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

[dagger]

Even after UA came out people still carried different weapons. It also was the case that we did not use magic shops so you made use of what you got. You might be double specialized in a longsword but when you need a +3 weapon to damage that monster, you are glad you kept that dagger.

Also gear tends to get destroyed a LOT more in AD&D......

 

[Charleois]

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.

4e just made the roles explicit so new players could understand their class and choose the class which suited what they wanted to accomplish. It also helps parties build a team, and dungeon masters gauge the strength of a party for building encounters. No one forces anyone to follow their class's normal role, although some groups prefer more cooperation than other groups. certainly in AD&D, our groups always expected there to be at least one or two fighters/paladins/rangers and at least one cleric/druid.

 

[Herschel]

I'd prefer combat roles as an explicit part of the game to be dropped entirely.

Every version of D&D has had roles, 4E just cleaned the wording a bit and codified them by giving characters some actual ability/power to be more efficient at those roles.

Saying otherwise is denial, not factual. If they don't spell it out you just pretend it's not there? Kind of silly, no?

 

[Herschel]

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.

So giving you the ability to actually better fulfill the role you've always had is somehow a bad thing?

 

[dagger]

So giving you the ability to actually better fulfill the role you've always had is somehow a bad thing?

Sorry never had that problem and still don't.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Every version of D&D has had roles, 4E just cleaned the wording a bit and codified them by giving characters some actual ability/power to be more efficient at those roles.

Saying otherwise is denial, not factual. If they don't spell it out you just pretend it's not there? Kind of silly, no?

I think by codifying them they make roles a lot less malleable and fluid. There were certainly roles in live play, but they often straddled combat/non combat and didn't fit neatly into the categories created for 4E. I think a lot of people also have a problem with the categories themselves.

I realize some of you love roles, but this business of saying people who don't are in denial, havent bothered to read the 4E phb or are ignorant is starting to get sad. People can just honestly disagree and have different experiences of the game.

 

[Nagol]

How about None of the above. The game engine should provide a variety of combat capabilities and let each group develop the roles they feel are necessary?

The concept of combat role is perspective limiting.

I've had groups entirely composed of thieves (1e and 2e), clerics (2e), arcane casters (2e), and mixed but without healers (1e and 2e). Those groups all ran fine.

Tactics and strategies varied by the composition of the groups as did which missions the groups gravitated towards. But the groups were all successful.

 

[Hassassin]

So giving you the ability to actually better fulfill the role you've always had is somehow a bad thing?

Assuming doing that limits other things you can do, because it e.g. removes bonuses, adds penalties or just makes you worse at them in comparison to your role? Yes.

The more focused classes are, the less fun I find them.

 

[Herschel]

But it didn't really remove anything. The game was designed so that every character could be viable at every part of the game (the three pillars, if you will though I'd argue the Fighter skill list is still too limited) and give them tricks to make them better at their traditional roles.

 

[Herschel]

I think by codifying them they make roles a lot less malleable and fluid. There were certainly roles in live play, but they often straddled combat/non combat and didn't fit neatly into the categories created for 4E. I think a lot of people also have a problem with the categories themselves.

I realize some of you love roles, but this business of saying people who don't are in denial, havent bothered to read the 4E phb or are ignorant is starting to get sad. People can just honestly disagree and have different experiences of the game.

How did it make them less fluid? It just gave characters goodies to make them better at their traditional roles. It was more open in many ways than any other version of the game.