Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Smoo" data-source="post: 6604944" data-attributes="member: 6794403">That's fair. But this is one area in which I think 4e did very well. The idea of the roles was pretty inspired. The Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller divisions gave everybody niche roles to fill, even in combat. A lot of this conversation, however, has been couched in making sure that one class's DPR is comparable to another class's DPR. Nobody in 4th edition cared that the Avenger hit for more than the Paladin, because the Paladin had a different responsibility. But there have been several references to the effect that if the spellcaster isn't dealing some kind of damage every round, they're not effective. That's what's irking me.As to your second point, maybe I just played differently, but I remember old school rogues using combat as a distraction to sneak behind and loot the treasure while the fighter kept the monster occupied. Then maybe it's mission accomplished and they can tactically retreat without caring about killing the monster. And even if theres no treasure to loot, whatever, they disabled the trap in the corridor leading to the room, so they feel they;ve contributed. Likewise, I don't remember wizards ever having a problem hiding for a few rounds while the combat went on, because they'd be the ones who could contribute the most outside of combat. They always had to be the party translator, for example, what with knowing the most languages thanks to the INT modifier.I get that these points are a poorly-couched crusty old "get off my lawn" rant, but 5e is just so close to being optimal that I can't help but claw at the (very) few places it falls short for me.</blockquote>

Verification