Why are wizards so strong in DnD?

>4e is a far better game
>We turn everyone into casters

I want the ignorant lies to end.

Magic is basically "do this cool shit." That makes it really easy to think of more cool shit for wizards to do. That gives them more options, which can be strong in its own right, and increases the chances that some of those options are going to end up flatly powerful on their own.

Look at the typical items in a vague rant about how bullshit wizards are: "Flying teleporting invisible death ray instakill assholes with better stats than the fighter and they can turn into fighters and they get out of combat stuff and and and..." Now go through them one at a time: Why can wizards fly? Because it's a cool thing you could imagine doing with magic. Why can wizards turn invisible? Cool, makes sense with magic. Death rays, cool magic. Save or dies, cool magic. Buff stats, cool magic. Every time wizards can do something, overpowered or not, it's usually because it's a cool thing you could see being done with magic.

Put simply, they're not well designed. They're piles of stuff, and since the stuff is more or less labeled Awesome, not surprisingly the pile tends towards the higher side of the power scale.

See clerics or druids for an alternative example: They're arguably MORE powerful than wizards in 3.5, but they don't get mentioned as much. Why? Because their pile of stuff is constrained by less awesome themes, so even though they end up more mechanically potent, it's not as awe-inspiring a pile. It's a functional pile, but you can tell the designers weren't brimming with glee as they added shit to it.

This is also why every attempt at buffing martials to match pisses off grogs: The only way to compete with a pile of stuff labeled Awesome is to start piling Awesome onto your own thing, which ends up "weaboo" (Bo9S) or "video game" (4e). Nerfing casters pisses (hopefully different, but I know better) people off because it destroys something Awesome.

A few spells were badly worded, and far to many sups in 3.5.

Also, creating items and scrolls is FAR too easy and cheap.

All versions of d&d after 2e, should be trashed.

The actual process of writing the scroll requires one full day for each level of the spell inscribed.
Protection scrolls require six days of work. During this time, the spellcaster must be undisturbed, breaking only for food and sleep (and then for a minimum of each). If the spellcaster halts before the transcription is completed, the entire effort fails and all work done to that point is for naught.
After the work is completed, the DM secretly checks for success. The base chance is 80%. This can be increased or decreased by the materials used. For every level of the spell, 1% is subtracted from the success chance, but every level of the spellcaster adds 1%. Thus, a 15th-level mage (+15) making a scroll of a 7th-level spell (-7), using papyrus (-5) and writing with a cockatrice quill plucked with his own hand (+5) would have an (80 + 15 - 7 - 5 + 5 =) 88% chance of success.
If the number rolled on percentile dice is equal to or less than the required number, the attempt succeeds. If the roll is higher, the attempt fails, though the player has no way of knowing this.
If the attempt fails, the scroll is cursed in some way. The DM secretly decides an appropriate effect based on the spell that was attempted. A failed attempt to create a fireball scroll may result in a cursed scroll that explodes in a fiery ball of flame upon reading. The player character cannot detect the cursed effect until it is too late.
Note: A remove curse spell will cause this faulty scroll to turn to dust.

Plus, the cost was very high in gold .

Compare that to 3.5's crafting items/scrolls

>be caster
>create scrolls
>pay 1 gold and .0001 exp
>have unlimited scrolls/items

>implying 4e wasn't a video game

Alright, I've decided to become the bait. Why, exactly, is being 'a video game' a bad thing? Video games are a way to have fun in a structured and easily understandable way. Depending on whatever mechanics you decide to use, a video game takes a particular concept and executes it (hopefully) in a way that focuses on that concept.
The very first objection I can think of is
>but I can't have creative freedom within the confines of a video game
which is bullshit, because if you were going to hold autistically to the rules, you were going to hold autistically to the rules anyways.
So seeing mechanics that emulate popular video games doesn't really bug me. This might be because I played video games before I played D&D, but I still don't get it.

