Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8715357" data-attributes="member: 18">I think the "roles" were kind of weirdly overrated and overstated. I felt like they both had somewhat less impact on the game than I had expected, and that they actually had somewhat less of a "you know what you're getting into" factor than expected. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but they weren't very well rules-integrated, like rules didn't key off your role, it was just a vague "design philosophy" for your class.The most distinct one was Leader, and that was solely because of the 3 per encounter heal thing.Whereas Strikers and Defenders were somewhat fungible. Like a lot of Defenders did a ton of damage. A lot of Strikers were pretty tough. Controllers were in the mix too - most of them just seemed kind of underpowered period, I feel like that's where we saw the weakest class design in 5E, but there were Strikers and Defenders and even Leaders who could effectively exert as much or more control than most Controllers, and a couple of Controllers who could do Striker-like damage, or were very hard to kill.I feel like you could have just deleted roles as a stated fact or a thing described, people would have been a lot happier with 5E, and would have still gravitated to the same classes.I agree with the rest of what you're saying.</blockquote>