Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4286660" data-attributes="member: 710">Actually, they did mix the roles a lot more then you think.There are powers in all classes that "transcend" role. Some Fighter powers provide "short-range" control features. Some Ranger powers provide Leader-like abilities. Many Warlock-powers have controller-like abilities. Some Paladin powers are Leader-like. Some Fighter powers are very striker-like. Some Warlord powers are defender-like, and some Cleric powers are controller-like. But the core abilities (At-Will, and class features) all focus on their role. Most of the encounter and daily powers focus on the role, but some also have side-effects.The Warlord is a Leader. But he is just as much involved in melee combat then the Fighter, and he's not running around as much as some of the Strikers. Basically all the roles are very fundamental. 3E core assumptions for CR guideline actually was based on them - You had Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard as the standard 4-man party, and if you diverged from it, the CR guidelines worked less well. There has always been someone that had to be the Fighter. And if it was a swashbuckler like Fighter, focusing on mobility and light or no armor, you usually noticed the lack of someone holding your front-line. Remove the Cleric, and suddenly, no one can deal with all the damage and negative energy, poison or disease effects thrown at them. The only thing that is more or less "artifical" is that the Leader is not a pure Healer, but he is also the Buffer. That wouldn't have to be true, in 3E Wizards (Controllers) were also fine buffers. Though, if you look at the spell selection, a lot of the basic and important support/buff powers are still limited to Clerics (Remove Disease, Delay Poison, Remove Paralysis, Death Ward, Bless, Aid, Prayer, Shield of Faith) in 3E. The distinction between Striker and Defender emerges pretty natural, in my opinion. A lightly armored guy like the Rogue should really not stand in the front-line. Nor should an Archer. It doesn't fit the archetype. But you still need someone that can take the heat and protect his allies. That's why you create Defender and Striker as distinct roles. ---An entirely different thing regarding to roles is: What about non-combat roles? The roles are not defined yet, but I think they actually exist.You have something like- Sage (Knowledge skills)- Faceman (Social skills)- Guide  (Survival/Navigate/Tracking/Animal Care)And maybe there is also something like "Artificer" or "Techie", but I am not sure if it's a distinct role, or should go into Sage...If I would have created 4E, I would have tried to tackle these roles, too. Though I might have needed another year of design & development to get this right. With such "out-of-combat" roles, you _might_ be able to convince some people that 4E is not all hack & slash or combat. A in-game implementation could do one of the following things- Assign a non-combat role to each class. This narrows them down further. ("What? Why does my Fighter _have_ to be some kind of Faceman?)- Create a second set of non-combat class donations that you can "gestalt" with the combat orientated classes. So people would play something like Rogue (Artful Dodger) Faceman, or Rogue (Brute) Guide, or Wizard (Staff) Sage or Warlock (Fey) Guide, or Cleric ("Laser") Sage.</blockquote>

Verification