The idea that 4e mechanics emulated videogames is a lie anyway, or at best a gross misinterpretation of the rules by people with limited experience of them.

Because D&D is a conglomeration of high magic settings where magic pervades every layer of existence (typically as a natural ambient field in most settings, Forgotten Realms has a specific conversion mechanism called the Weave layered over realspace so it doesn't touch the destructive unfiltered Pure Magic beyond) allowing for a dynamic range of altering or outright rejecting mundane reality's rules.
Of course, this doesn't mean wizards are particularly stronger than clerics, druids, or sorcerers. Or warriors armed with specialized magical equipment.

>>everything's balanced well

HA HA HA HA HA.

>Or warriors armed with specialized magical equipment.
Bad argument because there is no reason spellcasters can't equip things that warriors can.

Obviously because magic can do anything, and any wizard with his astounding Int score should be able to do all the spells, not just a narrow theme of them. Also fuck those sword users, too much like the jocks that the writers still hate from high school. Long live Int in place of Cha and mental tricks being mightier than the sword, m'lady!

>implying 4e was a video game
>implying that would be bad if it were true
>implying 90%+ of D&D players don't treat it like a video game regardless of edition

I always find this especially funny since 4e, rather uniquely, didn't have any video games based on it.

That's largely because the guy in charge of that killed himself.

...No? Online tabletop integration is not a videogame.

>Bad argument because there is no reason spellcasters can't equip things that warriors can.
Except, you know, proficiencies and class benefits. It varies a bit by edition, but let's say 5E since it's the current one. Even at level 20, an abjuration wizard is only swiping in with one attack per round (as he gains no Extra Attack features), and therefore his awesome +3 vorpal sword is not going to be nearly as effective as it would be in the battle master's hands, who gets four attacks per round (and can tack on four extra attacks for two selected rounds per rest). Also, he's going to be disadvantaged on that one attack unless he purchased longsword proficiency from somewhere.

If you want the lore for that, then it's because the fighters spend a lot of time training with those weaponry, whereas the wizards don't. If a wizard did, he would not be a full wizard, he would be a multiclasser.

Except wizards often get better use out of their magic items than martial classes do.

It's the same general problem. Martial magic items make them better at doing the one thing they can already do. Magic user focused magic items just give them more versatility.

Um.....user, 2e is incredibly well balanced.

>What are Dart Fighters
>What is high level play
>What are Elvish Fighter/Magic Users
>What are Paladins
>What are Barbarians
>What is stacking haste with other attack/movement speed effects

That depends on edition, user. You're colored by 3.5 and arguing from a vantage of 3.5.

There's not a lot of magic items for casters in 5E, for example, beyond the classic rod or staff that give them a few extra spell casts per day. Or the extremely high end stuff, which lets them get the rough equivalent of +1 or +2 modifiers on their spell to-hit and damage as though it were an enchanted weapon. But a Staff of the Magi isn't a common piece of gear.

3.5 sacred cows making the designers let them stay broken as fuck

Because D&D's rules aren't built for the player to play a real character, but for them to play a sword and sorcery movie archetype. At that point, of course wizards are OP- just look at the source material D&D steals from.

Dart fighters? darts still did SHIT damage, so who cares?
Highlevel play? Explain
Elvish fighters/magic users had level limits, and some rough penalties, not to mention the curse of elvish con/strength.
Pallys rocked, true. But it was so fucking rare to roll one up, no one ever really had any. (unless you cheated on rolls)
Barbs were nothing special.
Haste? nothing special there either.

>But a Staff of the Magi isn't a common piece of gear.

It shouldn't be in any edition. However too man shit dm's allow it to be common and buyable at the corner magic shop.

>Of course, this doesn't mean wizards are particularly stronger than clerics, druids, or sorcerers. Or warriors armed with specialized magical equipment.

