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

[RangerWickett]

Team Fortress 2 has 9 classes in 3 roles - offense, defense, and support. They equate to striker, defender, and leader/controller. You can 'switch' whenever you die. There are lots of different ways the classes fill their roles.

In 5e, if they do have roles, I'd like some way for classes to switch. Maybe different stances for warriors, or different 'types of mana' for spellcasters.

 

[Sunseeker]

Team Fortress 2 has 9 classes in 3 roles - offense, defense, and support. They equate to striker, defender, and leader/controller. You can 'switch' whenever you die. There are lots of different ways the classes fill their roles.

In 5e, if they do have roles, I'd like some way for classes to switch. Maybe different stances for warriors, or different 'types of mana' for spellcasters.

I agree. Noone should be locked into their role forever, save rerolling. While I don't feel everyone should be able to do everyone whenever they want to, I do feel that most roles should be able to fill the shoes of most other roles given the need or desire.

 

[Mark CMG]

The purported assumption that people continue to erroneously make is that if a person is a "striker" they can be nothing but that. Calling a rogue a dtriker does not mean that the rogue is suddenly incapable of performing any other function in the game. Removing the tag likewise does not make them any better at it.

If the tag is unnecessary, then it can simply be removed as unnecessary. If the tag is potentially restrictive because it puts players in the mind that their so-called combat role overly defines them then it needs to be removed to maintain what you are saying it isn't so, that it isn't meant to be restrictive. If the tag is actualy restrictive then it needs to be removed because it is poor design. I'm seeing no convincing counter-arguments to these three points.

 

[Sunseeker]

If the tag is unnecessary, then it can simply be removed as unnecessary. If the tag is potentially restrictive because it puts players in the mind that their so-called combat role overly defines them then it needs to be removed to maintain what you are saying it isn't so, that it isn't meant to be restrictive. If the tag is actualy restrictive then it needs to be removed because it is poor design. I'm seeing no convincing counter-arguments to these three points.

The tag serves as a guideline. Experiences players like myself know a class's function isn't limited to it. But it does provide a good baseline for new players.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I've never really understood the dislike of roles, other than "Oh noes, it's from video games, it must be baaaaaaad!" Which, honestly, I have no patience for.

Good grief, I don't even play video games and I can still recognize that that MOUNTAIN of analysis that has been applied to how video games work is of great value in RPG design. There are differences between TTRPG's and video games of course. But, there are a number of similarities as well. A number of the basic concepts do port back and forth.

Why wouldn't you want to avail yourself of that analysis? Why stick your head in the sand and try to re-invent the wheel? Or, worse yet, try to prevent the wheel from being invented in the first place.

Roles didn't originate in video games. They might have been codified there, but, roles have their origins in wargaming. The terminology might shift, but the concepts are all right there.

When discussing how a class operates in combat, why wouldn't you use the language that's been developed to discuss how a given class operates in combat despite the change in medium?

The problem comes when people want to do two things:

1. Conflate role with what the character can do. Role talks about combat. That's ALL it talks about. It does not comment in any way, shape or form on what a class does outside of combat. Claiming that all a fighter can do is "defend" ignores the fact that defend has nothing to do with what a fighter does outside of combat.

2. Try to argue that somehow TTRPG's are special snowflakes and not games. That TTRPG's do not share any commonality with other games out there. Unless, of course, we happen to like a particular game, in which case, commonalities are perfectly fine to discuss.

4e's biggest problem wasn't that it focussed on combat to the exclusion of everything else. It really doesn't. There's all sorts of things in 4e that push the game in other directions. Unfortunately, 4e's biggest problem was and is, presentation. You open the PHB see the Wall of Powers most of which are combat focused and presume that that's all the game is about. You see Roles and presume that they dictate how the character must be played.

Roles are no more proscriptive than alignment was. They are descriptive, in exactly the same way alignment was descriptive. But, unfortunately, they're not presented that way and we wind up with these discussions where people are, quite reasonably given the presentation, presuming things about the game that are possibly less dominating of the game than they might be.

4e is a game is DESPERATE need of better presentation.

 

[the Jester]

Other.

Everyone chooses the role they play, and any class can manage any role.

 

[Mark CMG]

The tag serves as a guideline. Experiences players like myself know a class's function isn't limited to it. But it does provide a good baseline for new players.

No, actually, it provides a particular baseline for new players, one that stresses importance in combat, which is a great way to foster a combat game. Experienced players like myself knows that the way to streamline how someone approaches a game is to serve up tags that steer them toward the types of play at which the game excels.

 

[Sunseeker]

No, actually, it provides a particular baseline for new players, one that stresses importance in combat, which is a great way to foster a combat game. Experienced players like myself knows that the way to streamline how someone approaches a game is to serve up tags that steer them toward the types of play at which the game excels.

I'm not seeing the counter-argument. You say it's bad that a game steers players in the direction of which that game excels. Well DUH. If a game is good at X then getting players more involved in X will make them more fully capable of enjoying the game. Noones arguing that 4e wasn't a combat-heavy edition, to that end, the tags worked out fine. I honestly never met anyone who felt they were missing out on any part of the game because their rogue was considered a striker.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm not seeing the counter-argument. You say it's bad that a game steers players in the direction of which that game excels. Well DUH. If a game is good at X then getting players more involved in X will make them more fully capable of enjoying the game. Noones arguing that 4e wasn't a combat-heavy edition, to that end, the tags worked out fine. I honestly never met anyone who felt they were missing out on any part of the game because their rogue was considered a striker.

I see why you keep misunderstanding the point. I'm not specifically talking about 4E, though some would say that is an example, and this is the same argument happening in other threads. I'm saying if non-roleplaying elements of a game are the ones being stressed then a game becomes less focused on roleplaying and the game becomes less of a roleplaying game as a result. I'm fine with non-roleplaying games that focus on combat and guide players toward combat oriented styles of play but I feel that roleplaying games should focus primarily on roleplaying which isn't primarily about combat. I additionally feel that narrow views of how someone should approach combat within a roleplaying game restrict how a roleplayer can roleplay in any given combat within a roleplaying game. If a roleplaying game design avoids funneling characters toward specific approaches to combat, I feel it is a better roleplaying game design for those times when combat does come up within a roleplaying game, as it allows for more meaningful choices for the player to make while approaching the game from moment to moment during roleplaying gameplay.

 

[Sunseeker]

I see why you keep misunderstanding the point. I'm not specifically talking about 4E, though some would say that is an example, and this is the same argument happening in other threads. I'm saying if non-roleplaying elements of a game are the ones being stressed then a game becomes less focused on roleplaying and the game becomes less of a roleplaying game as a result. I'm fine with non-roleplaying games that focus on combat and guide players toward combat oriented styles of play but I feel that roleplaying games should focus primarily on roleplaying which isn't primarily about combat. I additionally feel that narrow views of how someone should approach combat within a roleplaying game restrict how a roleplayer can roleplay in any given combat within a roleplaying game. If a roleplaying game design avoids funneling characters toward specific approaches to combat, I feel it is a better roleplaying game design for those times when combat does come up within a roleplaying game, as it allows for more meaningful choices for the player to make while approaching the game from moment to moment during roleplaying gameplay.

Ah, I see the argument you're really getting at. IMO, "role-playng" encompass a lot of things and yes I agree that a system that too heavily emphasizes any one of them is lacking. However, combat can be just as much role-playing as non-combat activities. It's only a lesser or greater aspect really depending upon the campaign.