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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6503154" data-attributes="member: 15700">Speaking from my own experience and perspective of course (aren't we all?), roles in early D&D were much more broad, and weren't rooted in stone.  My impression of 4e is that they are much more clearly defined and rigid.That is, in 1e, I could have a fighter who was a meat shield/defender in one adventure, and a striker in another.  Or a cleric who was a healer in one module, and shifted to a defender or meat shield in another.  Or a magic user who could be a controller, cannon, or infiltrator, depending on what spells I wanted to learn for that particular day.I know a lot of folks don't like the MMO comparisons, but I think it's fair to say there are some with 4e and WoW in this regard.  Very specific roles and builds were a focus in WoW, and it's not unusual to see similarities in pop culture hobbies during the same window of time.  I want to be very clear that I'm not taking a dig at 4e or even making a value judgement, but simply to say that with the huge exponential growth and popularity of WoW during the time 4e was in development, that WoTC tried to capitalize on that and make a game where a WoW player could more easily transition to a TTRPG.  Heck, the late 3.5 ads were direct attacks on MMOs, so it makes perfect sense to design 4e that way.Also, neither (the more malleable roles of early D&D and 5e, or the defined roles of 4e) is better than the other, objectively.</blockquote>

Verification