Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5703305" data-attributes="member: 22424">Everything he says in the article should be utterly obvious. Of course, it's worth saying anyway, just to be sure.Three things:- requiring a particular class, or even a particular role, is a bad thing. The need for a Cleric in previous editions was a pain. Defining the 'Leader' role, and casting the Bard and Warlord as clear "Cleric substitutes", was definitely an improvement.- in-combat healing is an abomination.- while it's good that the classes are designed to work together as a team, it's really important that the game be adaptable for bigger or smaller groups. One of my groups has three players, so whenever we play we'll always be missing one of the four roles; can the game adapt to that? What if we're down to only two players, or even one? Likewise, defining the roles and maintaining niche protection is fairly sensible... but if you have four roles and five players, doesn't that mean that two players aren't going to get as much chance to shine?(And in the above, please note that I'm not necessarily talking about 4e, which I'm sure has its own answers to the above. But for a theoretical 5e, those are questions that really need answered.)</blockquote>