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: 6507241" data-attributes="member: 6731904">I didn't say roles didn't exist until 4e, I said the roles that 4e invented didn't exist until 4e.  You say "people have been playing with these roles," but now you're talking about the 4e roles in particular, not roles of some kind.  The roles 4e recognized and codified were nonexistent before 4e.  4e invented them.If there were tables using the roles from 4e before 4e, that does not mean 4e didn't invent them to the general knowledge of all of us in the public.  Okay, you may have used them before, but the thing is, you and others are trying to say "there are four roles" that have always been in the game, the same roles 4e recognizes and codifies.  I would contend there have always been roles, the number of those roles has always been more than four, and the four recognized and codified by 4e were unique to that edition of the game and they represent, in fact, a departure from tradition.  Both in the sense of so specifically laying out only those four like they are all that matter, and to exaggerate their significance as a concept.  The roles I recognize from all editions of the game are quite different, and they are more numerous.  I find the 4e roles to be effectively irrelevant to discussions of 5e and pre-4e editions.  It's confusing advice that has little bearing on actual play, or on play in the past.  4e sets up the four roles it does with new abilities and rules, so in 4e, those rules flourish.  In 4e, discussions of these four roles are indeed highly pertinent and beneficial.  There is nothing wrong with thinking of the game in this way, either, that these four roles were in every edition, it is just a point of view that is tied to one's appreciation of the 4e roles from 4e.  I have no bias against 4e.</blockquote>

Verification