all around competent bad ass in combat has been the fighter's archetype in nearly every edition of D&D... and that's the archetype I want to play... not highly competent melee combatant who suddenly becomes mediocre man when combats go ranged...
The AD&D fighter was almost always mediocre when combats go ranged: no STR bonus to attack or damage (unless using optional rules to add STR to thrown weapon attacks); d6 damage (from bow) or d4+1 (from sling or crossbow) compared to the standard d8 or d10 from a sword; and if UA is in play and you are specialised in a melee weapon, no increased rate of attacks and no attack and damage bonus.
And if you built a high DEX fighter to get attack bonuses with missile attacks, that meant sacrificing either STR or CON, thereby reducing melee capability.
Unless of course there are mechanics that enforce this "suggestion"... like marks, no ranged powers, etc.
There is no necessary connection between being a striker and having powerful ranged attacks.
this "striker" fighter's damage and effectiveness drop drastically at long range (thus a sub-par striker at best)... the true strikers in 4e don't have that problem.
A barbarian is not a long-range damage dealer. A monk is not a long range damage dealer. A STR/WIS ranger is not a long range damage dealer. There are plenty of rogues who aren't long-range damage dealer.
Nothing about being a striker requires range.
Furthermore, if you want to play a striker fighter, nothing stops you building to STR/DEX, using light armour + DEX for mobility, and taking the sword or spear powers that benefit from DEX. That character will also have a perfectly adequate ranged basic attack that can be used to deal damage at range while enemies close. You can even multi-class as ranger, train in Stealth, and use HQ to get bonus damage on those opening shots.
a Fighter will be a sub-par striker...
<snip>
the Fighter ends up being a sub-par striker at best.
This isn't true. A great weapon fighter can be built and played to do striker-level damage.
Probably not as much as a ranger, but the ranger is generally acknowledged to be the best damage dealer in the game.
But just as in 5e, so in 4e - a character does not need to be the best at what s/he does to do it meaningfully and effectively.
page 61 under Battle Cleric...
"If you choose to concentrate on melee, you find a good assortment of strikes to your liking..." Oh wow they are telling me how to build a Cleric who is a striker
Why would you infer that? No reference is made there to damage dealing.
From the fact that a character focuses on melee, nothing follows about his/her role, given that there are melee leaders (eg STR cleric, most warlords), melee strikers (avengers, monks, barbarians, plenty of rogues and rangers) and melee defenders (all of them).
here's one from the Wizard section pg. 157...
"Your delight is in powers that deal damage-lots of damage, to many foes at a time. Enormous bursts of fire, searing bolts of lightning, and waves of caustic acid are your weapons." Sounds like you can make a striker out of a Wizard as well, at leats according to how you chose to interpret the descriptive text under the fighter... Of course anyone whose played the Wizard in 4e knows that really isn't true...
There are two things going on here.
First, the PHB classifies AoE damage as a controller rather than a striker function - this was discussed at some length upthread, and is a legacy consequence of AD&D wizards having the dual function of artillery and non-hp-condition-imposition.
Second, in the post-Essentials environment a wizard is generally regarded as the best AoE damage dealer around (better than the sorcerer).
I don't think anyone said a specific character could
Here's one I found with a quick trawl upthread (post 333):
Describing 5e's choices in terms of 4e's roles (striker, controller, etc.) would be a step backwards, because the construction of the game makes such roles dependent on circumstances, NOT character build! Any 5e character can be a striker... and then a controller in the next encounter.
I take it that you don't agree with this?
So now it's roles "like" 4e... because other 4e fans in this thread, who you've chosen to comment with and on replies to have claimed that we 5e fans don't see the 4e designe because were denying it or hate 4e so much we don't want to admit it... you start flinging accusations around like that and you should expect heavy push back
I don't understand what accusation you think I'm making.
