D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

For someone who is accusing others of not reading, I'd hope you'd read yourself. So far your "read the 2e book, it's explicit" was wrong, and you're wrong about the 4e just being a suggestion. Go back and read page 15 and 16 of the 4e PHB. it flat out tells you that your PC needs to specialize in a role, and on the next page it says (doesn't suggest, but defines as): Controller (Wizard), Defender (fighter/paladin), etc.


Of course everyone who is experienced in RPGs knows hardly anything is a firm set in stone rule. But the book clearly implies that class X = role Y, and with a lot more firmness than a casual suggestion. It literally defines the roles as such. It seems like you are playing very fast and loose with the actual text to support your point while at the same time relying on the text RAW to try to make it, and that's just odd.

Sacrosanct said:

For someone who is accusing others of not reading, I'd hope you'd read yourself. So far your "read the 2e book, it's explicit" was wrong, and you're wrong about the 4e just being a suggestion. Go back and read page 15 and 16 of the 4e PHB. it flat out tells you that your PC needs to specialize in a role, and on the next page it says (doesn't suggest, but defines as): Controller (Wizard), Defender (fighter/paladin), etc.


Of course everyone who is experienced in RPGs knows hardly anything is a firm set in stone rule. But the book clearly implies that class X = role Y, and with a lot more firmness than a casual suggestion. It literally defines the roles as such. It seems like you are playing very fast and loose with the actual text to support your point while at the same time relying on the text RAW to try to make it, and that's just odd.

Click to expand...

First, no I wasn't wrong about professions. It's only your absurd analogy that means that your sports stars should be playing on different pitches. Rather than have different positions within the same team.

Second every single D&D class is specialised. That's why you have classes in the first place. The roles are a reflection of this reality. What 4e does is make this explicit so we don't end up with mistakes like the 1e or the 3.0 or 3.5 monk that don't do anything well. (Admittedly the 1e monk has the excuse that it's going head to head with the thief, whatever the fluff says).

Third, it is good newbie advice to tell people what their class does well. That doesn't mean you are locked in. It means that if you play to your strengths (which is what a class based system is about) things will work. Ignore the guidance and on your own head be it.

Ah, so now the truth is coming out. Mistakes like 1e or 3e? Sounds more like your issues are your issues and the actual text doesn't support your argument all that much. My analogy was only used to illustrate how a single occupation (the word 2e uses, not role like you claimed) can have several roles under it's umbrella. I.e., role and occupation are not the same thing. Not at all.

What has been repeated, and you're not getting, is that prior to 4e, your role wasn't married to your class. People keep telling you this and you keep ignoring it and trying to pull quotes out of the book that you're actually objectively wrong at. In AD&D, a cleric could easily be a defender, controller, striker, or leader. And they often did, depending on the archetype the player wanted to play. In 4e, those roles were clearly and indisputably defined. It's right there in the two pages I mentioned.

And yes, it's good advice to tell newbies what their classes can do well, but that's not what 4e did. If I'm a newbie and I see that the mandatory roles I must chose are defined as "Controller = wizard", that's what I'm going to assume are the classes for each role. They are not presented as a suggestion, but as the definition of what each role is. A newbie probably isn't going to know that like every other rule in RPGs, it's just a guideline and you technically can play a defender as a ranger if you really wanted. No, they're going to see those pages and see that if they want to be a defender, they have to play a fighter or a paladin.

Sacrosanct said:

Ah, so now the truth is coming out. Mistakes like 1e or 3e?

Click to expand...

Mistakes like the Monk. Or are you declaring it was a good class in any of those versions I've mentioned? (For the record I actually prefer 1e to 2e or 3e). Once more you are distorting the point.

Sounds more like your issues are your issues and the actual text doesn't support your argument all that much. My analogy was only used to illustrate how a single occupation (the word 2e uses, not role like you claimed) can have several roles under it's umbrella.

Click to expand...

I don't remember claiming that the word was the same. Merely that the concept was.

What has been repeated, and you're not getting, is that prior to 4e, your role wasn't married to your class.

Click to expand...

Right. Make me a healer fighter. Or a healer thief. Or a healer wizard. Oh, wait.

Your role prior to 4e was absolutely married to your class. Indeed that is what your class does. Gives you a list of things you are good at. You can keep repeating that being good with weapons, armour, and having a lot of hit points didn't give you aptitudes for anything in particular and meant that you could contribute to your party however you liked (never mind that you had no aptitudes for magic or thief skills) but you are simply, objectively wrong.

And yes, it's good advice to tell newbies what their classes can do well, but that's not what 4e did. If I'm a newbie and I see that the mandatory roles I must chose are defined as "Controller = wizard", that's what I'm going to assume are the classes for each role.

Click to expand...

