Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5271968" data-attributes="member: 82106">There never was a 'grid' to be filled, not in the minds of the 4e devs. That's all on certain people's expectations on the boards. Clearly each class was made to approximately fill given role, or more like to emphasize a certain role. In some cases they HEAVILY emphasized one role, sometimes they didn't. Warlocks, druids, paladins, etc have always been pretty clearly capable of filling more than one role from the start. Beyond that the devs specifically stated (and their actions back that up) that they had no interest in producing a set of classes that had a one-to-one correspondence to role/power source. At most it was a design concept and an aid to building a party to even have roles. In other words the flexibility was always there. Obviously you can't put out builds and classes to take advantage of every possibility right off. So yeah, we have more options now, but they were always implicit and in fact you could do pretty much the same stuff before that you can do now. Actually if anything bothers me about Essentials it is more that we're going back over old territory when there's so much else that could be done.</blockquote>