4e's roles aren't arbitrary. They are more-or-less natural errors of specialisation that arise from the combat mechanics of the game. The key features of those mechanics are:
* positioning matters, and movement is, by default, restricted (by generous OA availability, and the move action component of the action economy);
* attacks are rationed via a strict action economy;
* attack and defence depend upon comparing numerical totals which are, therefore, subject to manipulation;
* there are ways to degrade the enemy other than by ablating hit points (namely, imposing conditions) and combat has a typical mechanical duration of 4 to 6 rounds, which means that imposed conditions last long enough to have a noticeable effect;
* player characters need to unlock healing surges if they are to draw upon their reservoirs of hit points that give them superior resilience to NPCs/monsters of their level.
This suggests some core roles: hit point ablation; condition imposition, including impeding the movement of enemies; forced movement; granting bonus actions (movement and/or attacks) to allies; buffing allies' numbers; unlocking healing surges (ie healing).
The 4e roles then combine these functions in ways that also evoke legacy elements of AD&D:
* Defenders impose conditions, especially conditions that impede the movement of enemies and conditions that debuff enemy attacks against allies; with the exception of some shielding swordmage builds (who as I explained upthread therefore aren't really defenders in the strict sense), they do this by putting their bodies on the line; some also do significant amounts of hit point ablation, most notably certain fighter builds;
* Controllers impose conditions, force movement and conjure effects (zones, walls) that disrupt enemy positions; for legacy reasons, AoE damage is also classed as a controller function in the PHB, but the PHB2 more aptly characteriss the AoE damage-focused sorcerer as a striker; also for legacy reasons (to do with the traditional contrast between fighters and wizards), control that requires putting the character's own body on the line is broken out into the separate "defender" role;
* Strikers focus on hit point ablation; most also have a degree of secondary control (in some sorcerer and warlock builds this can become a primary function along with damage-dealing);
* Leaders combine the healing function with buffing allies and other force-multiplier effects (granting movement and granting additional attacks) - there is no in-principal reason to combine these various functions, but this is another legacy matter, derived from the traditional healing and buffing function of the cleric.
An example of a fantasy RPG which has virtually none of these roles is Tunnels and Trolls, because it has almost no moving parts to its combat mechanics: no difference between degrading via hit point ablation compared to degrading via the imposition of conditions; no movement or positioning rules; no healing surges to unlock, etc.
AD&D has some but not all of 4e's features. There is no difference between melee strikers and melee defenders in AD&D, because the default action resolution mechanics make combat sticky, with no need to give condition-imposition powers to generate this outcome. AD&D also has no melee positioning rules comparable to 4e's, so forced movement and granting bonus movement actions matter only for governing closing into melee rather than the flow of melee itself. But AD&D does have a difference between hit point ablation and other forms of condition imposition. So one possible role in AD&D, although one never explored in any AD&D class that I'm familiar with (some monk/martial artist options come closest), is a melee character who specialises in imposing conditions rather than in degrading hit points.
To answer the question "what are the roles now?" (ie in 5e), a similar consideration of the game's combat mechanics, and the way various class and sub-class builds interface with them, is the way to go about it.
In essence according to the above we're either liars, deluded or to caught up so much in our own biases we can't see the supposed "truth". Yeah sorry but that's not a position at all for productivity.
Nonsense. I've not accused anyone of lying, nor of being deluded.
But I do think saying "classes don't have roles now, because the build options are so varied" is basically missing the point. All that would show is that, from the point of view of rationing mechanical functions, sub-classes are the new classes. If there are clear build options under the various sub-class umbrellas, that is where the analysis should be taking place.
One way of bringing it about that there are no roles is for the combat mechanics to have lost most of the differentiation that engenders and supports those roles in 4e. Some features of 5e that push towards this result are the mechanically shorter combat durations (2 to 3 rounds) and the greater flexibility of movement (no discrete move action, fewer OAs). But other key distinctions - for instance, between degrading via hit point ablation and inflicting conditions, remain; and there are still walls, zones and the like that break up enemy positioning, which even under the new movement rules still impedes the effectiveness of some enemies (eg pack tactics and similar ally-position-dependent buffs enjoyed by many NPCs/monsters).
If someone wanted to play a character who specialises in exploiting or degrading enemy position, are there some 5e builds that are better for that than others? My gut feeling is that the answer is yes, and that wizards - with their variety of wall, zone and artillery spells, are probably a good place to start; whereas a champion fighter wouldn't be.
