NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4571440" data-attributes="member: 2067">I really think that there is some broad disagreement on what the roles actually mean (see the various "what role is the Barbarian?" threads that could take the same basic mechanics and come up with at least two different views of what role that made them). I'm mostly trying to base this in evidence, and it isn't a binary system -- it's not something you are or you're not, it's more a descriptie system -- it tells you what you are going to do be doing in combat. All the 4e roles tell you, to varying degrees, how you move things around in combat (thus making them minis-focused...some cases [controllers] are MORE about minis than others [leaders]). Things pointing to movement:#1: They can only mark things that they are close to (they must move to be next to them)#2: Once marked, they need to stay close (fighters are sticky, paladins can't run, swordmages pop in and out next to them). #3: Strength is not a dump stat for any Defender, making them good at the Opportunity Attacks that are provoked for enemies moving. If Strength ever became a Defender dump stat, I'm sure it would just be replaced with another ability that made them equally as good. Things pointing to movement:#1: Many spells that slide, push, or pull just as a side effect.#2: Zones! Oh the zones!#3: Even "multiple target" spells vary in effectiveness depending upon the position of minis on a battlefield, meaning that the best strategy is one that revolves around motion (and thus, minis).Closest to accurate. This is the closest to the "real" roles. Warlords still love moving around little pieces of plastic.There is quite a volume of difference between teleporting long distances and bamfing three squares at a time, and between backstab and combat advantage/flanking. I mean, I'm not trying to argue for purity, here. It's not like they're ONLY minis-based. But each role has a strong movement component to it: something that isn't needed when you're just talking about what they do during a "first one to 0 looses" contest. This component certainly popped up occasionally in earlier editions (especially 3rd), but it is undoubtedly stronger here, and is part of the roles system. I think that typifying everything with a high AC as a Defender misses the assumptions that go into a 4e Defender-role. Likewise, I think typifying everything that targets multiple enemies as a Controller misses the assumptions that go into the 4e Controller role. Close, but this is the least minis-focused role.I think the interesting question is: "why did they suck in combat?"While not exceptionally satisfying for every play style, the answer, "because it's okay to suck in combat if you're good at some other stuff," speaks to me about the intentions of the roles in earlier editions that, even by 3e, was mostly shifted onto combat.</blockquote>

Verification