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

[Savage Wombat]

Yes, yes I have. But my players tended to have more well rounded characters. I've seen fighters switch between S&B, TWF, and missile combat, depending on the situation. It might be something as simple as the fighter was fighting sword and board, was disarmed of his shield, pulled a dagger in his left hand, and "switched modes". Or that we had a fight that began at a distance, so everyone was ducking behind cover, using missile weapons etc. then, when the enemy was whittled down a little, the fighter drops his bow, draws his sword and charges in to finish the fight.

In my experience (and that's over 30 years at this point) the D&D system has changed over time to encourage specialization in a single style of combat. Now that, using 3.5/Pathfinder as an example, the game is built to expect that a fighter has weapon focus, weapon specialization, and feats chosen to support that weapon, a fighter who tries to use multiple styles is actually at a slight disadvantage in play. This is not a matter of good play/bad play, just a change in what the game designers assume is normal.

I actually have caught players out who forgot that they might need a missile weapon once in a while - they aren't "good" with a bow like a bow specialist would be, so they don't see the point in using or carrying one.

 

[MoxieFu]

I don't mind seeing under the hood at all - I mean, hell, I already rebuilt the engine once. What I don't like seeing there is something that was always pretty vague being crystallized, hard-wired in, and then built around as if it mattered.

Lanefan

This is exactly how I feel about it as well. I just don't need anybody telling me HOW to play my character.

 

[Minigiant]

I just thought of something.

Instead of formal roles, maybe the game should have a series of soft caps or threshold. These would be the normal maximum values a slightly optimized class would have at a derived attribute. Then you'll limit how many of these soft caps and thresholds each class have at a single time but grant each threshold that meets the class's fluff.

So instead of striker, defender, healer; you have high attack, high AC, high HP.

The fighter isn't a defender. The fighter just hits the attack roll and HP First level checkpoints by default. From there, it can choose to reach the damage, AC, and mobility threshold or some mixture of the 3.

The cleric isn't a leader. They can however deal high damage, heal a lot of hp, have an accurate attack, have high Armor Class, summon allies, aid allies, control enemies. But each of these cost one of their highest spell slots. And they can have only 4 max.

 

[Hassassin]

In my experience (and that's over 30 years at this point) the D&D system has changed over time to encourage specialization in a single style of combat. Now that, using 3.5/Pathfinder as an example, the game is built to expect that a fighter has weapon focus, weapon specialization, and feats chosen to support that weapon, a fighter who tries to use multiple styles is actually at a slight disadvantage in play. This is not a matter of good play/bad play, just a change in what the game designers assume is normal.

I actually have caught players out who forgot that they might need a missile weapon once in a while - they aren't "good" with a bow like a bow specialist would be, so they don't see the point in using or carrying one.

Weapon Focus et al do increase the range of situations where one weapon style is better. However, different styles will still come into play, if more rarely, with characters who have those feats.

In any case, the difference is just a +1 until fourth level and an additional +2 damage until 8th. It's only at mid-high levels that the system really starts to discourage generalist fighters, in my experience.

 

[Tallifer]

I actually have no real problems with removing the identification of "roles" from the game... simply because their conception has already served it purpose.

Roles were put into place for two real reasons: 1) Giving the game designers a baseline of power when creating classes, and 2) Telling players what the classes were good at.

Number 1) has done its job admirably. The designers of D&DN now know how to be more diligent in not overpowering or underpowering a class. We won't ever see the Bard be as ineffectual comparatively as it was back in 3E. They now know what a solid Bard class should be capable of and how it probably should compare to other classes of its ilk. They don't need assign it the role of "leader" anymore... because they know intuitively how it should be regardless. Likewise... they also know not to put so much power into the hands of the Cleric or Druid that allowed them to effectively play two or three roles at the same time and at the same level of ability as another class as they did in 3E. They know it intuitively now as part of good design, and don't need to explicitly say it out loud to realize it. And this is a good thing.

And as far as 2)... I think some of that will come down to how the classes are described in the class section, some of that will come down to what theme get selected (which will probably indicate to the player in its description what style of combat focus they will probably lean towards or be good at), and some of that could come down to helpful hints in the DMG that might talk about the DM assisting the player in deciding what he wants his character to do, and what the DM can then look for within the game to point the player in that direction. That, and that pretty much all of us already know intuitively what classes tend to be good at, even if the term "role" is never explicitly used.

