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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6502836" data-attributes="member: 6688937">This is along the lines that I would quibble with the idea that 4e's roles were "always there". Playing in a 1e group makes it very obvious to me that the Old-School Fighter types are all basically striker AND defender, while the rogues are utility/skill-monkeys and not terribly effective in any of 4e's roles. Clerics still have some "leader-y" abilities, but they don't play very much that way because of the heavy restrictions of spell use in combat....more like a B-grade fighter with a refillable potion of healing for after the fight. Wizards....well, maybe they play as controllers for a few levels in the middle before breaking the game (or the campaign ends), but much like rogues they generally don't do anything well...except for once in a blue moon completely owning the joint. (All of this, of course, IME and IMO.)Did Old-School have roles? Sure, but they weren't the same as 4e's. Those took a few decades of evolution (both within and without D&D) to clearly develop. (And I've seen folks argue that 4e got it wrong, at that! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> )In any case, from what I've seen with 5e, its a lot less dependent on having all the "exact right party composition" boxes checked than any of the previous editions. YMMV, of course.</blockquote>

Verification