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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eirikrautha" data-source="post: 6507259" data-attributes="member: 6777843">No.  I said that I don't care if WotC creates feats that allow a player who wants to specialize for the role they envision to be able to.  I do care if WotC makes such specialization a default expectation of the rules.  This is not a difficult concept.Have you played 3.5 or, more recently, Pathfinder?  Try to grapple an opponent.  If you have not consciously built your character (including selections of feats and archetypes) for grappling, you will inevitably fail.  If you have built your character for the role of "grappler,"you will frequently do so with absolute ease.  But if you encounter an enemy immune to grappling?  Enjoy sitting out the fight, as you will be useless (as the cost of specializing in grappling means you cannot do anything else effectively).So, 3.5 and PF both encourage role specialization, both in the mechanics of the game and informally in the game's expectations.  5e's bounded accuracy prevents this from being as much of an issue, because a character can do many things without their bonuses (or lack thereof) overwhelming their ability to succeed.  For this reason, 5e should never, either through rules, mechanics, or even informal description, introduce the concept of combat roles as features of class or character build (beyond that of class abilities... which is fundamentally different than combat role).  It is placing limits where there should be none.Describing 5e's choices in terms of 4e's roles (striker, controller, etc.) would be a step backwards, because the construction of the game makes such roles dependent on circumstances, NOT character build!  Any 5e character can be a striker...  and then a controller in the next encounter.  So such conceptual descriptions would be regressive if applied to 5e.</blockquote>

Verification