Martials can never have the sheer utility of a dedicated caster. They can perfectly be the main damage dealers in a party (unless you have a warlock of course, but warlock design is weird in general), but outside of combat are far less useful than a caster. Sorcerers are giant pieces of shit compared to wizards outside of combat, and warlocks do blasting much more efficiently, which is why sorcerer 18/warlock 2 is such a meme multiclass

You can't really call it shit GMing if they're just following advice given to them in the DMG. At that point it's bad design.

Because Chads reeeeeeeee3eeeeeee

5E doesn't even have that core, there's not even prices listed for magic items.
Hell, there isn't even a projected curve of what kind of magic items player characters should receive and when, other than a general sort of expectation that martial based classes should have a magic weapon (not even necessarily a +1 weapon) by level 7 or so when resistance to nonmagic starts getting spread around.

And that's fine. Wizards are a toolbox, fighters are a sledgehammer. Sledgehammer's not as versatile and in the end has only one real obvious application, but nothing in the toolbox does the sledgehammer's job.

...

But what if i take the toolbox and hit someone with it.

Probably going to dent your toolbox, my dude.

It'd be far less impressive than you expect.
Wizard damage per turn sucks in 5E unless they're burning their six highest level spell slots (which they cannot replenish or acquire more of by any means [except that one Epic Boon AKA post-20 content that no campaign ever uses]).

But from what I understand of 5e, casters are still damn good in combat anyway.

If they're roughly equal in combat, but one is wildly better outside of it, isn't that obvious?

Even if one is an unsurpassed master of combat, being basically irrelevant when not smacking people in the face seems like really boring class design.

Are you stupid or something?

Where in the DMG does it say "every wizard gets a staff of the magi"?

user was correct.

2e is the most balanced of the d and d editions.

That would suit us. We play low magic games anyway.

We seldom have a lot of magic items, or even weapons.

There's no fucking magic shop in our games.

>You can't really call it shit GMing if they're just following advice given to them in the DMG. At that point it's bad design.

>The DMG says to give out staves of the magi like it's candy?

Can you tell me what page that is on please?

>yeah let's see how you fare when I'm attacking you behind your back
>I don't need dumb tricks, my enchanted sword is just fine
>yeah, but do you have these many HPs?
>stop laughing

The DMG has rules for magic item availability that scales by level. Read between the lines, moron.

>casters are still damn good in combat anyway.
>If they're roughly equal in combat,
Nah, not really. They can't keep up with Fighters and Monks spike way past them at level 17, totem barbarians are a little less consistent but get the benefit of being the closest thing to invincible (whereas wizards are always glassy and will shatter with a punch, and there's no way to protect themselves from that flaw in 5E because of how movement has been fixed compared to previous editions).
(if you want to talk about flying up, nearly everyone can use a longbow and fly is concentration-based, so if they get hit and break it, they can enjoy the fall to their certain demise)

>Read between the lines
>The RULES DEMAND (x)
>My reading between the lines , which is slang for making shit up that isn't there....means the game is shit.

wtf logic is that?

>The DMG has rules for magic item availability that scales by level
Now you're just lying. All it has, the only thing it has, is what level items of varying rarity should begin appearing at, saying "legendary items should not be found before character level 17 (because it will skew our already-tenuous CR system)", for example.
It doesn't say how many legendary items a level 20 character should have, if they should even have any. Much less does it say they should have the specific item they want.

YOU ARENT READING BETWEEN THE LINES!!!! FUCK YOUR LOGIC!!

That's good game design, user. If we rely on the GM to build half the system themselves, they'll become more invested in our product and think it's good! Rule 0 means we don't have to actually put any effort into the game. Just mod it until it's good. Nobody plays TES games vanilla.

>t. bethesda

Yes, I'm salty

Don't play 3rd edition. 4E evens things pretty well.

Know what, Veeky Forums?

Why not just give martials magical qualities? Not stuff like spells, but things like superman-level strength and endurance.

