Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dd.stevenson" data-source="post: 5965392" data-attributes="member: 6683099">Gotcha.&nbsp; Thanks.&nbsp; It looks like roles were a serious design element in 4E and this article leaves me fuzzy on whether they will or won't be in 5E.So roles are just an encounter balance tool that can be tuned like CR in 3E?&nbsp; (Not that CR was very accurate, mind you.)&nbsp; This is different than what Hussar is saying above, no?What I'm trying to decide is whether 4E roles are a prescriptive design restriction, or whether they're just a &quot;general guideline&quot; to describe monsters that were created without particular emphasis on roles.&nbsp; If the former, then we have a real problem and the DDN article doesn't make sense to my mind because something will have to give.&nbsp; If the latter, then roles are just a presentation issue and there's nothing to see here IMO.(I just had a gander over at the rpg.net thread and it looks like the consensus there is that roles are a serious design consideration in 4E and thus that Mearls' article reads as an awkward compromise at best.)&nbsp;Sounds cool.&nbsp; But I think I maybe wasn't clear enough.&nbsp; I'm trying to figure out how 4E monsters are built, not how encounters are built.&nbsp; (I assume encounter building is mostly unchanged from 3E.)If you strip out all the role playing and go straight to the mechanics, then yes.&nbsp; (Except for the kobold sorcerers and traps.)Otherwise: heck no.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dd.stevenson, post: 5965392, member: 6683099"] Gotcha. Thanks. It looks like roles were a serious design element in 4E and this article leaves me fuzzy on whether they will or won't be in 5E. So roles are just an encounter balance tool that can be tuned like CR in 3E? (Not that CR was very accurate, mind you.) This is different than what Hussar is saying above, no? What I'm trying to decide is whether 4E roles are a prescriptive design restriction, or whether they're just a "general guideline" to describe monsters that were created without particular emphasis on roles. If the former, then we have a real problem and the DDN article doesn't make sense to my mind because something will have to give. If the latter, then roles are just a presentation issue and there's nothing to see here IMO. (I just had a gander over at the rpg.net thread and it looks like the consensus there is that roles are a serious design consideration in 4E and thus that Mearls' article reads as an awkward compromise at best.) Sounds cool. But I think I maybe wasn't clear enough. I'm trying to figure out how 4E monsters are built, not how encounters are built. (I assume encounter building is mostly unchanged from 3E.) If you strip out all the role playing and go straight to the mechanics, then yes. (Except for the kobold sorcerers and traps.) Otherwise: heck no. [/QUOTE]

Verification