Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kynn" data-source="post: 5862570" data-attributes="member: 36754">When we talk about 4e's innovations, like &quot;role&quot; (tied to class), we need to not just talk about -- as some people in this thread have suggested -- only the concepts found in the first Player's Handbook, but also those which developed as the game evolved.One of the most important post-launch innovations, that came about in Essentials, was to explicitly de-couple the strict relationship between a class and a role. It used to be that a fighter was always a defender, and a druid always a controller, and ranger always a striker -- but they changed that.The fighter (Slayer vs. Knight) example is the most obvious of this, with one variety of fighter being a striker, while the other a defender. There are rangers who are strikers and rangers who are controllers. Warlocks who are strikers and warlocks who are controllers (okay, well, they kind of suck but the idea was good). Druids who are controllers and druids who are leaders.This is a good innovation for class design and one which needs to be expanded up on 5e, not discarded as an unnecessary 4e-ism. Roles need to continue to exist and continue to be separated from class as this will give the best diversity of characters to play.Not all classes are going to be suitable for all roles, but the various &quot;builds&quot;/specializations of each class should support different roles. Thus you can play whatever concept you want, but you can also get guidance as to how that concept can excel in a fight along specific directions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kynn, post: 5862570, member: 36754"] When we talk about 4e's innovations, like "role" (tied to class), we need to not just talk about -- as some people in this thread have suggested -- only the concepts found in the first Player's Handbook, but also those which developed as the game evolved. One of the most important post-launch innovations, that came about in Essentials, was to explicitly de-couple the strict relationship between a class and a role. It used to be that a fighter was always a defender, and a druid always a controller, and ranger always a striker -- but they changed that. The fighter (Slayer vs. Knight) example is the most obvious of this, with one variety of fighter being a striker, while the other a defender. There are rangers who are strikers and rangers who are controllers. Warlocks who are strikers and warlocks who are controllers (okay, well, they kind of suck but the idea was good). Druids who are controllers and druids who are leaders. This is a good innovation for class design and one which needs to be expanded up on 5e, not discarded as an unnecessary 4e-ism. Roles need to continue to exist and continue to be separated from class as this will give the best diversity of characters to play. Not all classes are going to be suitable for all roles, but the various "builds"/specializations of each class should support different roles. Thus you can play whatever concept you want, but you can also get guidance as to how that concept can excel in a fight along specific directions. [/QUOTE]

Verification