Makes fighters more like Guan Yu and Beowulf, than guy-with-armor-#2.

Why not play a system that makes martial combat fun? Why fetter yourself to an outdated and shitty system that isn't working for you?

>D&D, a game by WIZARDS of the Coast, favors wizards

i think i've stumbled onto something lads

Because I'm not an autist that focuses more on mechanics than story. I value the ability to convey a narrative quickly and easily, but don't want to get bogged down in mechanics. That's basically Anima. At the same time, I've no desire for a rules-light system where combat is ill-defined. I've tried Savage Worlds already - no thank you.

>That's basically Anima.
>The game that requires an excel formula to calculate damage

Magic is for roleplayers who want to have fun the easy way with spells.
Martial is for roleplayers who are experienced enough to have fun and interesting situations just with proper RP.

I speak from own experience.

Reread his post me'laddo

I said a system that makes martial combat fun, not excel formula based like Anima. Nobody would bring up Anima as an example of fun, ever. I don't get why he doesn't like Savage Worlds, but whatever. He can stick to D&D if he thinks the three systems in the world are Anima, D&D, and Savage Worlds.

>Because I'm not an autist that focuses more on mechanics than story.
Mechanics tell a story. Such as that of the fighter who was trained in physical combat all his life just to be outclassed by the druid's animal sidekick.

Then fucking spell it out for us you fucking genius.

Make an actual fucking argument instead of autistic screeching

When I'm designing caster classes I always restrict them strongly to a central theme. OR, when I'm playing a caster, I try to take spells that suit a central theme.

The main issue is that a 'generic' mage has access to spells that damage, debuff, and buff. THEN, they also get summons, conjurations, mind control and illusions. THEN they get crazy unique stuff, like demiplanes or magnificent mansions.

Most classes that don't do "generic magic" can get some of these, but not all. Fighters can damage and debuff, maybe even buff, but it's oftem harder for them to summon allies or beguile enemies. Thief classes can pick locks and sneak, bluff enemies into giving away critical facts and even damage/debuff, but they're STILL missing out on stuff like Demiplane.

My first character, a 5e Warlock, had Eldritch Blast for consistent ranged damage. He also had ritual casts of Alarm and Purify Food & Drink for camp bonuses, Detect Thoughts for interrogation, Sleep & Hideous Laughter for debuffs, could deal mass AOE damage with Shatter or Fireball, could identify loot as a ritual, and could cast Haste or Fly to buff allies. At higher levels he'd have been able to cast spells like Demiplane and Create Undead.

He WAS fun to play (at first) but completely lacked a niche and just straight up outperformed the rest of the party in a ton of fields (though not in combat). Not to mention the high Cha made him be THE party face for a couple of sessions (until a a LG paladin joined).

My last character, a Ranger, had three abilities at the same level. Deal damage at range, deal damage in melee, track enemies over distance. The third one I didn't even use.

The point of DnD isn't about balance, it's about having fun rolling dice and making a story.

It isn't some shitty E-sport you retard.

That being said, the existence of 'levels' implies balance. Otherwise, why have them at all if a level 20 wizard isn't approximately similar in power to a level 20 rogue?

Classes shouldn't be equally good at everything. A level 20 rogue shouldn't be able to go 50/50 with a lvl 20 fighter in a straight fight. Otherwise why bother differentiating your characters at all?

Also trying to balance classes competitively against each other is retarded. Like the PvP scene in dungeons and dragons is unbalanced. Oh no!

>Like the PvP scene in dungeons and dragons is unbalanced. Oh no!
More like the PvE balance favors casters extremely heavily.

Having different resource mechanics for different classes is a very important aspect for many people because having thematic mechanics goes a long way towards making a game actually carry its theme (this is why not GURPS isn't the premiere RPG on the planet).
Meanwhile, 4E was so disliked that a complete shitshow like paizo managed to thrive next to it.

