Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5862530" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't believe this to be the case. The fighter's mark isn't what makes the fighter class in 4e a fun class to play (it is what makes it a defender, though!).Classes have a pretty clear identity without roles as 4e defines them (even when that identity was just "fighter" and "magic-user" and "cleric"). And Niche Protection figures into what I said about balance: it's only good when it's in the service of something other than itself.Your claim about "editions prior to 4e" doesn't jive with what others are saying about "roles always being present, but sometimes more flexible" and I'm going to have to go with the others on this. Any race-to-zero numerical resolution system is going to have two main ways to affect it (moar damage to them, and less damage to you), and at least two supporting ways to affect how you affect it (improve your defenses/weaken their damage, or improve your damage/weaken their defense), just by the nature of that system. And outside of that context, there's been an adventure-level division of roles based on what a character is best at (fighters at fightin', rogues at sneakin', wizards at whatever, but only for a few minutes, and then they suck worse than everyone at everything). Cooperation also existed long before 2008, so it doesn't seem to jive with your statement, either.4e's addition to the table was the enforced role mechanics. Which solved the problem of making sure nobody accidentally sucked pretty nicely, but introduced many problems of its own (homogeniety, straitjacketing classes, kludge multiclass mechanics, etc.)Roles, of course, aren't the only way to solve the Accidental Suck problem. It's entirely possible for 5e to solve that problem without using marking or <Splat> Word or Striker Dice -- namely by baking the basics for the roles into every character, or by making it clear (via the advice) what the class is good and bad at, so that a player who takes it in a different direction has no expectation of being a badass. Lets try not to exaggerate the effects of 4e's role mechanics -- or the effects on the game of dropping them -- to panacea and catastrophe levels. Fun times at the game table do not depend on one character dealing more damage, one character marking, one character healing, and one character using persistent or area-effect powers. And, if for some reason, for you, they do, I'm fairly certain you'll be able to play a 5e that has all those features. Ditching role mechanics for the core doesn't mean they won't be a module. I, however, won't have to play that way, because role mechanics won't be an assumed feature of the game, as if it's something that everyone needs in order to have fun with D&D.</blockquote>

Verification