And if I'm presented with a name like "Fighter" I'm, going to assume that it's for someone who wants to be good at fighting. This is no different. Your class indicates what you are good at.

A newbie probably isn't going to know that like every other rule in RPGs, it's just a guideline and you technically can play a defender as a ranger if you really wanted. No, they're going to see those pages and see that if they want to be a defender, they have to play a fighter or a paladin.

Click to expand...

And a newbie is right to do so. They also probably shouldn't assume that you can play a thief as a meat shield or a wizard on the front lines. Unless you have a lot of skill and preparation that is going to get you killed in short order. Your entire problem here appears to be based round newbies being pointed at things that will work. And not pointed at things that are harder to get right.

Blue said:

On a tangent, I wonder if you could make a game where instead of classes each character picked one. Or maybe picked one as primary, one as secondary, and one as "not good at all" and assumed basic competence in the others.


On a tangent to my tangent, what's the difference between "tank" and "meat shield".

Click to expand...

Sacrosanct said:

Not much, IMO. If pressed, I'd say a tank is protected from taking damage (lots of armor), and a meat shield can just absorb lots of damage (like a barbarian with high HP)

Click to expand...

This

Neonchameleon said:

I do..

Click to expand...

Ok, very cool. It can often be a dead end when you have a conversation and run into the "all editions are the same" blinders.

Indeed I'd say that 4e doesn't deliver remotely the same experience as any other edition to me either. What it delivers is the experience about half of D&D promised prior to 4e and failed to deliver

What I consider one of the two most influential modules in D&D history, DL1: Dragons of Despair required ham-handed nonsense like the Obscure Death Rule to be viable at all, and 4e delivers the game promised there almost effortlessly. 4e also delivers on the game promised by that and the cover to the red box while being utterly miserable at the other one of the most influential modules in D&D history (Keep on the Borderlands - although it does that a whole lot better than it does Keep on the Shadowfell).

Click to expand...

And here, respectfully, I'd offer that you are putting your own tastes and experiences in the place of absolutes and universal truths.
If you are saying that 4E delivers the absolute height of the D&D experience that you have ever seen and FURTHER, it takes the things that you were forcing out of prior systems despite those systems lack of virtue in delivery, then I agree with you 100%. But only with the caveat "for you".

The issue at hand is roles. But there have been myriads issues of the minute. And this could apply to any.
What you see as failures (or at least sub-excellence) in prior editions, others see as working perfectly. Or, others changed in completely different ways than you. What you are describing as truths for how roles have been is, quite simply, not accurate to far more players than those for whom it is accurate. Again, this is talking about how the game played at the table, not nit-picking the rulebooks. People always have and always will ignore the parts of the book they didn't like and enhanced those they did.

So just accept that the points you are making are great when you say they support your taste. But they fall apart when you try to force them on others. And this is particularly true for issues where the majority seem to go the other way.

None of that makes one preference slightly more valid than the other. I'm not trying to be slightly critical of taste. Hell, when 2 people like thing A and 7 people like thing B, odds are A simply requires more appreciation. I've said many times that 4E is an awesome game for delivering a specific play style. And Bryon find's it very underwhelming.

Yup. Which given it was the usable remains from an otherwise thrown out draft of 4e is possibly unsurprising.

Click to expand...

I suppose. I certainly loved the ideas and hated the implementation.
Maybe WotC wishes they had paid closer attention to the reaction beyond the initial release.

Neonchameleon said:

And you have just demonstrated you either haven't read anything or are choosing to ignore it. Can you build a wizard who does a ton of damage (striker) and doesn't screw with the enemy (therefore isn't actually a controller)? Yes.

The 4e role is a suggestion as to what that character is good at that has literally zero mechanical effect. Anyone who claims that 4e limits you to just a single role within the party is someone who does not understand how 4e works.

Click to expand...

I responded to a specific claim YOU made about pre-3.0. Your response didn't address that, it took my quote and tried to make a different point. I redirected back to the point of yours I was responding to, and you have now turned it for a 4e roles. I *still* am not talking about 4e roles. I AM talking about roles, which are a concept larger than just 4e, and how they are not the same as occupations, what you called the catch-all classes of pre-3.0 (such as ranger being under fighter, etc.)

Please, take a look at what is being said before making a personal attack. The internet is full of annoyances, we don't have to contribute to them and can have a civil debate.

Neonchameleon said:

Mistakes like the Monk. Or are you declaring it was a good class in any of those versions I've mentioned?

Click to expand...

Yes. It was. Especially the AD&D dragon magazine version. I guess I don't place the entire worth of a class on how well it beats the challenges mechanically compared to every other class. I think the flavor it adds to the game is worth a whole lot. I'm getting the vibe you don't.

I don't remember claiming that the word was the same. Merely that the concept was.

