Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6461213" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>I think not being in the room with the designers, we <em>all</em> have some wrong ideas about it. Ain't possible to read minds. If they're good at their jobs, then the game reflects their intent, but that's always up for debate. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you're conflating a few related, but separate things.</p><p></p><p>The 4e concept of a "role" is back in the background. It's true that 5e was not designed with explicit party roles for individual classes like 4e was. That said, there are still people who will play to a "role" (even if it's not official): there will be someone who wants to play the best healer in the party. And certain classes will be better suited for this role than others, while other classes will have other benefits for other roles. Roles were always sort of an unofficial thing in a lot of games, and the fact that 5e wasn't designed to play to those won't stop people from playing with them. It just means people who are looking to be the biggest damage dealer, for instance, will have to do some system mastery work first.</p><p></p><p>5e not having explicit roles is part of 5e being designed to minimize the need for any role. Healing potions and short rests keep people alive. Bounded accuracy keeps low AC's viable defenders. Everyone can get big-damage effects, and everyone has some potential for action denial. And the play is a broader assumed style. No one HAS TO be Role X, Y, or Z. But people still can be. </p><p></p><p>Not having explicit roles isn't to say that 5e doesn't pay attention to party synergy, either. Things like wizards granting advantage that rogues can exploit for sneak attack, for ex, shows that smart party composition is still rewarded. </p><p></p><p>In 4e, like in any e, what your character is "about" is basically up to you and your party. The existence of explicit roles didn't mean that X damage wasn't all your character was. Indeed, a lot of people found roles kind of liberating in that respect -- they could be whatever kind of cleric they wanted, and didn't "have to" focus on healing, and wouldn't be screwing over the party by not. </p><p></p><p>Part of the problem with roles is that they lead to a mechanical character definition. 5e pushed it back to the background because part of 5e's design philosophy is "story first," and since the roles aren't as vital to 5e's "three pillars" concept of party contribution, the role isn't as definitional as it was in 4e.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6461213, member: 2067"] I think not being in the room with the designers, we [I]all[/I] have some wrong ideas about it. Ain't possible to read minds. If they're good at their jobs, then the game reflects their intent, but that's always up for debate. I think you're conflating a few related, but separate things. The 4e concept of a "role" is back in the background. It's true that 5e was not designed with explicit party roles for individual classes like 4e was. That said, there are still people who will play to a "role" (even if it's not official): there will be someone who wants to play the best healer in the party. And certain classes will be better suited for this role than others, while other classes will have other benefits for other roles. Roles were always sort of an unofficial thing in a lot of games, and the fact that 5e wasn't designed to play to those won't stop people from playing with them. It just means people who are looking to be the biggest damage dealer, for instance, will have to do some system mastery work first. 5e not having explicit roles is part of 5e being designed to minimize the need for any role. Healing potions and short rests keep people alive. Bounded accuracy keeps low AC's viable defenders. Everyone can get big-damage effects, and everyone has some potential for action denial. And the play is a broader assumed style. No one HAS TO be Role X, Y, or Z. But people still can be. Not having explicit roles isn't to say that 5e doesn't pay attention to party synergy, either. Things like wizards granting advantage that rogues can exploit for sneak attack, for ex, shows that smart party composition is still rewarded. In 4e, like in any e, what your character is "about" is basically up to you and your party. The existence of explicit roles didn't mean that X damage wasn't all your character was. Indeed, a lot of people found roles kind of liberating in that respect -- they could be whatever kind of cleric they wanted, and didn't "have to" focus on healing, and wouldn't be screwing over the party by not. Part of the problem with roles is that they lead to a mechanical character definition. 5e pushed it back to the background because part of 5e's design philosophy is "story first," and since the roles aren't as vital to 5e's "three pillars" concept of party contribution, the role isn't as definitional as it was in 4e. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.
Top