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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6308621" data-attributes="member: 7635">I think the 4e roles work better in theory than in action. The problem partially was the fact they only linked to their COMBAT roles, and classic D&D party "roles" being a mix (Fighters to combat, Rogues to skills, Wizards to magic, Clerics to healing). Combat got split between Fighter (defender) and Rogue (Offense). Magic was split up so that buffing was solely the provo of Clerics/leaders, Wizards got area of effect and debuffing, both classes had to have single-target attack spells, and everything else got shuffled off to to Rituals. Skills likewise was no longer a category since all classes were equally good "skill users". This forced nearly all four classes to have to play differently. Fighters stopped focusing on maximum damage (from specialization or feats) and worried about marking and aggro. Rogues stopped being skill monkeys and instead only focused on the assassin/ninja part. The cleric spell list became mostly rituals, so they ended up having to get all of these one-shot mini-buffs and heals. Likewise, wizards often could do anything, so pairing them down to just debuffs and mini-nukes really changed them. Even moreso, trying to cram other classes into the four roles created some weird effects, like druids who couldn't heal (well) or artificers that were Cleric replacements (wha??) Eventually, classes broke the mold anyway (see: Barbarian) and the roles ended up mostly useless. I am happy that roles in 5e are more descriptive again than prescriptive; classes have an organic element and trying to confine them to combat roles make them a less than the sum of their parts.</blockquote>

Verification