D&D 5E How would you like 5e to handle combat roles.

[steeldragons]

Add another voice to "Drop the roles/No Roles/Roles aren't necessary in/as game rules" rally.

So, the missing poll option to "How would you like 5e to handle combat roles?":

D: Not at all. No combat roles.

--SD

 

[SensoryThought]

I don't understand all the roles hate.

Looking back at the first D&D iterations the classes were all extremely pigeonholed. Everyone got a weapon that they swung each round: fighters usually a sword, clerics got a mace, thieves a dagger or shortsword and mages a staff or dagger. Mages got to mix it up by casting a few hideously powerful spells (magic missile hit and killed low level enemies or sleep knocked out a heap). Clerics could cast a few heals, but mostly after the battle. The thief was weak and their best hope was to get a chance backstab once every couple of combats. In fact, it was designed so fighters would shine most in combat as other classes had non-combat times to be in the spotlight.

I find 4e far more inclusive for letting everyone to get their moment in the spotlight. Roles in my mind help facilitate that.

Yes, it means a 'balanced party) has advantages over 5 rogues. But I think that can be a good thing, plus no one says that you can't all be strikers if that's what your group wants.

 

[MoxieFu]

D. Drop the roles.

Combat roles are a metagame design concept. They might serve as a guideline for design, but should not be an explicit reason for a class's existence. Nor should they be explicitly referred to in the game books.

The poll assumes EVERYONE likes roles and that is very much not the case.

Roles go against the very basics of what the designers want D&Dn to be. They have mentioned Themes and that seems to offer characters a means of defining their characters. I know it's still early in the design process and I hope I like the way they turn out.

From what I can tell so far, Themes offer a choice. Roles enforce a restriction.

 

[Bobbum Man]

Add another voice to "Drop the roles/No Roles/Roles aren't necessary in/as game rules" rally.

So, the missing poll option to "How would you like 5e to handle combat roles?":

D: Not at all. No combat roles.

--SD

Well roles are there whether you want them or not. The question is whether or not they will be implicit, as they were in previous editions, or explicit as they were in 4E. Also, whether or not role will be a function inextricably tied to class, or if it will be more flexible.

 

[steeldragons]

Well roles are there whether you want them or not. The question is whether or not they will be implicit, as they were in previous editions, or explicit as they were in 4E. Also, whether or not role will be a function inextricably tied to class, or if it will be more flexible.

Granted. Implicit, then.

Everyone knows that the rogue is better at hanging back, good with missiles, going unnoticed and sneak attacking. The game does not need to tell me I'm a "striker" or link abilities/skills/powers/whatever they will be to such a title. Give me the skills/abilities and I'll choose how my character uses them...even if it's not the "best/most optimal" way.

So, I suppose, the answer to the poll would be "C", except the poll assumes they will be explicitly defined...which I would rather not see/don't think necessary.

 

[Sunseeker]

Granted. Implicit, then.

Everyone knows that the rogue is better at hanging back, good with missiles, going unnoticed and sneak attacking. The game does not need to tell me I'm a "striker" or link abilities/skills/powers/whatever they will be to such a title. Give me the skills/abilities and I'll choose how my character uses them...even if it's not the "best/most optimal" way.

So, I suppose, the answer to the poll would be "C", except the poll assumes they will be explicitly defined...which I would rather not see/don't think necessary.

Any difference you're making here is entirely splitting hairs.
We all know a rogue is a striker, regardless of if he's got a little gold star over his head that marks him as a striker.

I think this will play in very very importantly into how they integrate essentially similar classes, or classes with very different roles(like cleric, druid, ect...). Will putting "striker" in front of "wizard" prevent him from being a controller? Will putting "leader" in front of cleric prevent him from being a healer? ect...

For certain classes, it's explicit that you are X and can only be X because the system is designed solely around X concept where X is all you are.

For other classes, it's less explicit and in the end where it will matter most, I think it will be interesting to see if Wizards decides to split every class with more than one role into unique classes unto themselves, or combine "core variants" into "themes" or "advenement paths" for core classes.

If the former I think roles will be incredibly explicit, but it won't matter since we'll know we're playing a templar or a hospitalier because of their specific role. If the latter I agree that roles should be more implied given the varitiey the class posesses.

 

[Bobbum Man]

Granted. Implicit, then.

Everyone knows that the rogue is better at hanging back, good with missiles, going unnoticed and sneak attacking. The game does not need to tell me I'm a "striker" or link abilities/skills/powers/whatever they will be to such a title. Give me the skills/abilities and I'll choose how my character uses them...even if it's not the "best/most optimal" way.

So, I suppose, the answer to the poll would be "C", except the poll assumes they will be explicitly defined...which I would rather not see/don't think necessary.

I don't think that they need to be explicitly defined, exactly...but I do think that the rules should provide guidance on what it is a specific option is supposed to accomplish.

I would like to see Ivory Tower design avoided at all cost in future iterations of D&D.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well roles are there whether you want them or not. The question is whether or not they will be implicit, as they were in previous editions, or explicit as they were in 4E. Also, whether or not role will be a function inextricably tied to class, or if it will be more flexible.

Sure, but like "rules lawyer", "power gamer", "method actor", etc when referring to player types, a character doesn't need to come hard-coded into a role. You pick all the damaging options you can for your character, it's a striker, sure.

But even in 4e you can buck the classes's hard-coded role. A druid shape-shifter is more a defender-striker in spite of being labelled a controller.

I find 4e far more inclusive for letting everyone to get their moment in the spotlight. Roles in my mind help facilitate that. .

You don't need explicit use of roles to have that.

The roles might be good for designers to have in mind when designing classes (though they should make options players can pick to skew most classes one way or another - though probably not to the extent that all classes can fit all roles).

And perhaps there should be some mention of the concept in a "Building Your Adventuring Party" session (ie "Make sure you have someone who can soak damage, someone who can mitigate it, someone who can deal it.." etc)

But I don't think it needs to be hard-coded into each class in any explicit way.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think that the four roles have a place in design, insofar as it's good to have certain bases covered in any group.

But I don't think it should be a strongly one class = one role as it was in 4E, and I don't think that the roles should be a forward part of the language of the game.

The four roles, really, are Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. What each of those means is rather complex. Other classes can fulfill aspects of each of those roles, but should be their own thing as well. For example, the Bard can stand in for some of the elements of the Cleric, but also does his own thing.

So, sure, each class should conform a little bit to one of those four, but let's not make it too explicit.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I want every class to have its own role:

Fighterer
Clericker
Wizarder-er (extra er is only at high levels)
Thiefer
Barbarianizer
Sorcerer
Druidifier
Bard-dur (not to be confused with the new bard prestige class: Barad-dûr*)



[sblock][/sblock]


*Can use tower shields.