So ditch the word if it means that much to people. After all, we're still going to use the concepts and party-building precepts of them anyway, because we have 40 years of gaming experience to tell us they are actually fairly useful. Even if we don't want to actually say it out loud.

What a fabulous compromise. I can back this 100%.

Certainly I will always continue to use (and teach new players) the useful terminology of roles. Others can do as they see fit at their tables. Just as long as good advice continues to be presented in the dungeon masters guides and players' handbooks.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I notice how some people are saying that roles have been around since the beginning and while I agree it's not really a relevant argument with regards to how 4th edition handled roles. 4th edition actually created "role" mechanics while other editions haven't. Some classes were built for certain roles in a party but a certain "role" mechanic was never defined.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

3.5/Pathfinder actually have classes right as to the way I want their "roles" handled. A fighter for instance could change his role with a little gear swap. This design is more open and enables PC's to adjust their classes if need be. Fighters, Barbarians, and Rangers are all designed to do damage along with some other bells and whistles on the side and this is how I like it.

 

[Banshee16]

In my experience (and that's over 30 years at this point) the D&D system has changed over time to encourage specialization in a single style of combat. Now that, using 3.5/Pathfinder as an example, the game is built to expect that a fighter has weapon focus, weapon specialization, and feats chosen to support that weapon, a fighter who tries to use multiple styles is actually at a slight disadvantage in play. This is not a matter of good play/bad play, just a change in what the game designers assume is normal.

I actually have caught players out who forgot that they might need a missile weapon once in a while - they aren't "good" with a bow like a bow specialist would be, so they don't see the point in using or carrying one.

Different games I guess. I've been playing for....25 years? And I've never had guys who only had one weapon. Now, in 1st and 2nd Ed there were rules regarding the ability of different weapon type to,penetrate different types of armor......so that created a reason to carry a few different weapon types. And combat always ran in a variety of environments so if a character only had a sword (for instance) then they would be stuck in certain ranged situations. Sometimes something as simple as flying opponents. Pretty much every character carried a few weapons....like, a sword, a bow, dagger, and a mace.

One character might be better with a particular weapon.....but flexibility tended to be rewarded over a long career.

Banshee

 

[Hussar]

In my experience (and that's over 30 years at this point) the D&D system has changed over time to encourage specialization in a single style of combat. Now that, using 3.5/Pathfinder as an example, the game is built to expect that a fighter has weapon focus, weapon specialization, and feats chosen to support that weapon, a fighter who tries to use multiple styles is actually at a slight disadvantage in play. This is not a matter of good play/bad play, just a change in what the game designers assume is normal.

I actually have caught players out who forgot that they might need a missile weapon once in a while - they aren't "good" with a bow like a bow specialist would be, so they don't see the point in using or carrying one.

I would argue that this started in 1e with the Unearthed Arcana and the specialization rules. Switching weapons could net you a -3 to hit, -3 to damage and 33 % of your attacks (double weapon specs granted you these bonuses). Even single weapon specs meant that you gave up +1 to hit +2 to damage and 33% of your attacks by switching from a sword to a mace.

So, no, I rarely, if ever, saw characters switch weapons. By 3e it became even less common because you had such huge penalties for trying to switch. Pick up a dagger? In 3e? Are you kidding me? -4 to hit with primary weapon, -8 with secondary? Unless, of course, you've burned a feat and had a 15 Dex. Which, if you've already set yourself up as a two weapon fighter, why in heck are you using a shield in the first place?

Lance on horseback. Sure, I can see that. The automatic double damage is pretty sweet and means that you can switch over pretty easily. Now, how often mounted combat actually occurs is going to vary pretty wildly between campaigns, but, it is an option.

However, IME, once fighters had taken specialization and whatnot, they picked their primary weapon typically a sword because that was the most likely found magic item, probably had a bow for those pesky flying creatures, and that was that.

One character might be better with a particular weapon.....but flexibility tended to be rewarded over a long career.

No, it certainly wasn't in 3e. Not with feat trees. You specialized with a particular weapon and you focused on that throughout your career if you wanted to play in the big leagues. The generalist was back in the background with the rogue, watching in envy while the specialist dished out punishment that the generalist could only dream of.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I submit that if roles had not been present for previous editions of D&D, there would be no reason why mages couldn't cast healing spells, or priests cast combat spells on par with the wizard. (I know, I know, but he has fewer of them.)