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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 6513162" data-attributes="member: 6750235">There seems to be some over-thinking going on.The questions is what roles exist in 5e.  It doesn't matter if they specifically map out to 4e specific classes roles listed in the that edition.  It doesn't matter if they are specified roles or not.  It doesn't matter if more than one role is available to a character.  It doesn't matter if a person plays semantics and calls them functions, styles, roles, or whatever.  It also doesn't matter how many things a character can do to various degrees.What matters is what we answer when someone asks us what our character does as our main contributions to the group.  If I'm playing a bard and someone asks me that questions then my answer is that I heal, buff, and apply status effects to opponents.  I also fill out x skill functions.  If I were to define my abilities selected in 4e terms I would call myself a leader and a controller.  I define myself as a healer, support, and controller.  Those are the contributions my character makes no matter how I choose to label the role I play.  I could build my bard differently but in doing so I have not invalidated the existence of roles simply because he uses different roles.The bottom line is that roles exist and they don't need to be specific, labelled, defined, or attached to any particular class but there are clear mechanics that enable certain classes better than others in some of those group roles.  As stated multiple times in the thread, roles exist as perceived by each player in his or her character.</blockquote>

Verification