlikely to affect game balance, but draw the line at letting you adjust the mechanics. That kind of thinking damages the integrity of the system, because those mechanics aren't derived directly from this new fluff you made up; they're derived from that other fluff, that you disregarded so casually.
And to some people, damaging the integrity of the game - the world in which the story takes place - is much worse than possibly hurting balance a tiny bit.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 10:28PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />so you are saying you dont need mechanics to be a healer? what about some ways of healing? if you want to defend you need mechaics to let you do it. supporting roles makes sure that classes have these mechaics
again what spells I take should be my choice and not hinging on what some dev though my god should give out. there should be no mechanical effect from my deity whatsoever, diety is a RP choice and should remain that.
I really don't understand your point. You seem to be saying both that we need more concrete mechanics for classes and that we also don't.
And the current deity system is really not as constraining as you say it is. For example you could worship Athena as a goddess of war, or of wisdom, or defense, or art. The domain spells and abilities just provide the mechanics for you to worship whatever deity you want. And there have to be some constraints or you could worship Gruumsh as the Lifegiver or St Cuthbert as the Trickster. It does mean something in mechanics. If I'm going up against a pack of wolves I can make a Knowledge (Nature) check to learn about wolves. If I'm going to be fighting a Cleric of Corellon Larethian I should be able to make a Knowledge (Religion) check to see what kinds of spells he might have.
|
|
|
