D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Sacrosanct]

to all of you that think that striker is gone, and those of you that think striker wasn't in 3e... or 2e for that matter I have a question about rogue/thief.

....

in my Tuesday night game that striker feature is at +3d6... the rogue had a 14 Dex (not high at all) and the fighter with an 18 str and an axe is doing less damage if both engage the target... 1d10+4 (9.5) compared to 1d4+3d6+2 (14.5)
...

OK, I'm not following. You're implying that the striker was in 2e, but your example is not from 2e. I'm assuming 5e? How does a 5e example prove that a thief was a striker in 2e?


Because in my experience, a thief wasn't a striker in 2e. He/she was a skill monkey. Master of exploration (a full 1/3rd of the game). Occassionally they could do significant damage with backstab, but that was pretty rare in the context of total combat rounds. Nothing like 5e where they can apply sneak attack damage pretty much every attack.

In TSR D&D, you didn't play a thief because you wanted to be one of the highest damage dealers. You played one because you wanted utility. The ability to get in, get out, find stuff, disappear when needed, without needing to rely on highly limited magic. You played one if being a spy, scout, or scoundrel appealed to you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

]

Well first I'd disagree with your definition from the last paragraph, in particular 'burst'.
In my experience the thief in AD&D and 2e was not a striker at all, because sneak attack is damn hard to get; it was generally only once per encounter if that.

I agree in 2e it was more often then not once a fight, in a lucky fight you could get 2, but 3 or more times would be really odd case.

however especially at high level that could be all you need, 1d6+4 damage with a x2 is awesome, x3 is stellar, x4 or x5 is SO HUGE...

After that the thief was the least damaging member of party until the mages took out their crossbows. Clearly it's different in 4e and 5e.

wait... what? why skip 3e, it was the one that introduced the easier sneak attack with +1d6 per 2 levels

The thief, very deliberately, has a strong and consistent damage capability. The difference is that in 4e the ability to do strong damage is 'the' core competency of the rogue whereas in 5e it is 'a' core competency.

I don't understand the difference... both have good skills, the 4e one had WAY more utlity powers as you level up...

The 5e rogue will (almost) never be a bad striker, just as they will almost never be a bad skill monkey. A player can focus on the striker aspect and still be a good skill monkey or focus on the skill monkey aspect and still be a good striker.

I really don't get how this is any different then 4e, where you where (almost) never a bad striker just as they will almost never be a bad skill monkey... a player could focus on either then too

 

[I'm A Banana]

I actually have seen some tables where in 2e it was almost impossible to Backstab...ok, so tables that interpreted (or atleast in my experience the worst of them were really house ruleing)rules in such a way to negate the class ability find that the class doesn't work the same as with the class feature... not sure how that proves anything, I could houserule away sneak attack in 4e and they stop being strikers...

I often say that about even the 4e rogue...so I agree


witch is true at every edition basic,1e,2e,3e,3.5,pathfinder,4e,5e.... so again not seeing where it matters.

We basically agree! My mantra here is just to point out that BECAUSE folks come at this from different angles, the folks who feel like 4e's roles were inevitable things and the folks who feel like 4e's roles were aberrant and alien are both (1) totally correct from their own perspective, and (2) totally wrong when they speak in terms of generalities. So it's not like one side or the other is "more right" or anything. If we all acknowledge the variation here, it can help us better define what distinguishes our games and makes them special, without taking or delivering statements that get people's dander in a ruffle.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, I'm not following. You're implying that the striker was in 2e, but your example is not from 2e. I'm assuming 5e? How does a 5e example prove that a thief was a striker in 2e?


Because in my experience, a thief wasn't a striker in 2e. He/she was a skill monkey. Master of exploration (a full 1/3rd of the game). Occassionally they could do significant damage with backstab, but that was pretty rare in the context of total combat rounds. Nothing like 5e where they can apply sneak attack damage pretty much every attack.

In TSR D&D, you didn't play a thief because you wanted to be one of the highest damage dealers. You played one because you wanted utility. The ability to get in, get out, find stuff, disappear when needed, without needing to rely on highly limited magic. You played one if being a spy, scout, or scoundrel appealed to you.

well I was saying 2e, 3e,4e, and 5e all were striker capable (to different levels) I will focus on 2e for this post...

you have 2 13th level combatants, 13th level thief with +1 short sword +3vs magic users and the other is 13th level fighter with a +3 flameing longsword...

the fighter gets more attacks (I think 2/1 at this level) he has a thac0 of 8 the thief has a thac0 of 15 or 14... the theif most likely at best has a +1 from str, and the fighter has +3... the fighter has specialization (why wouldn't he) so the fighter is hitting ALOT more often, but a back stab +4 no dex could even that up a lot...

fighter hits for 1d8+10 damage so (11-18 average 15 but attacking twice to 22,30,36)
rogue hits for 1d6+3x5 so 20-81 damage average 35 damage...

now in perspective the fighter is very effective, but the rogue (who as you point out has ALOT of utility over the fighter) can use it's class feature to with a much lesser weapon deal as much damage as the max round of the fighter on average...

now I rember games that went both ways with crits, so I can't remember witch was the RAW way, but if thieves crit did it then multiply the damage?

so yes rouges in 3e were MORE strikery (and uncanny dodge and evasion both are even more so combat stuff) but it was just an upgrade of the same idea...

 

[Mark CMG]

No, but, KM, I imagine when you heard the term healbot, you instantly recognized the meaning. It's not like it's some bizarre, rarely seen event that a group has someone fall on the cleric grenade at chargen in most versions of D&D. "Who's going to play the healer" is a pretty common refrain from a lot of different tables. Or, if you were the last guy making your character, I've seen more than a few times that that last guy got stuck playing the cleric.

Now, me? I liked playing the cleric, so, it was no skin off my nose, but, I know that when I DM'd, it was almost always a negotiation at the table to get someone to play the cleric.

I mean, there's a reason that wands of cure light wounds became such a common thing in 3e - and it's not because healing wasn't needed.

I'm with you! Cleric is easily the most under-appreciated class in every edition of D&D. It's my go to choice half the time when I play, if there isn't one in a group already, and almost all the time when I am the first player asked to make a character (provided stats aren't rolled in order requiring a more obvious choice). They are the most versatile and natural leaders. Most of the time I make it clear that my cleric requires conversion or regular tithing to receive healing, my combat and non-healing spells being what I contribute as an adventurer in the group (healing being something only my deity can deliver ). No Healbot Me!

 

[yakuba]

]

I agree in 2e it was more often then not once a fight, in a lucky fight you could get 2, but 3 or more times would be really odd case.

however especially at high level that could be all you need, 1d6+4 damage with a x2 is awesome, x3 is stellar, x4 or x5 is SO HUGE...

Not really, you're talking 5d8 damage with almost certainly no Strength bonus, so average 22.5 + magic. At that same level you're non-specialized fighter with the same longsword is attacking twice with, probably, a slightly greater chance to hit (even including the +4, and probably a higher bonus magic weapon and certainly at least +2 damage bonus per hit, for a 13 + magic, and more like 23.5 + magic for a specialized fighter with 5/2 attacks per round. Moreover, that's every single round for the fighter vs one round for the thief.

]

wait... what? why skip 3e, it was the one that introduced the easier sneak attack with +1d6 per 2 levels

I've never played 3.x/PF, so I mostly try not to comment on it.

]
I don't understand the difference... both have good skills, the 4e one had WAY more utlity powers as you level up...

I really don't get how this is any different then 4e, where you where (almost) never a bad striker just as they will almost never be a bad skill monkey... a player could focus on either then too

I disagree. a 4e Rogue that focuses on skills over striking will end up being a very poor striker. Your primary resource for improvement is your feats. It's a single pool and if you devote that pool to skill improvement, you will end up considerably behind someone who focuses on accuracy improvement. In 5e although there is again a shared pool of feats, but because combat is not nearly so sensitive to accuracy, and because there are not many ways, in the feat system, to increase your accuracy, the difference between a damage optimized rogue and a skill optimized rogue is much lower.

I'd also disagree on the 'WAY more' utilities. The class and subclass features such as Cunning Action, Expertise, Slippery Mind, Supreme Sneak, etc. are just as, if not more, numerous than the utility power slots for a 4e rogue.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I disagree. a 4e Rogue that focuses on skills over striking will end up being a very poor striker. Your primary resource for improvement is your feats. It's a single pool and if you devote that pool to skill improvement, you will end up considerably behind someone who focuses on accuracy improvement. In 5e although there is again a shared pool of feats, but because combat is not nearly so sensitive to accuracy, and because there are not many ways, in the feat system, to increase your accuracy, the difference between a damage optimized rogue and a skill optimized rogue is much lower.

I'd also disagree on the 'WAY more' utilities. The class and subclass features such as Cunning Action, Expertise, Slippery Mind, Supreme Sneak, etc. are just as, if not more, numerous than the utility power slots for a 4e rogue.

I don't see it, you could never take a single combat feat in 4e and still (as long as you started with a 16 combat stat, put one of your 2 +1's it that stat every chance, and have either magic items or inherit bonus) be combat effective... could you be better with combat feat, yes, but the you would be combat focused...

slippery mind and supreme sneak are equivalent to utility powers, but cunning action is really built into a lot of attack powers already... expertise on the other hand is a HUGE AWSOME way to make the skill role better... in every way expertise is better then anything in 3e or 4e for the same idea...

to be honest I have taken cunning action to be a slightly lesser version of the mobility stuff from essentials

 

[yakuba]

I don't see it, you could never take a single combat feat in 4e and still (as long as you started with a 16 combat stat, put one of your 2 +1's it that stat every chance, and have either magic items or inherit bonus) be combat effective... could you be better with combat feat, yes, but the you would be combat focused...

Stat increases, magic weapons (or inherent bounuses) and the half-level bonus do not scale with monster defenses. If you don't use your feats to improve your accuracy the amount of damage you can do will go down dramatically as you level, never mind the difference with a character built to actually increase their accuracy with level. This 'tyranny of accuracy' affects all classes in 4e not just strikers. I don't even see what the contraversy is here. Every character guide in the WOTC forums will emphasize the importance of maintaining and improving accuracy in 4e. I feel as though if we were only talking about building 4e rogues as opposed to comparing rogue/thief classes across editions, you wouldn't even being disagreeing with me on this point. Would you really advise a newbie at your 4e table to ignore Weapon Expertise and take Skill Focus instead, because their rogue character would be just fine without it?

 

[Sacrosanct]

well I was saying 2e, 3e,4e, and 5e all were striker capable (to different levels) I will focus on 2e for this post...

you have 2 13th level combatants, 13th level thief with +1 short sword +3vs magic users and the other is 13th level fighter with a +3 flameing longsword...

the fighter gets more attacks (I think 2/1 at this level) he has a thac0 of 8 the thief has a thac0 of 15 or 14... the theif most likely at best has a +1 from str, and the fighter has +3... the fighter has specialization (why wouldn't he) so the fighter is hitting ALOT more often, but a back stab +4 no dex could even that up a lot...

fighter hits for 1d8+10 damage so (11-18 average 15 but attacking twice to 22,30,36)
rogue hits for 1d6+3x5 so 20-81 damage average 35 damage...

now in perspective the fighter is very effective, but the rogue (who as you point out has ALOT of utility over the fighter) can use it's class feature to with a much lesser weapon deal as much damage as the max round of the fighter on average...
.

I think there are a few flaws with your example.

* You're using 13th level (the minimum level a thief finally gets that x5 multiplier). In AD&D 13th level was hardly ever reached or played by most players. That's at the top end, with only a very small % of PCs actually playing that high. The equivilant of a level 20 PC in 3e. The vast majority of actual gameplay was between levels 4-10.
* you're assuming the thief can do backstab every or nearly every round. In order to backstab, the thief has to attack from the rear with surprise--the target can't be aware the thief is there.
* the thief still has a lower AC and a MUCH lower HP threshold than a fighter. A thief could only ever have a max +2 hp per level from Con, and uses a d6. A thief remaining in melee combat wouldn't last long.

Someone who can get one shot off for an entire combat round that does significant damage isn't a striker, IMO. Not when the fighter is dealing out a lot more damage every round. It doesn't even compare to later editions where you can apply sneak attack damage to most of your attacks, and beefing them up to boot by applying DEX bonus to damage (not applicable in AD&D) or feats.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

in 2e (my first D&D experience)
theif as above so I don't think I have to go over it again

you had fighters and palidens (almost never saw those in play) who where tough and up front combatants who were always in the front line... they could take more then there share of hits and had best AC and best to hit... 9/10th of the time they did the best damage over the course of the fight as well

you had CLeric and Druid who were almost as tough as the fighter, and had spells... spells change the game it gives you WAY more in the way of variability... but both were mostly (not entirely) used to heal and buff...

you had Ranger who was somewhere inbetween the fighter and the druid... with a little rogue thrown in... it was very weird.

you had bard... it made the ranger look like it fit... it had wizard spells and theif attack but not the backstab... and less skills but more knowledge...

then you had wizard... it was the worst AC, and HP, and often I saw ones that even at 4th or 5th level could be one shoted. they had few spells per day (no bonus spells form high Int) and buff spells with bad riders (haste) or attack spells that could back fire (Enveration) but once you got them going and to a highish level they started to change the whole game... both the most powerful/versitle class and the weakest/most railroad calss depending on the level...

(Now I had Ninja, Barbarian, and Psion books to add but I'll skip that inless someone really feels those or chronomancer matter)

in 3e ALOT changed...
fighter's and Palidens took a bit of a cut in power, Rogues (not thieves anymore) lost out on being only skill users but gained ALOT of combat (sneak attack+uncanny dodge really made them a skimisher), the cleric got more variability and some up grades that really made them more versitle (never have to prep a healing spell), and Druids got OP... the wizard was weird, at the same time it gained more spells and new ways to cast them, and took away those draw backs... we then added the barbrain, monk and sorcerer...

both 2e and 3e gave you a lot of customization (more so 3e) but at the end of the day both were made with the 4-5 man team in mind... a fighter a mage a cleric a thief and a 5th wheel. Now could your fighter be a ranger in eaith...yup... could you go with just 5 wizards... yea. could you multi and duil class you betcha... but again the base line was one thing and you could change it to be another..


so what did 4e look at... the 4-5 man party, the fighter the mage the cleri and the thief... and what did they bring to the table in and out of combat... lets look at combat the fighter stood up and fought in the front line, the thief (if he waded in at all) moved to get one big blow, the cleric healed and buffed, the wizard through spells... so they said "OK how do we break those down so multi classes can fit each one?"

now if you think roles needed to be done better, I agree...especially if you just take phb1.
If you think they were made up based on nothing that came before... I don't get how you came to that...