D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Imaro]

It's the "melee damage" build, but still not completely losing out on its basic leader function, namely basic healing ability/option and Channel Divinity (which could also be used to focus melee damage), just not geared towards extra healing, etc. It's an offensive vs. defensive option.

So any "melee damage build" is a striker... regardless of how much damage they actually do? What about primarily ranged classes like sorcerer or warlock who were labeled as strikers?

Edit: It's almost like the way in which you're using the label striker is meaningless...

The roles were only general and secondary roles were pretty open, depending on player choices, just like now.

So what does this mean? It seems that 4e fans are claiming that roles are simultaneously mechanically important enough to be attached to specific classes and influence what a particular class is good at (mechanically)... while at the same time, claiming they don't create restrictions and are only the most general of labels that don't really restrict what you can do or use a class for...

 

[Sadras]

4. The 4E Cleric could deal good damage also.

So, following on from [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s point, which class, in your opinion of course, could not "deal good damage"?

 

[Herschel]

So, following on from [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s point, which class, in your opinion of course, could not "deal good damage"?

A Shielding Swormage never does "good damage", but has a myriad of ways to mitigate damage. You could hybrid it with a Warlock to gain damage, for example, trading some of its damage mitigation and HP/durability for more offense.

 

[Sadras]

A Shielding Swormage never does "good damage", but has a myriad of ways to mitigate damage. You could hybrid it with a Warlock to gain damage, for example, trading some of its damage mitigation and HP/durability for more offense.

I know I asked for one class and you did in fact provide me with it, but is it fair to say that then all other myriad class/sub-class combinations "deal good damage"?
Given your explanation in previous posts upthread between general/primary and secondary roles - can we then conclude that every other class besides the Shield Swordmage is a "striker" in one way or another?

 

[Imaro]

A Shielding Swormage never does "good damage", but has a myriad of ways to mitigate damage. You could hybrid it with a Warlock to gain damage, for example, trading some of its damage mitigation and HP/durability for more offense.

Wait a minute a Battle Cleric can only use simple weapons... so how is his damage going to be comparatively more than the swordmage you are now saying doesn't do good damage? On top of that the simple weapons are less accurate as well...

 

[Herschel]

So any "melee damage build" is a striker... regardless of how much damage they actually do? What about primarily ranged classes like sorcerer or warlock who were labeled as strikers?

You can build a Warlock as a Controller or Leader, though most of their toolbox is geared towards damage. You're obviously lacking understanding in the characters classes and how roles actually work. They have the curse mechanic as a class feature, which is the only real striker feature you have to have.

So what does this mean? It seems that 4e fans are claiming that roles are simultaneously mechanically important enough to be attached to specific classes and influence what a particular class is good at (mechanically)... while at the same time, claiming they don't create restrictions and are only the most general of labels that don't really restrict what you can do or use a class for...

They have a basic class feature that supports their traditional role, be it the leader's two basic, short rest heals, defender's marking mechanic or the striker's (usually d6-per-10-levels) damage bump. After that, it's up to the player's choice. I can make a Pacifist Healbot Cleric, or a Greatsword-swinging Battle Cleric with the only real commonality being those basic class feature heals and access to Channel Divinity.

 

[Imaro]

You can build a Warlock as a Controller or Leader, though most of their toolbox is geared towards damage. You're obviously lacking understanding in the characters classes and how roles actually work. They have the curse mechanic as a class feature, which is the only real striker feature you have to have.

I'm not lacking understanding in how roles actually work, instead it's that the 4e fans in this thread have been continuously vague about what a role actually is in 4e... Like your explanation above, if it's a "striker feature" that makes one a striker... what is the battle cleric's striker feature since you earlier claimed it was a striker build? If not then what differentiates a "striker" from any other class that can do some damage?

EDIT: If roles are as mutable and vague as you claim above... why even state them? If I can build a Warlock whose a Controller as opposed to a Striker... what benefit is there in telling me he's a striker?

They have a basic class feature that supports their traditional role, be it the leader's two basic, short rest heals, defender's marking mechanic or the striker's (usually d6-per-10-levels) damage bump. After that, it's up to the player's choice. I can make a Pacifist Healbot Cleric, or a Greatsword-swinging Battle Cleric with the only real commonality being those basic class feature heals and access to Channel Divinity.

So a Battle Cleric isn't... by the criteria you are stating above a "striker"... why claim he was one earlier then?

 

[Herschel]

Wait a minute a Battle Cleric can only use simple weapons... so how is his damage going to be comparatively more than the swordmage you are now saying doesn't do good damage? On top of that the simple weapons are less accurate as well...

Again, you're not understanding how the game actually works. Simple weapons are not less accurate than standard weapons, just less accurate than precision weapons (re: many of the swords). Battle Clerics MAY use simple weapons, and there are "big swing" maneuvers that gain bonus damage when using simple weapons with both hands, but it's not a restriction.

 

[Imaro]

Again, you're not understanding how the game actually works. Simple weapons are not less accurate than standard weapons, just less accurate than precision weapons (re: many of the swords). Battle Clerics MAY use simple weapons, and there are "big swing" maneuvers that gain bonus damage when using simple weapons with both hands, but it's not a restriction.

Compare the proficiency bonuses... simple weapons all +2... short sword/longsword +3. One is more accurate then the other.

EDIT: Wait how is only being able to use simple weapons... not a restriction?

 

[Herschel]

I'm not lacking understanding in how roles actually work, instead it's that the 4e fans in this thread have been continuously vague about what a role actually is in 4e... Like your explanation above, if it's a "striker feature" that makes one a striker... what is the battle cleric's striker feature since you earlier claimed it was a striker build? If not then what differentiates a "striker" from any other class that can do some damage?

EDIT: If roles are as mutable and vague as you claim above... why even state them? If I can build a Warlock whose a Controller as opposed to a Striker... what benefit is there in telling me he's a striker?

His basic toolbox contains a majority damage-focused elements, not exclusively, as you and others try to claim.

So a Battle Cleric isn't... by the criteria you are stating above a "striker"... why claim he was one earlier then?

He doesn't have a class feature d6/tier damage bump, but if you make choices when creating your character, he can put out better damage than the Warlock built for control while still providing basic healing for teh party.