I think the 4e roles work better in theory than in action.
The problem partially was the fact they only linked to their COMBAT roles, and classic D&D party "roles" being a mix (Fighters to combat, Rogues to skills, Wizards to magic, Clerics to healing). Combat got split between Fighter (defender) and Rogue (Offense). Magic was split up so that buffing was solely the provo of Clerics/leaders, Wizards got area of effect and debuffing, both classes had to have single-target attack spells, and everything else got shuffled off to to Rituals. Skills likewise was no longer a category since all classes were equally good "skill users".
This forced nearly all four classes to have to play differently. Fighters stopped focusing on maximum damage (from specialization or feats) and worried about marking and aggro. Rogues stopped being skill monkeys and instead only focused on the assassin/ninja part. The cleric spell list became mostly rituals, so they ended up having to get all of these one-shot mini-buffs and heals. Likewise, wizards often could do anything, so pairing them down to just debuffs and mini-nukes really changed them.
Even moreso, trying to cram other classes into the four roles created some weird effects, like druids who couldn't heal (well) or artificers that were Cleric replacements (wha??) Eventually, classes broke the mold anyway (see: Barbarian) and the roles ended up mostly useless.
I am happy that roles in 5e are more descriptive again than prescriptive; classes have an organic element and trying to confine them to combat roles make them a less than the sum of their parts.
How many incorrect statements are in there?
Off the top of my head the ones that stick out like a sore thumb are "Skills likewise was no longer a category since all classes were equally good "skill users"." - strictly false. Rogues got six trained skills by default including Stealth and Thievery. Their primary stat (Dex) affects three out of seventeen skills. Fighters get three trained stats by default and a much narrower class skill list. Their primary stat (Str) affects one out of seventeen skills. To claim that all classes are equally good skill users is absolutely false.
"Magic was split up so that buffing was solely the provo of Clerics/leaders" - another incorrect statement. Even in the PHB1 Paladins and Wizards both buff people and neither class is a Leader (although Paladins are secondary Leaders).
"Wizards got area of effect and debuffing" - Clerics also have area of effect debuffs. And rogues have some pretty nasty debuffs. But yes, wizards are good at both.
"and everything else got shuffled off to to Rituals" - except the things that didn't. Like invisibility and flight which are both wizard utility spells. Some things, like Phantom Steed were sent towards Rituals. Not everything by any means.
And in the interests of fairness I am sticking
strictly to PHB1 examples. Your entire claims as to how the roles were allocated are simply not true. In 4e the class roles were descriptive - with rogues being the skill monkeys of old (and putting 3.X rogues to shame as skill monkeys). The problem is that people
assumed that the roles were prescriptive because they did not read carefully or understand the design.
Your statements about the 4e classes are
slightly more accurate.
The druid is a half-truth. The 3.X druid was a monster who could shapechange, who could heal, who could buff, who could cast really effectively, and who had a pet and could summon more pets, turning into an aggressively hegmonizing bear swarm. There was enough there that 4e turned the druid into
three separate classes because there was so much baggage attached to its role. The first to come out was the Shapeshifter. This much is true. It came out first because it was the part of the druid that did things that other classes simply could not match - far the most distinctive of its roles. The second was the Sentinel Druid in Essentials - a healer with a pet. The third was the caster and animal summoner that came out in Heroes of the Feywild.
"Fighters stopped focusing on maximum damage (from specialization or feats) and worried about marking and aggro." This again is a half-truth. Fighters are defenders because if the monsters take their eye off the fighters the fighter becomes the most damaging class in the game. (Shut up over there, Ranger. Everyone knows Twin Strike is broken). The best way for a fighter to defend is by being as powerful as possible.
"Likewise, wizards often could do anything, so pairing them down to just debuffs and mini-nukes really changed them. " This I will accept. But by the same token will you accept that the very concept of a class that can do anything is broken and something that simply should not happen because it makes all the other classes redundant. Complaining that 4e changed something that was very obviously broken is not a complaint I can understand. What should they have done? Left the problem there?
