It seems that 4e fans are claiming that roles are simultaneously mechanically important enough to be attached to specific classes and influence what a particular class is good at (mechanically)... while at the same time, claiming they don't create restrictions and are only the most general of labels that don't really restrict what you can do or use a class for...
No.
If you read this thread, you will see that it is
critics of 4e who are claiming that 4e roles are prescriptive things that dictate what a character can do.
If roles are as mutable and vague as you claim above... why even state them? If I can build a Warlock whose a Controller as opposed to a Striker... what benefit is there in telling me he's a striker?
Roles in 4e are labels that provide guidance as to the default functionality a character of a given class will have. They thus serve the same function as the passages from Gygax that I quoted upthread.
From the player perspective, that is their sole function: they are guidance on how a PC of a given class might be effectively played.
From the designer perspective, they are a reminder to (i) design classes with a clear default functionality, and (ii) a direction as to how D&D conceives of functionality (for instance, controlling in melee is - for legacy reasons - different from ranged control; healing and buffing - for legacy reasons - travel together; etc).
[MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] has not expressed any opinion different from this.
the 4e fans in this thread have been continuously vague about what a role actually is in 4e... Like your explanation above, if it's a "striker feature" that makes one a striker
This is a misreading of what was said.
A class labelled "striker" will have a class feature that enables them to be an effective damage dealer; hence, a sufficient condition of being a viable striker is to build a character of a class having such a feature.
But it is not a necessary condition of being a striker to build a character of such a class. Because there are other ways (feats, power selection, magic items, etc) to build a PC who is an effective damage dealer.
So any "melee damage build" is a striker... regardless of how much damage they actually do? What about primarily ranged classes like sorcerer or warlock who were labeled as strikers?
First, there seems to be a non-sequitur in your post: from the fact that a melee damage dealer is a striker, it doesn't follow that there are no ranged strikers (cats are mammals, which doesn't preclude dogs being mammals too).
Second, what distinguishes a striker class is that, by default, it will default to dealing robust damage. I haven't looked at battle cleric builds, but I wouldn't be surprised if it can be built in a way that deals robust damage.
Broadsword isn't a martial weapon
Yes it is: +2 prof bonus to hit, 1d10 damage.
Compare the proficiency bonuses... simple weapons all +2... short sword/longsword +3. One is more accurate then the other.
Herschel's point was that there are plenty of martial weapons that have only a +2 prof bonus. Besides broadsword, examples include hammers and axes. The difference between a mace and a hammer is d8 vs d10. Not nothing, but not earth-shattering either, because . . .
Weapon size is also a rather small factor in damage. Extra attacks, bigger attacks, add-ons and static modifiers are where the real damage comes from.
Right.
you've cited no concrete evidence that a shielding swordmage does significantly less damage than a "striker" Battle Cleric
Which way are you pushing this?
Are you denying that the swordmage is one of the lowest damage 4e classes? If so, can you elaborate? That swordmages are low damage is pretty widely accepted.
Are you denying that a battle cleric can be built to be higher damage than a swordmage? I haven't seen it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.
what a class is "good at" in 5e is moreso determined by a players particular choices as opposed to the game pre-building it for you
What a character is good at in 4e is determined by a player's particular choices, too.
Shifting the level of significant choice from class to sub-class, or from class to fighting style within the fighter, isn't some sort of radical change in things.
