Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What are the Roles now?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6528556" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I guess I just don't understand why this matters. Unless a class can do everything, and it sounds like you expect them not to do everything, there are by nature things they will be good at and things they won't, not without serious overhaul (which is possible even in 4e--it just takes time and resources). If you know every class will have areas of high and low performance, I fail to see why it is bad to (a) recognize it, (b) work to make sure they're effective, and (c) let the player know about it. From there, the only distinction is whether or not you admit that there is some kind of categorization system, however loose or tight.</p><p></p><p>[sblock]4e's isn't even perfectly tight--for example, Striker can be very clearly divided into "melee" and "ranged," and some classes straddle that line while others don't. (Storm Sorcerers, for instance, lean very heavily on the ranged side due to their Soul-specific features, while Dragon Sorcerers lean heavily melee, mostly due to the perks they get from specific powers as a result of having the Dragon Soul; contrast, say, Barbarians who AFAIK are melee-only.) Some classes very clearly merge two roles, like the Paladin--it's a Defender, but between Channel Divinity and Lay on Hands, it's already half a Leader and can become essentially a full Leader with the right advancement choices (Heal skill + Leader MC feat + Hospitaler PP). These things are no more meant to be a straightjacket than alignment was; they're primarily descriptive, and only prescriptive in the sense that there are certain mechanics that members of a certain role will share, e.g. Marking and punishment for Defenders, a "Healing Word" equivalent for Leaders, etc.[/sblock]</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, let's build off that. Things that share similarities with the Cleric are going to heal/support, right? Like, that's pretty clearly the core shtick of the class, independent of all campaigns and playstyles (the anti-undead stuff being far more variable). I don't really see how "Leader" <em>doesn't</em> communicate "shares basic similarities with the traditional areas of Cleric proficiency." Similar arguments can be made for Defender ("Fighter" may not mean "meatshield," but out of the four core classes, "meatshield" <em>essentially</em> means "Fighter," especially when Clerics are more like their 2e Priest version) and the same goes for Rogue/Thief (Sneak Attack and traps/locks are its two core deals, so "hits crazy hard" isn't beyond the pale if we're only considering battle utility; "has exploration benefits" wouldn't be hard to add to the Striker role anyway).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6528556, member: 6790260"] I guess I just don't understand why this matters. Unless a class can do everything, and it sounds like you expect them not to do everything, there are by nature things they will be good at and things they won't, not without serious overhaul (which is possible even in 4e--it just takes time and resources). If you know every class will have areas of high and low performance, I fail to see why it is bad to (a) recognize it, (b) work to make sure they're effective, and (c) let the player know about it. From there, the only distinction is whether or not you admit that there is some kind of categorization system, however loose or tight. [sblock]4e's isn't even perfectly tight--for example, Striker can be very clearly divided into "melee" and "ranged," and some classes straddle that line while others don't. (Storm Sorcerers, for instance, lean very heavily on the ranged side due to their Soul-specific features, while Dragon Sorcerers lean heavily melee, mostly due to the perks they get from specific powers as a result of having the Dragon Soul; contrast, say, Barbarians who AFAIK are melee-only.) Some classes very clearly merge two roles, like the Paladin--it's a Defender, but between Channel Divinity and Lay on Hands, it's already half a Leader and can become essentially a full Leader with the right advancement choices (Heal skill + Leader MC feat + Hospitaler PP). These things are no more meant to be a straightjacket than alignment was; they're primarily descriptive, and only prescriptive in the sense that there are certain mechanics that members of a certain role will share, e.g. Marking and punishment for Defenders, a "Healing Word" equivalent for Leaders, etc.[/sblock] Okay, let's build off that. Things that share similarities with the Cleric are going to heal/support, right? Like, that's pretty clearly the core shtick of the class, independent of all campaigns and playstyles (the anti-undead stuff being far more variable). I don't really see how "Leader" [I]doesn't[/I] communicate "shares basic similarities with the traditional areas of Cleric proficiency." Similar arguments can be made for Defender ("Fighter" may not mean "meatshield," but out of the four core classes, "meatshield" [I]essentially[/I] means "Fighter," especially when Clerics are more like their 2e Priest version) and the same goes for Rogue/Thief (Sneak Attack and traps/locks are its two core deals, so "hits crazy hard" isn't beyond the pale if we're only considering battle utility; "has exploration benefits" wouldn't be hard to add to the Striker role anyway). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What are the Roles now?
Top