>Classes shouldn't be equally good at everything.
That is not what balance means.

>Why not play a system that makes martial combat fun
Haven't found one so far. All the supposedly "fun martial-focused" systems were either rules-lite trash or went into the super-simulationist direction a la Riddle of Steel. Meanwhile, modding DnD martials is pretty simple.

D&D 4e.

...

Alright, what do you find fun? Seriously, if casting traditional D&D spells counts as fun, then literally Book of Nine Swords.

>Alright, what do you find fun?
My metrics are:

- Different kinds of classes/archetypes need different resource systems. Casters use mana/spell slots/focus/etc, martials are unlimited/per encounter/idontgiveafuck. ultimately though, there needs to be mechanical distinction.

- combat needs options, and these options need to be viable even without speccing your character around them, because full attacking each round is boring.

- combat needs to be somewhat mobile, because movement creates options and options are good.

- combat needs to be not only tactical but also strategical. Stacking modifiers is nice, as is the thought of "winning combat before it's begun" because you stacked the odds in your favor.

- ability to react to your opponents. this gives more options, that's good.

Oh, I should mention, there's also Legends of the WU Lin, but that's kinda niche and doesn't do anything besides crazy kung fu well, so it's not relevant for "knights with swords and wizards" games.

Shadow of the Demon Lord maybe?

I'm not sure why BoNS/Path of War/4e doesn't fit though. Just use essentials/psionic classes.

>4E
No separate resources, combat maneuvers aren't viable due to high CMD, choices are nonexistant and stacking stuff is pretty much impossible by yourself.

>Path of War
Path of War is decent and I use it for my (somewhat modified) 3.5 games for some martials.

>Shadow off the Demon Lord
I dislike the core mechanic because I dislike bane/boon systems in general because it somehwat discourages stacking modifiers by capping the benefit. In 3.5 you can stack +30 with different situational, magic, skill etc boni, here it's capped at 6.

Don't know what BoNS is.

What you're asking for ultimately requires a lot of mechanical complexity to function, because your ideal game
>Depends on a lot of variables
>Requires that the tide of combat be able to change very quickly
>Accounts for multiple archetypes and the mechanics they entail
>Doesn't depend on an ideal build
>Permits multiple actions, all of which ostensibly have meaningful ramificatons that need to be accounted for
Which honestly sounds like it requires a lot of crunch to function properly. Maybe if they actually made use of the billion skills and spells for some d20 games.
Saga Edition seemed pretty decent, even if it's tied to the d20 and Star Wars. And Jedi are still overpowered. I had considered doing a hack for D&D.

>No separate resources

Hence why I said psionics and essentials.

>combat maneuvers aren't viable due to high CMD

4e doesn't have CMD. That's Pathfinder. I guess you may mean improvised actions being a bit less reliable, but that's an easy fix, if you want it.

> choices are nonexistant

.... explain?

>stacking stuff is pretty much impossible by yourself.

Blatantly false. one of the worst things about it imo is that there's a ridiculous number of small, situational modifiers. Also not sure "by yourself" matters when it's supposed to be a team game.

>BoNS

Book of Nine Swords, the 3.5 predecessor to Path of War

Sounds like you want Dungeon Crawl Classics.

>Note: A remove curse spell will cause this faulty scroll to turn to dust.
Does this mean you can just cast that on every scroll you make so at least it won't fail at a critical time?

>What you're asking for ultimately requires a lot of mechanical complexity to function, because your ideal game
Not really
>Depends on a lot of variables
Arguable, as this is a very vague point
>Requires that the tide of combat be able to change very quickly
Again, yes, but this does not necessarily increase mechanical depth, although it makes the situations happening in-game more complex.
>Accounts for multiple archetypes and the mechanics they entail
That's mechanical width rather than complexity. 50 different classes each with a different core mechanic is no more complex than 5 that all use the same. the player can decide himself how many he wants to combine, and manage that stuff by himself. The DM is only concerned with the monsters mechanics which are "behind the curtain" and so can be simplified.
>Accounts for multiple archetypes and the mechanics they entail
No shit, having balance is kinda important if character building is to be fun, but balance =/= complexity
>Doesn't depend on an ideal build
see above
>Permits multiple actions, all of which ostensibly have meaningful ramificatons that need to be accounted for
Yes. While having 3~4 viable actions each turn is definitely more complex than "I use my daily if the enemy is a boss", It's what makes combat mechanically interesting, and I like crunch.

