Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mokona" data-source="post: 5820079" data-attributes="member: 24891">A lot of the discussion in this thread revolves around roles limiting classes. As I said initially, this discussion is not about classes. I appreciate the really insightful and wildly diverse definitions of roles!Some have said that roles "limit the game to combat" or put combat-only blinders on players. It might be true that 4th edition did this (and with more than just roles). I love 4e and I play it now. I will admit that the 4e games I play in feel a little too combat-focused.I want to be completely honest:I came to dislike 4e roles but I enjoy intelligent debate. I don't think those who hold dissenting opinions should shout at those who think about roles and dissenters definitely should not try to drown out discussions that might lead to helpful evolution of the game.Dungeons & Dragons grew out of Chainmail. The origin of the game is a "mini-wargame". Combat is not the end-all, be-all of D&D but it does exist. Combat rules will always exist in this game (well, probably).Therefore lets make sure designers have the best thoughts we can muster on the topic. Let's <a href="http://5eworld.blogspot.com/2012/01/bring-it-on.html" target="_blank">crowdsource</a> 5th edition. We want the best game possible and I strongly believe threads like this can contribute significantly.Even if roles are relegated to the secret inner sanctum sanctorum of 1801 Lind Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057, USA (i.e. Wizards of the Coast).</blockquote>

Verification