No, it's going to be "what type of character do you want to play?" which is the exact same meaning but in a more common phrasing.
If you ask someone what type of character they want to play, they are likely to reply in terms of archetype or function or capabilities.
There are then various mechanical builds that answer to or express those archetypes, functions and capabilities.
If someone says "I want to play Merlin the Magician" or "I want to play Gandalf", would you really tell them "Build a champion fighter and then at the table play it as a wise old mage?" I mean, maybe
you would, but I think most D&D players wouldn't.
That's nice. But we're not talking about AD&D. We're talking about 5e. And have you looked at the 5e cleric?
The main role section of the 5e cleric is "Healers and Warriors" and puts as much focus on "call[ing] down flames from heaven to consume their enemies" as using "the helpful magic of healing and inspiring their allies".
Yes, not all clerics are top-tier support characters. Nevertheless, top tier support characters tend to be clerics or bards (or, with slightly more trickiness pf build, druids, paladins or maybe rangers or battlemasters). Rather than (say) champion fighters.
So if someone wants to play a support character, absolutely you would point them to some classes - clerics and bards foremost - rather than others. The fact that the advice needs supplementing (eg some sub-classes provide better support than others) doesn't undermine the fact that (i) some PC builds have capabilities that others lack, and (ii) class is an important component of PC build.
I mean, in AD&D not all fighters are good melee combatants (eg some might be built with low-ish STR, high DEX and prof/specialisation in missile weapons), but if someone building a PC for AD&D says "I want to play a hand-to-hand fighter" you would generally point them to the fighter class (or one of its sub-classes).
You seem to be trying to argue that choice of mechanical features in PC build makes no difference to what the PC can actually do in play. If you really think that is so, then what do you think the
point of those mechanical features is?
I've always both understood, and eperienced, the point of those varying features to be to affect what it is the PC can do in play. For instance, if I want my PC to be a healer, I choose mechanical features that permit the restoration of hit points. If I want my PC to be a melee combatant, I choose mechanical features that permit the making of melee attacks with good weapons, and that provide my PC with high hp, high AC and/or damage reduction. Etc.
pemerton said:
What have combat roles got to do with anything? I didn't mention them.
Other than "buffer".
Why would buffing be limited to combat?