Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 5818963" data-attributes="member: 3424">As a number of people have mentioned, roles have existed from the earliest incarnations of the game. What has changed in 4e, and what seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers, is the tying of specific classes to specific roles. Not that this actually constrains the characters very much, since each class has powers that blur the roles, and multiclassing makes individual characters even more flexible, but it is a mindset that the 5e design team should bear in mind.Roles are supposed to tell you what your character is good at, but they aren't meant to be more constraining than that. They don't prevent you from doing things that you aren't good at, any more than being untrained in Stealth prevents you from hiding, or being untrained at Perception means you can't notice things. If you're not a striker, you can still deal out damage. If you aren't a defender, you can still get between an enemy and a badly wounded ally, and be no worse off than any character in any edition who doesn't have a mechanic to make the enemy want to attack you instead of your ally. But back on topic. Tying roles to classes in 5e probably is not going to fly. Tying roles to powers/abilities/benefits might be a better approach, so that by picking the right combination of features, your fighter could (say) be a whole lot of striker, some defender, and a little bit of leader. Varying the way in which different powers approach the roles would also help: maybe shield other splits damage between the target and the user, while covering strike allows the user to make an attack against an enemy in melee reach who attacks an ally, and to impose a penalty on the attack roll if he hits.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 5818963, member: 3424"] As a number of people have mentioned, roles have existed from the earliest incarnations of the game. What has changed in 4e, and what seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers, is the tying of specific classes to specific roles. Not that this actually constrains the characters very much, since each class has powers that blur the roles, and multiclassing makes individual characters even more flexible, but it is a mindset that the 5e design team should bear in mind. Roles are supposed to tell you what your character is good at, but they aren't meant to be more constraining than that. They don't prevent you from doing things that you aren't good at, any more than being untrained in Stealth prevents you from hiding, or being untrained at Perception means you can't notice things. If you're not a striker, you can still deal out damage. If you aren't a defender, you can still get between an enemy and a badly wounded ally, and be no worse off than any character in any edition who doesn't have a mechanic to make the enemy want to attack you instead of your ally. But back on topic. Tying roles to classes in 5e probably is not going to fly. Tying roles to powers/abilities/benefits might be a better approach, so that by picking the right combination of features, your fighter could (say) be a whole lot of striker, some defender, and a little bit of leader. Varying the way in which different powers approach the roles would also help: maybe [I]shield other[/I] splits damage between the target and the user, while [I]covering strike[/I] allows the user to make an attack against an enemy in melee reach who attacks an ally, and to impose a penalty on the attack roll if he hits. [/QUOTE]

Verification