Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="yakuba" data-source="post: 6505130" data-attributes="member: 6698582">This is the crux of it. The central question is: In the design process, does thinking about how a class will function or be used, mean that it must be designed around a specific role. And the answer is no. This is the choice that 5e makes. Because considering how the fighter or wizard or warlock  will be used does not necessitate does not require consideration of a single combat role. The example you always return to is the rogue, and the rogue in 5e is, in fact, relatively limited in it's combat role compared to other classes. But what about the other classes? Why can't a fighter be designed that effectively be a Striker or a Defender or a Leader? No reason. It just a design choice that was made in 5e that wasn't made in 4e. Same for the Wizard, and the Cleric, and the Bard, and the Paladin, and the Ranger. The relative role limitation of the rogue is not a proof role related design in 5e. Almost every other class is a counterexample. This is not the same thing as saying Roles don't exist. It just means that 4e is the only edition of D&D where, by design, roles directly associated with class. And that was a very deliberate design decision in both 4e and 5e.</blockquote>