Eirikrautha
First Post
There's a big difference between players choosing roles and roles encouraged and enforced by the rules. I think that is part of the disconnect in this discussion. As I stated in my first post, I have no doubt that some tables played with and formalized combat roles. More power to them. But the mechanics of the game did not force or reward such roles until post 2e. This is because 1e and pre-splat 2e didn't have "builds" per se. The rules (and monsters, etc.) did not mandate increasing numerical challenges to the point where non-optimized characters were impotent. What later editions called "roles" were actually tactics that were open to all characters. The only roles that were enforced by the mechanics of the game were the class roles that were exclusive to each class (like thief's skills).
The more recent roles of striker or controller represent tactical choices that were available to most classes in early editions, based on circumstance (a thief would need surprise and backstabbing to be the striker for a particular encounter, a wizard might need space for the fireball, a cleric might need to be fighting undead, etc.). Unlike modern editions, the character was not built by the player to maximize the chances of filling one role at the exclusion of others, nor did the math of the game require it.
This is the primary objection to the conflation of roles and 5e. No one cares if your table decides to use roles in your tactics. Have fun! Seriously!
But under no circumstances should roles like striker or controller be explicitly supported by WotC for 5e (though I have no problem with character choices that provide options. If your table wants to use these feats to specialize, I'm glad they are available for you). But 5e is not and should not be in the business of formalizing roles and encouraging build specialization. These mechanics preclude the kind of fun that happens at my tables (one reason I and my friends are leaving Pathfinder for 5e). So 5e's absence of explicit roles is a good thing for us.
The more recent roles of striker or controller represent tactical choices that were available to most classes in early editions, based on circumstance (a thief would need surprise and backstabbing to be the striker for a particular encounter, a wizard might need space for the fireball, a cleric might need to be fighting undead, etc.). Unlike modern editions, the character was not built by the player to maximize the chances of filling one role at the exclusion of others, nor did the math of the game require it.
This is the primary objection to the conflation of roles and 5e. No one cares if your table decides to use roles in your tactics. Have fun! Seriously!
But under no circumstances should roles like striker or controller be explicitly supported by WotC for 5e (though I have no problem with character choices that provide options. If your table wants to use these feats to specialize, I'm glad they are available for you). But 5e is not and should not be in the business of formalizing roles and encouraging build specialization. These mechanics preclude the kind of fun that happens at my tables (one reason I and my friends are leaving Pathfinder for 5e). So 5e's absence of explicit roles is a good thing for us.