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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nergal Pendragon" data-source="post: 6503723" data-attributes="member: 6777649">The concept is not the same. Even in a lot of MMOs, it's not; MMOs tend to have what would be called striker builds for quite a few classes; it isn't a secondary role like what 4E had, but one of several primary roles you can choose from. WoW is probably the best example.So, pretty much, it is heavily recognized at this point, and was even recognized before 4E came out, that the role you play in combat and what class you play are not the same thing.Fighter with a healing kit and healing potions.Thief using Use Magic Device for scrolls/wands of healing and having a healing kit and healing potions. (From what I've heard of 2E, there were times when thieves were better at healing than clerics.)Wizard who copied spells from the bard's list. Or, if you're playing Pathfinder, have the wizard steal quite a few spells from the witch. It's one of those areas where DMs were encouraged to use DM fiat to stop it since the rules technically allowed it as of 3E. 4E and 5E have both taken great pains to fix that.Here's a funny thing... magic and thief skills are not combat roles; they are what people do. Having magic doesn't make you a controller; even 4E recognized that. Having thief skills doesn't make you a striker; even 4E recognized that. Having martial abilities doesn't make you a defender; even 4E recognized that.So, what were the roles 4E gave? As a fighter, you were not just a defender; you were a martial defender. Wizards were not just controllers; they were arcane controllers. Notice how it is that the combat role has a descriptor in front of it?Now, what was there that stopped a fighter in 3E from having a high charisma and acting as the party diplomat? Nothing except that people didn't build it that way. Same with the wizard, generally. What stopped the wizard from focusing on being able to hit one character hard? Nothing; in fact, there were even powergamer builds for it that Pathfinder only managed to refine. What stopped a party from deciding they only needed four clerics instead of bothering with having anything else? Nothing, and in fact it was known as being extremely viable. Seriously, four clerics can deal some pretty good damage and keep each other alive with ease.But it doesn't indicate what combat role you take. A fighter who is focused on archery can be just as deadly as a sword-and-board fighter. And yet, 4E introduced the idea that not only was a fighter good at fighting, it was primarily good with defending. A wizard wasn't just proficient with arcane magic, but was primarily proficient with managing crowds. 4E assigned primary combat roles to classes that, in some cases, they may have not commonly been used for before.And, yes, there were some effective fighter builds that were basically rangers in heavier armor without the magic and animal companion.The same is true of martial classes. Do you know how many fighters I've seen die in games because the people were not properly prepared? If anything, prior to 4E it could be extremely difficult to build a fighter meatshield that actually stood a chance of surviving to the end of the dungeon. Which is why, as of 3E, that role typically went to the barbarian (who was easier to learn on due to the greater health).</blockquote>

Verification