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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6510395" data-attributes="member: 48965">So again we're using Essentials (A new set of core books whose whole purpose was to break with the original design tenets in 4e ... we might as well be talking about a separate edition) as the example for 4e not matching class to role.  Like I said earlier essentials  was designed to break from 4e in a last ditch effort to try and emulate the feel of previous editions...  Let's at least try to be upfront here... is it or is it not true that for the majority of 4e's run that class directly corresponded to a role and the books specifically called this out?  If anything Essentials shows that WotC was finally realizing most people don't want to be pigeonholed in the manner that the majority of 4e's run promoted.Then we aren't talking about 4e roles, which is where the main point of contention has been throughout this discussion.  Otherwise nearly everyone has agreed (including myself) that if by roles you mean any grouping or label one comes up with for a grouping of whatever one may consider "competencies"... then yeah roles exist... of course the problem then is none of us are agreeing on what the roles are.  Taking your example above what "role" is the archer fighter?  Is it Striker?  Is it ranged combatant?  Is it lightly armored dex-based fighter?  If it can be all of them and even more we are essentially getting to a point where trying to create roles for the classes is just added terminology towards what point when at least everyone can agree upon the competencies of the fighter and even those of a particular subclass... what benefit do I get from roles unless they are defined and hardcoded (at least to a minimum) within the game. And it gets even worse when a class has enough options, spells, maneuvers, choices in equipment, etc. open to it that it isn't channeled towards any particular default suite of competencies... Which IMO, is exactly what 5e does for the most part.Which means we effectively do not have roles... at least again not in the 4e sense of the word.  Funny I created a similar character in 5e and was told he was not a "controller" by a 4e fan... Various and vague definitions that always seem to accommodate whatever example from 4e is being presented...So a single magazine issue... and your own opinion on similarities now equates to a strong D&D heritage... as compared to I don't know the class that has appeared in the actual books for numerous years? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /></blockquote>

Verification