>Which honestly sounds like it requires a lot of crunch to function properly
somewhat. As I said, I use a modified 3.5.
>Saga Edition seemed pretty decent, even if it's tied to the d20 and Star Wars
Saga is actually exactly the direction I'm going with this.
>And Jedi are still overpowered
That's somewhat of a meme. It's just easier to be useless as a non-Jedi

>Hence why I said psionics and essentials.
still tied to that godawful role system they thought up for 4E though

>4e doesn't have CMD. That's Pathfinder
Yup, mixed up my terms. I blame the whiskey. 4E didn't have basic maneuver stuff at all except as powers IIRC.

>.... explain?
"You can only trip this guy if you have a power for that"

>Blatantly false. one of the worst things about it imo is that there's a ridiculous number of small, situational modifiers
Stuff like that is very important so the "before" the combat doesn't become obsolete and the game sin't reduced to a series of set piece fights with no impact on each other.

>Also not sure "by yourself" matters when it's supposed to be a team game.
That's just bullshit. Mechanically forcing teamwork is dumb and just makes you feel like your character is incompetent by himself. Another reason why roles are cancer.

>Book of Nine Swords, the 3.5 predecessor to Path of War
Ah, always abbreviated it as Bo9S, I do use that for some flavors of martials.

>Sounds like you want Dungeon Crawl Classics.
Will check it out.

>"You can only trip this guy if you have a power for that"
This is something that I hear (as a non-D&D player) that confuses the hell out of me - why is something like a shield bash or tripping a guy considered a skill or power or whatever for anyone, especially martials?
It's a fairly basic thing to do.
What other things aren't classes assumed to know?

>Yup, mixed up my terms. I blame the whiskey. 4E didn't have basic maneuver stuff at all except as powers IIRC.

Nah, it exists. It's just generally less effective than using a power as a power will come with some damage as well.

Because wizard players kept whining and thrashing whenever WotC tried to balance their favoured class, or buff other classes.

>still tied to that godawful role system they thought up for 4E though

Yes, pointing out that maybe the guy in heavy armor and shield is good at defending people and that the wizard is supposed to be blowing shit up and the cleric is supposed to be healing sure is fucking terrible.

"Roles" are a label. They have no in-game significance aside from telling you what the character is good at. In a way it's just like Class was in OD&D.

>4E didn't have basic maneuver stuff at all except as powers IIRC.

It has grapple/pull/push and a very handy chart to improvise any sort of maneuvers.

>"You can only trip this guy if you have a power for that"

See my above answer.

>Stuff like that is very important so the "before" the combat doesn't become obsolete and the game sin't reduced to a series of set piece fights with no impact on each other.

That's why shit like Surges and different conditions were pretty cool.

>That's just bullshit. Mechanically forcing teamwork is dumb and just makes you feel like your character is incompetent by himself. Another reason why roles are cancer.

No, having a role doesn't mean you are incompetent, it means you do one thing really ,really well.

But if you want to have multiple roles, you can always just Hybrid.

4e logic for improvised actions is this:
>can be don at any time
Less good than At-wills
>can be done with preparation or when the time is right
on the level of encounters
>can be done with lots of preparation and/or very specific circumstances
on the level of dailies.

Honestly it's been years since I played 4E, if they have a wiki or something where stuff like that is presented could you direct me to it, because I'm honestly curious if we just missed something elementary like that.

