Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6505621" data-attributes="member: 58197">Indeed. Take the rogue. The idea that &quot;You need a rogue&quot; does indeed go back way before 4E; but what were the stated reasons for needing a rogue? I don't recall anyone ever saying the party needed a rogue to deal lots of damage. By far, the most common reason I heard for needing a rogue was to deal with traps.With clerics and fighters, the 4E roles stand on firmer ground. Everyone agreed you needed a cleric to heal (Leader role), and a heavy melee warrior to provide a tough front line (Defender role). As far as wizards, I don't recall there ever being a single well-defined rationale for needing a wizard. The wizard's role was &quot;Do all the stuff only wizards can do,&quot; which covered quite a lot of territory*.I think it's more productive to view D&amp;D classes in terms of functions. A class can have more than one function. For example, the 5E fighter's functions include the traditional &quot;tough front line&quot; and also &quot;deal lots of damage.&quot; An assassin rogue has &quot;deal lots of damage&quot; as well as &quot;skill monkey.&quot; A thief rogue deals less damage in exchange for being a better skill monkey.[SIZE=-2]*Though, come to think of it, that fits quite well with 4E's Controller role. I've never seen a cogent explanation of what Controllers do, either. The 4E designers couldn't seem to make up their minds whether it meant blasting, debuffing, battlefield control, or what.[/SIZE]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6505621, member: 58197"] Indeed. Take the rogue. The idea that "You need a rogue" does indeed go back way before 4E; but what were the stated reasons for needing a rogue? I don't recall anyone ever saying the party needed a rogue to deal lots of damage. By far, the most common reason I heard for needing a rogue was to deal with traps. With clerics and fighters, the 4E roles stand on firmer ground. Everyone agreed you needed a cleric to heal (Leader role), and a heavy melee warrior to provide a tough front line (Defender role). As far as wizards, I don't recall there ever being a single well-defined rationale for needing a wizard. The wizard's role was "Do all the stuff only wizards can do," which covered quite a lot of territory*. I think it's more productive to view D&D classes in terms of [I]functions[/I]. A class can have more than one function. For example, the 5E fighter's functions include the traditional "tough front line" and also "deal lots of damage." An assassin rogue has "deal lots of damage" as well as "skill monkey." A thief rogue deals less damage in exchange for being a better skill monkey. [SIZE=-2]*Though, come to think of it, that fits quite well with 4E's Controller role. I've never seen a cogent explanation of what Controllers do, either. The 4E designers couldn't seem to make up their minds whether it meant blasting, debuffing, battlefield control, or what.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification