L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[Bluenose]

There's going to be a big backlash against this, I predict. All those people who don't want fighters doing things that aren't mundane are going to be furious that now fighters are going to be able to buff and heal. People who dislike rogues being able to throw daggers fast enough that they blast a group of targets, blinding them; they're going to be unhappy. Because after all, classes aren't going to be forced into a role, so all sorts of things will have to be allowed if you're going to have all classes able to perform in all roles.

 

[delericho]

A very interesting article, and there's a lot I can agree with. But...

I am going to 100% promise you that, especially if you are a veteran player or DM, we will include stuff in the next iteration of the game that you will ignore. In fact, I'm going to come out and say that we want you to ignore parts of the game.

I like to draw the analogy between D&D and painting miniatures. Some people mix their own paints from a few basic colors. They have a lot of different brushes, and they spend hours and hours working on a single figure. These folks are veterans who take pride in knowing the craft and pouring time into it. Mixing paints, applying layer after layer of highlights, and bringing a figure to life is all part of the hobby.

Then there are painters like me. I don't want to mix paints. I much prefer buying off the shelf colors in various shades, along with washes and bright shades for shadowing and dry brushing. I paint miniatures because I want cool toys on the table when I play D&D. I'm not gunning for a masterpiece, but instead I want a miniature that looks nice enough from the opposite end of the gaming table. I want direct instructions. If I have to muddle through a hard to assemble figure, I'm likely to become frustrated and do something else.

I think a similar situation exists in D&D. Some players and DMs want to figure stuff out on their own or break down the game and make it suit their style. Other players, either for lack of experience, time, or inclination, want a more direct path to the game.

Okay, that's all fair enough. Except, I do not want to pay for large amounts of rules text I'm just going to ignore. If you publish another 1,000 page monstrosity of Core Rules, and I'm going to proceed to ignore large parts of the rules... I think I'm better off just ignoring 5e entirely, and going back to ignoring large parts of 3e.

And, yes, I appreciate that squaring that circle may be an impossible task. Other than wishing you good luck, there's not really anything I can say to that.

Adventure Design Guidelines: Stuff such as XP budgets, treasure tables, encounter charts, and so on are there to make it easier to create adventures and build your campaign. If you are a veteran DM, it's quite likely you won't use any of this stuff.

Hmm. I've been DMing for more than 20 years, and you can bet I would use that stuff, at least for a while. Every game is different, and so there's a need to learn the baseline expectations before starting to break the rules in creative ways.

IMO, at least.

Character Roles: This one is bound to be controversial, but I don't think roles belong in D&D as specific, mechanical elements that we design toward. Instead, I think roles are a great tool to help players focus on how they want to play a character.

Yes and no.

In 3e, there were always issues with how the Bard and the Monk fit into the party. Some books even went so far as to say they were an ideal "fifth man", in a game designed for a party of four. The Bard, in particular, was awkward - was it a "jack of all trades", a Wizard-replacement, or a Rogue-replacement? This was never clearly answered, and it meant that the class never really 'fit'.

But as soon as the roles came into being, it became obvious. Of course the Monk was a Martial Striker! Of course the Bard was an Arcane Leader (and, by extension, a Cleric-replacement)! So, in that regard, the roles were incredibly useful as a design tool.

That said, I think the roles have probably outlived their usefulness. To a certain extent, it is true that they came to straightjacket players, and it was extremely difficult to play against type - you were generally better off playing a different class, rather than trying to build a "Striker Fighter", or whatever.

Ironically, I'm inclined to think that Mearls has this one backwards - that the roles should be retained as a design consideration (not goal), but that the roles absolutely should not be mentioned in the print books, even as advice. (Also, while the classes should probably have a primary role, it should be possible to effectively build characters of that class to fill other roles, if desired - so your Fighter can be a Defender... or he could be a Striker or even a Leader instead.)

 

[Minigiant]

There is a HUGE difference between saying "you are playing the Fighter so you should fight" and "you are playing the Fighter so you should be the tank"

Pre-4e roles were generic enough so that you could have different types of fighters or wizards: a fighter could cover a few different roles, and one role could be covered by several classes. Shoehorning classes into one default combat role really impoverished the game IMHO, it felt like reduced biodiversity.

There was no difference between the roles of pre 4E and 4E. The difference was how they used them.

In pre-4, roles were free formed and not attached to classes but to class features, spells, and ability scores. The player choose what roles their character was. But the roles were not spread out evenly and with the same usefulness.

In 4E, combat roles were tied to classes and non-combat roles were tied to skills. They were grouped together and mostly forced onto you based on the class chosen.

There are pros and cons to each method.

Pre-4E gave you the freedom to choose all the roles you wished to apply to your character. But this freedom allow players to choose overpowered, underpowered, or necessary character archetypes. "A bard could be a damage dealer, a face, a sneak, a healer/buffer, a combination of the first four, or useless."

4E forced roles onto archetypes to make sure every character had the same level of usefulness. But the base level of choice was severely limited. "A bard is a leader (healer/buffer)."

I hope 5E/DDN finds a middle ground. Give players the ability to choose their role with "Useless" not be one of them.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

To follow up [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION], I would add that if you tried to deviate from your given class role in 4E, you would often find yourself in the 'useless bard' situation.

I was most disappointed with the Ranger, because as written you deal damage, a lot of damage. There were few options that allowed you to act as a defender, which was (in my mind) a great Ranger archetype, especially with an animal companion.

It also led to 'well, the character is a leader so they must heal' type mechanic. Hence Warlords healing (which wasn't to everyone's taste), rather than say, providing temporary hitpoints or damage reduction.

As for solutions, well, I think that there are ways in which each class can fulfil each combat role, but even seeing it that way limits your design choices. Build the classes on the basis of what they ought to be able to do, rather than finding ways for them to be able to do things in four distinct categories.

 

[Minigiant]

As for solutions, well, I think that there are ways in which each class can fulfil each combat role, but even seeing it that way limits your design choices. Build the classes on the basis of what they ought to be able to do, rather than finding ways for them to be able to do things in four distinct categories.

Most of the changes to how roles were used were overreaction to the roles of the previous editions.

3E overreacted to the older editions' "Must have cleric" and "crappy early wizards" and accidental made Supah Castahs and CoDzillas.

4E overreacted to Supah Castahs and CoDzillas having every role at one by fitting every class into one combat role and whatever non-combat roles they choose with their skills.

5E should take a step back and relax. They should build the classes to allow them to do what they ought to be able to do while still spreading the roles out fairly in access or strength. Then they can easily avoid One Role Forcing AND Masters of Everything.

Then give advice on how the various type of archetypes can be build within the class.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's funny, we soon as he said the bit about roles being guidelines to make a useful party member, and then added "but vetrqns can do what they want.". I said to myself: "but they'll make a helpful member of the party anyway.". I mean let's face it, they will. The party that doesn't cover their roles, doesnt work together, is the party that TPKs. Roles exist, have existed, and while skilled players may blurr them through various means, the basic ideas of a defender, strikers and support remain.

 

[Mattachine]

I liked the first part of his article, mostly because it seemed targeted at the veteran DM, like me. Everyone likes to be told he's awesome, right?

The second part I read as unmitigated 4e bashing, as has happened in some other L&L articles. I felt like Mike was saying, "You are an idiot not only for buying 4e, but for buying into it."

I think the same idea--roles can be choices, not hard-coded--could have been said without disparaging the current system.

In addition, the first big discussion of roles that I remember reading was in the 3.5 PHB2. Roles were discussed, as well as what to do when a role wasn't covered by a character. There was a whole section of the PHB2 on this, with example builds for 1st level characters. It was wonderful stuff. Too bad it was in a book that new players would likely never buy, at the tail end of an edition.

If 5e explicitly discusses roles, with suggestions on how different characters can fill those roles, I think the game will do fine. If 5e has a sidebar of "Advice" in a paragraph about "Make sure you cover your bases," the game won't do fine.

As a final note: AD&D put out role advice, too. Unfortunately, it wasn't in the PHB--it was at the beginning of most AD&D adventure modules. A suggested party size and composition was typically described, often with example characters in the back. Oh, and those 4-10 characters were usually described in 2-3 pages.

 

[Tallifer]

I thanked God for roles in the Fourth Edition. It made explicit the needs of the party.

I am playing Pathfinder now and our party cleric has decided to change his channeling into negative damage energy and to concentrate his spells on commanding undead. So now we have no buffs and few heals. And his evil ways mean I feel unable to play a Paladin or Good Cleric. Because he is "creating a character out of an image in his head" rather than worrying about what is necessary. (I wish we could just leave him at the dungeon entrance. Heh.) At least a Fourth Edition leader can always heal at range with a minor action a couple of times per encounter regardless of his feats and powers.

 

[Tallifer]

Oh and to answer Mearls's polls: the best advice is in the Character Optimization Guides on the forums, whether for Pathfinder or the Fourth Edition. They explain clearly what your role should be in either system and how to create the right kind of useful character with all the variations possible and effective.

 

[Bobbum Man]

The second part I read as unmitigated 4e bashing, as has happened in some other L&L articles. I felt like Mike was saying, "You are an idiot not only for buying 4e, but for buying into it."

No. No it wasn't. Mearls said absolutely nothing like that.

This is exactly this kind of overreaction in regard to perceived slights that caused all of the bile and vitriol when 4E was initially released, and why the game couldn't be discussed anywhere without some internet chucklehead going: "Hurd durp...4rry ain'it not D&D an' whotsee called 3rd edition players the N-word durp".

Let's try and avoid that this time around, shall we?