>"Roles" are a label. They have no in-game significance aside from telling you what the character is good at. In a way it's just like Class was in OD&D.
Their significance is that they informed the mindset that went into power design, which led to people getting powers that do stuff for their role, which leads to "needing" to "fill" certain roles for a combat effective party. Hence the often cited MMO comparison.

>It has grapple/pull/push and a very handy chart to improvise any sort of maneuvers.
Honestly, if stuff like tripping someone or kicking his weapon away isn't in the core rules explicitly, how can you say the rules want to do martials justice? That's like saying you can theoretically construct railguns in DnD so it's a scifi game.

>No, having a role doesn't mean you are incompetent, it means you do one thing really ,really well.
semantics, challenges are designed around the guy who does stuff really, really well, so not being that guy in that situation means you suck.

>But if you want to have multiple roles, you can always just Hybrid.
Roles are tied to classes though, so if the class you want doesn't have the roles represented in his powers that you want you're Shit out of luck.

Thanks guys.

>Honestly, if stuff like tripping someone or kicking his weapon away isn't in the core rules explicitly, how can you say the rules want to do martials justice?

They are though. They are covered by improvised actions or by powers. Both of which martials have access to.

>semantics, challenges are designed around the guy who does stuff really, really well, so not being that guy in that situation means you suck.

False, classes can totally pull the weight of their secondary-tertiary role. You can build a Fighter as a very competent controller/damage dealer on top (or rather, partly because of) of being a Defender. And you can even multiclass for leader powers if you want to fill that as well.

>Roles are tied to classes though, so if the class you want doesn't have the roles represented in his powers that you want you're Shit out of luck.

Hence you'd hybrid. So you have the powers you want. Do you understand how hybrid works?

>Their significance is that they informed the mindset that went into power design, which led to people getting powers that do stuff for their role

...wait, so it's a bad thing to tell players what their class is good at?

As the D&D Rogue has always basically filled the Striker role even before it had a name. They do a big hit of damage (Backstab/Sneak Attack) but don't survive it anywhere near as well.

4e Roles are also rather soft compared to MMOs. I've played in groups with no leaders, no controllers and no defenders before. It changes HOW you play but doesn't make it impossible like it would an MMO. I'm willing to bet you could make a perfectly functional party out of 4 characters of even the same role (Though Striker would be easiest)

>Hence why I said psionics and essentials.
Don't essentials still have Atwill/Encounter/Dailies?

>Their significance is that they informed the mindset that went into power design, which led to people getting powers that do stuff for their role, which leads to "needing" to "fill" certain roles for a combat effective party. Hence the often cited MMO comparison.

Forgot this, but the only role you need to fill in 4e is Leader.

And you don't even need to be good, you just need to have 2-3 heals in the party.

Some do, but some (mostly the martials) are different.

They gain no dailies (instead mostly passive improvements), and they gain reusable encounters instead of getting new ones, which translates into "x times per fight" abilities instead of how it functions for others. A good example for what to expect would be the 5e battlemster fighter.

You can technically still pick up dailies with your utility slots, but you can also just will those with at-wills instead.

>...wait, so it's a bad thing to tell players what their class is good at?
No, defining a central combat role for a class and aligning all his abilities around that is bad, because classes should be different in "what they spend to do stuff" and in what they're allowed to do.

>As the D&D Rogue has always basically filled the Striker role even before it had a name
Except that's wrong.

>I'm willing to bet you could make a perfectly functional party out of 4 characters of even the same role
4 leader definitely works, but everything else kinda breaks down because of power limitations.

>No, defining a central combat role for a class and aligning all his abilities around that is bad, because classes should be different in "what they spend to do stuff" and in what they're allowed to do.

But even two classes of the same role play differently. Heck, two different people of the same class can be built differently. You can build fighters for example to be excellent at damage, area control, single target lockdown or being the toughest nut to crack on the battlefield.