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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SirAntoine" data-source="post: 6505304" data-attributes="member: 6731904">The facts are the roles came out in 2008 with 4e, 4e used them to provide new focus on teamwork, and most significantly, the experience of other DM's says the roles were not always "to the degree in the game" you have suggested.  If you break down the game in your way, looking back, you see them in there then, but such an exercise was seldom if ever committed.  You have to apply this to the 4e roles themselves, you can't say but there were roles of some kind.  That is not what you have suggested.  Your opinion is the value of the strategic roles to the game, as to say you are the kind of player who would try to see roles like these.  Many others will just play the game as written.I repeat my suggestion that you grant other posters their right to want as little of 4e as possible in 5e, and you also grant other veterans their know-how.  The prevalence of the kind of thinking about roles done in 4e or even by like-minded players of any edition and time, is not so great as you suggest.  That is not an opinion, it is evidence.  It does not invalidate the value you see in the roles, though, or render it impossible for the roles to be seen where they are hidden, and that is your word for it.  To some degree, 3e was based on 2e, 2e on 1e, etc., but each edition's writers sought to make progress and keeping something for the sake of tradition was not high on their list of priorities.I made a post that spoke to why people get upset about this.  Let me applaud you for your devotion to tradition.  If I could elaborate a little further, I think I could get closer to the meat of your discussion:The combat roles I see in 5th Edition are:1 str-based fighter, 1 dex-based fighter, 1 skill expert, 1 divine caster, and 1 arcane caster.  I believe this is what Pathfinder uses, and it's right on for 5e, too.  The two fighters both are the primary defenders and strikers.  The skill expert provides help where he may.  The divine caster can provide a lot of healing when necessary, but he can fight well, too, and cast a wide variety of spells which include offense.  The arcane caster has the most offense, through his magic, but he doesn't need to use it every combat and from round to round he can do anything.  I wouldn't say there is a circulated plan for the wizard to try to control the environment and the monsters' movements and other actions, but if the wizard puts his mind to it he can be of help in these areas.You expect each combat to be different.  The dex-base fighter might well be a ranged specialist, so the str-base fighter will need the back-up of the skill expert and/or the divine caster at the front line, and the str-base fighter might be the only character who can stand a chance against the boss enemy.I would say this is much closer to how the game was played traditionally.  There wasn't quite as much potential for dex-based fighters, and the cleric had fewer offensive spells, but only the fighters (and other warriors, such as ranger and paladin) had a clear role in combat, and that was just "go up to the monster and attack".  Everyone else had to look for where they could help, and more often than not that boiled down to just attacking with weapons as back-up.  Wizards didn't get any offensive spells an unlimited number of times, and they didn't use crossbows.  But every extra point of damage was good.  You were often pressed from every direction also, so the idea of the fighter holding the line was "if you were lucky".</blockquote>

Verification