Should There Even Be Roles?

[Herschel]

I hope roles in the way they are implemented in 4E are dropped from the game. The combat roles in 4E were an artifact of the intense focus on tactical combat the game had. I prefer my game less combat based and my combat less tactical.

You can play ANY edition of D&D as combat-focused (or not) as you desire. 4E gave use tactical OPTIONS for combat. You don't need to use them but they're there if you want. You can stand there making melee basic attacks with your fighter if that's all you want to do.

Character's don't have to contribute equally to combat in a non-combat focused game; some characters (I'd say, Fighters) should be better in combat than everyone else. Everyone should be able to do something, but that something can be very small and doesn't need to be built into the mechanics (my level 1 wizard, carrying torches and reloading crossbows). Everyone needs a chance to shine, but not in combat, not necessarily.

Except it's a system that is made to cater to those who want a combat-heavy game (and everything in between) also. Your preferrence of game style is irrelevent to anyone but you. WotC needs to make a game that covers as many styles as possible.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Wizards without spells? I've played low-level wizards who've run out of magic dozens of times, and I have a lot of fun trying to contribute in small ways without drawing too much attention. I got to shine at other times: my magic was rare but powerful.

.

This was fun even back in 1e when it might take several months of play to reach 2nd level (!)

Since 3e the default pace of advancement means that those low level issues don't hang around for so long.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Except it's a system that is made to cater to those who want a combat-heavy game (and everything in between) also. Your preferrence of game style is irrelevent to anyone but you. WotC needs to make a game that covers as many styles as possible.

I shouldn't have to remind you that this kind of comment is irrelevant. Of course he is talking about his preferred style, and it is relevant to boh him and those who are interested in his opinion. This might include wotc, who knows?

Don't be dismissive of other people, or else you will start to get into trouble here.

Thanks.

 

[Herschel]

Except it's not dismissive. The simple fact is they (WotC) want to have a system that caters to as many playstyles as possible. If you want combat-heavy, he wants story-heavy and I want puzzle-heavy our individual playstyle wants aren't what's important, it's that we can ALL play the same game in any style we want. Catering to one style or another is a recipe for failure.

IOW making a system where the rogue sits around and is nigh useless in combat doesn't fill the game need. A rogue could choose to not do things in combat if the player doesn't want that kind of role but having all rogues be weak in combat won't cater to the needs of the system/game/community/market.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I've noticed a lot of this in these threads - everyone is generally ok with the game making allowances for the styles that others prefer, but they often want *their* preferred style to be "the default."

I don't think that's very realistic toward meeting the goals of this incarnation, as laid out, nor do I find it particularly reasonable to ask, condsidering how widely-ranging the tastes of the community seem to be. I find those kinds of attitudes to be rather dismissive.

 

[Herschel]

I hope roles in the way they are implemented in 4E are dropped from the game. ...

In combat, in editions before the third, thieves weren't great; they rarely got a chance to backstab and in every measurable way were worse than fighters. But that's ok! They have other times to shine....

Wizards without spells? I've played low-level wizards who've run out of magic dozens of times, and I have a lot of fun trying to contribute in small ways without drawing too much attention. I got to shine at other times: my magic was rare but powerful....

Character's don't have to contribute equally to combat in a non-combat focused game; some characters (I'd say, Fighters) should be better in combat than everyone else......

To be honest, the whole concept of "combat roles" as an explicit part of class definition turns me off..

.. and yet here you've created roles that are even more restrictive than your job in a fight.

Combat guy, skills guy, social guy, occasional magic guy, etc. define when you character is going to be useful, which is a design failure in this endeavor because it's meant to be a dynamic, flexible group game.

One of the best things 4E did was make everyoine able to be combat guy, (selective) skill guy, social guy or magic guy. Some classes are better than others, obviously, but it's done without the utter mess of 3E multiclassing which gave flexibility and headaches.

 

[Mengu]

Roles are good to be aware of, but should not be a straight jacket. Did anyone think, what would happen if we gave invokers a 1/encounter healing word? What would happen if the warlord's inspiring word didn't heal but granted a smaller amount of temporary hit points? I'm hoping 5e will keep a more open approach to roles, and use them as informative tidbits to explain a class, rather than be used as a template to define the class.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I've noticed a lot of this in these threads - everyone is generally ok with the game making allowances for the styles that others prefer, but they often want *their* preferred style to be "the default."

I don't think that's very realistic toward meeting the goals of this incarnation, as laid out, nor do I find it particularly reasonable to ask, condsidering how widely-ranging the tastes of the community seem to be. I find those kinds of attitudes to be rather dismissive.

Well, this thread is about people giving their preferences and opinions - none of us here is a game designer involved in making 5E. My post was about my preference, my opinion; I would urge the designers of 5E to bear it in mind, but I wouldn't insist upon it being central - that's for the designers to decide, based on their feelings about the game they want to make.

 

[Herschel]

It sounds nice on paper Mengu, but I think in practice you too easily can end up with (pick one or all):
1. going back to Super Characters who don't need the rest of the party
2. balance issues that make certain choices just plain better
3. more reliance on perfect party optimization (I play a durable character with lots of surges/HP but he gives temps so what's the point of my attributes?)

 

[MarkChevallier]

.. and yet here you've created roles that are even more restrictive than your job in a fight.

Combat guy, skills guy, social guy, occasional magic guy, etc. define when you character is going to be useful, which is a design failure in this endeavor because it's meant to be a dynamic, flexible group game.

One of the best things 4E did was make everyoine able to be combat guy, (selective) skill guy, social guy or magic guy. Some classes are better than others, obviously, but it's done without the utter mess of 3E multiclassing which gave flexibility and headaches.

I don't agree with your characterisation of what I wrote, which might be because I wasn't clear enough. What I intended to put across is that characters don't have to share the limelight equally at all times - it is still fun to have a game where in some kinds of occasions one character stands out by comparison to another, which implicitly means on some occasions, some characters will be less good. This can be encouraged by design, and I have no great problem with that.

What I do have a problem with, is saying that all characters need to be equally good at a particular activity - combat. The design then becomes, how can we make different classes contribute interestingly, which boils down to a few particular means of contributing, which carries the danger of become both boring and a straightjacket to design.

Obviously, I speak for myself and those of similar tastes, and I don't intend to imply that this taste is universal or that it should be used as the one true path to 5E design.