Click to expand...

ah, goal post shifting. That's not what you said. I said they weren't the same, and you replied "tomato tomahto", implying you didn't see any difference. Nothing about concept until just now. Which, by the way, the concept isn't the same either. An occupation, and a role, are two totally different things. Even in concept.

Right. Make me a healer fighter. Or a healer thief. Or a healer wizard. Oh, wait.

Click to expand...

So if a class can't do every role, that means it can't do more than one role? Because otherwise I don't see how you are disproving my point at all with this very specific example. I can have a cleric in 1e act as a healer, tank, defender, striker, leader, controller, etc. The point is that in earlier D&D, you weren't explicitly told you had to follow a certain role if you chose a class, which you in fact told in 4e. Can't help but notice you left that part out in your quote to me.

You can keep repeating that being good with weapons, armour, and having a lot of hit points didn't give you aptitudes for anything in particular and meant that you could contribute to your party however you liked (never mind that you had no aptitudes for magic or thief skills) but you are simply, objectively wrong.

Click to expand...

Well, cease with the strawman for one. Unless you can show a post of mine saying that. I never said you can do whatever class and do whatever you like. A fighter can't cast spells after all. But a fighter can attempt to do things like lead (using CHA), disarm traps, etc. Maybe not as skilled as a thief, but that doesn't mean he can't try to do it. Which is our point we have been trying to make. Just because you chose a particular class, doesn't mean you're locked into a specific role all the time. What part of "role-playing" is foreign to you? Or are you one of those guys who thinks PCs can't do anything unless it's expressly spelled out on a character sheet?

BryonD said:

The irony is, Bo9s was really controversial (with strongly pro and con groups). In a lot of ways it foreshadowed the whole 4E divide.

Click to expand...

Player's Option/2.5e stuff was pretty controversial too. As was 4.5e/Essentials.

Heck, 2e itself -- despite being arguably the least dramatic edition change -- was hell of controversial.

Best thing to do would seem to be to ennable new things wherever possible.

If 4e's "roles" were options you could layer on top of the game (similar to the discussion of "roles" in late 3e that presaged their arrival in 4e), rather than foundational to class design for every player, they probably would've been more warmly received.

Neonchameleon said:

Make me a healer fighter. Or a healer thief. Or a healer wizard. Oh, wait.

Click to expand...

In 5e, that's not a big problem -- pick up some healing potions and you'll be fine. Sure, you won't be topping everyone off to max HP, but you'll stop people from going down by spending your action to heal them.

Prior to 4e, and in 5e, the idea that "healer" is an identifiable and necessary character trait would be foreign to a number of groups.

In 2e, when the cleric and the druid were put in the same camp, that camp wasn't "healer." It was "I get spells from powerful things that I worship." Remember that specialty priests -- including priests that were barred from casting healing spells were also in that camp. That camp wasn't defined by having access to healing magic, it was defined by how these characters got magical power in the fiction.

Similarly, rangers, paladins, and fighters were put in the same camp, and that camp wasn't "defender," it was "I am good at fighting things with weapons." Rangers could be downright fragile there.

Wizards and specialist mages were put in the same camp, and that camp wasn't "shut down the enemy," it was "I learn spells from ancient tomes." Evokers and elementalists were part of that group, too.

Bards and thieves were put in the same camp, and that camp wasn't "deal big damage," it was "I have non-combat skills with a % chance of success."

Those are some pretty significant differences between how 4e conceived of roles, and how 2e conceived of class groups.

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], I said Tomato tomato meaning that they are two different words for the same thing. Which they are. Neither is your actual occupation - as I said, that would be adventurer. Both are what you bring to the adventuring party - your skills and function within that party. And for what you claim to be a strawman, you are contrasting this against 4e. 4e characters can more flexibly fill each others' roles than 2e characters (indeed the only one that's any good in other peoples' roles in 2e is the Cleric - or the wizard into rogue). I have demonstrated how this is the case. Either your statements about 2e have nothing at all to do with 4e or I am not producing a strawman. As for your claim that the monk was a good class, apparently only intent means anything - execution is meaningless.
[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION], 2e has a vastly more limited range of classes than 4e. Occupation is both your role and how you fill it. Yes, clerics can drift. But the fighter occupation says you are good at killing things with weapons and can take a lot of damage. The occupation role says you are good at sneaking and with skills. The cleric occupation is a jack of all trades with healing. And the wizard occupation gives you almost no hit points, no armour proficiency, no ability to take a hit, but a whole lot of arcane magic. Of course later 2e loosened the shackles especially for the cleric (specialty clerics were ... interesting).
[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION], I think we're roughly on the same page. Our tastes differ, but our analysis doesn't. And for the record I'm a big fan of RC D&D (or BECMI) as well as 4e. Very different games however.