4 roles - why 5 players?
- Thread starter Ry
- Start date
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
So that people get to play something other than the fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue.Ryan Stoughton said:
Market research says 5 players is a more realistic average per table.
No one role is required so each player doesn't have to be stuck with a particular role.
You don't HAVE to have a separate role for each player so you can just make as many roles as feels right.
The design team is apparently confident that four roles are enough to cover all the bases.
No one role is required so each player doesn't have to be stuck with a particular role.
You don't HAVE to have a separate role for each player so you can just make as many roles as feels right.
The design team is apparently confident that four roles are enough to cover all the bases.
I had a similar question about the change in the assumed number of players. It seems especially odd considering that 3e was built around 4 players and I expect that this was based on feedback about the average number of players in a group. So has the size changed in the past 8 years or is there some other reason? The only plausible explanation in my mind is that perhaps the occurrence of DM PC's has risen such that an increase in 1 of the assumed PCs at the table is warranted.
I do think that questioning the logic behind designing around more players than there are roles is rather feckless. After all, better to balance around the actual number of players than change your assumption or stretch your design to accommodate unneeded symmetry.
I do think that questioning the logic behind designing around more players than there are roles is rather feckless. After all, better to balance around the actual number of players than change your assumption or stretch your design to accommodate unneeded symmetry.
Aust Diamondew
First Post
Hmm. I'd guess for two reasons.
1) D&D groups typically have 5 players (don't know if this is true or not).
2) There were 4 traditional roles, warrior, thief, mage, priest. While 4e changes these roles, I guess they want to stick at least somewhat with the old way.
1) D&D groups typically have 5 players (don't know if this is true or not).
2) There were 4 traditional roles, warrior, thief, mage, priest. While 4e changes these roles, I guess they want to stick at least somewhat with the old way.
Warbringer
Explorer
New 4e math ... 4 roles = 5 players 
RigaMortus2
First Post
Scribble said:
They DM isn't a player, he is a DM...
More specifically... I think they said 4E will assume you have 5 PCs, but I'm not positive. Wish I knew where the exact quote is. I'm curious of the wording they used.
