D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[GMforPowergamers]

Compared to the druid, wizard, paladin, barbarian, cleric... Plus, in 3E, finesse weapons really didn't exist and those that did tended to be too low in damage to be worth it.

Keep in mind that, in 3E at least, the fighter also sucked.

yes, a cleric was able to fill any role... a wizard could do most, a druid could do all and have a companion do one too... paliden and barbarian didn't reall have that much inside the class...

finess weapons: d6 rapier (now in 4e and 5e d8) dagger d4, and the spiked chain... yea the most powerful weapon for a rogue is a length of chain and spikes

ok so lets take the biggest weapon I know... 2d6 19+ crit the good news is it is also 1.5x str to use it... and inless I am miss remembering weapon finess doesn't add dex to damage...

give both the same + magic item (so not maddering) you are left with 2d6+(1.5xstr) vs 1d4+Xd6... so lets look

level 5 give the barbarian a rageing str of 22 so +6(+9) that is 2d6+9 or 1d4+3d6 like any equastion 2d6=2d6... so we are left with 9 or 1d4+1d6... so 9 or 2-10 average 6, the 9 wins barbarians do more damage (not by much)

Level 9 give the barb 24 str so +7 (+10) we have 2d6+10 or 1d4+5d6... so again cancle the 2d6=2d6 and we are left with +10 or 1d4+3d6 so it looks like 10 or 4-22 average 13, yup looks like they can keep up with a little knife compaired ot the biggest axe


level 20 lets give the barb a 34 str... so +12(+18) 2d6+18 compaired to 1d4+10d6

 

[steeldragons]

edit: [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] you normally can atleast answer a question, even if I disagree with it, so what do you think the purpse of backstab and sneak attack is?

The purpose of backstab and sneak attack? To let thieves[rogues] have sneaky stabby attacks to the back....To fit the thief/rogue archetype in D&D as sneaky stabby attacks to the back type guys.

Can we at least agree both are sometimes increase to damage?

You want to agree that these two different names for the same kind of attack are, in fact, attacks that "sometimes increase damage"? Does that even require agreement or is that the kind of thing that's just obvious by definition and doesn't need to be quant- or qualified?

But, sure, in the interest of "at least answer[ing] a question", we can agree they increase damage.

What does that have to do with what you were presenting as an example of...I don't know what...about sitting at a table wanting to play a social-focused "face/trickster" rogue and not knowing what to do/how to do that? ...or was it you couldn't do it without sneak attack? Or...well, what is the point you are trying to make here? Sneak attacks give thieves a limited # of attacks with extra damage? We all know that.

I am, again, befuddled as to the price of tea in China.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The striker feature of 4e for rogues is sneak attack witch is less then the 3e3e sneak attack but with more or less the same idea... But people say no one was a striker pre 4e

The purpose of backstab and sneak attack? To let thieves[rogues] have sneaky stabby attacks to the back....To fit the thief/rogue archetype in D&D as sneaky stabby attacks to the back type guys.



You want to agree that these two different names for the same kind of attack are, in fact, attacks that "sometimes increase damage"? Does that even require agreement or is that the kind of thing that's just obvious by definition and doesn't need to be quant- or qualified?

But, sure, in the interest of "at least answer[ing] a question", we can agree they increase damage.

What does that have to do with what you were presenting as an example of...I don't know what...about sitting at a table wanting to play a social-focused "face/trickster" rogue and not knowing what to do/how to do that? ...or was it you couldn't do it without sneak attack? Or...well, what is the point you are trying to make here? Sneak attacks give thieves a limited # of attacks with extra damage? We all know that.

I am, again, befuddled as to the price of tea in China.

Becusethey are strikers that can be played however you want but the basic frame is still: limited defense ok offense that is great in the right circumstance... Aka what the word striker is trying to get across.

No matter the edition I can describe the rogue or thief as a striker the role is not made up ffor 4e from no where it was based on how the thief played a bit and got focused on in all later rogue classes. If you don't think 3e rogue and 4e one's are trying to fill the same role, one based on the 2e
Class


If a new player walks into a 4e game they are told that role is striker but in 2e there is no word for it Nd you May or may not have that role explained doesn't mean it isntthere

 

[Sacrosanct]

I guess this is where our fundamental disagreement lies. In my interpretation of what a striker is, it's the ability to consistently and reliably be able to inflict large amounts of damage compared to other classes. And the TSR era thief just doesn't fit that build. Way too many things need to align in order for backstab to work.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I guess this is where our fundamental disagreement lies. In my interpretation of what a striker is, it's the ability to consistently and reliably be able to inflict large amounts of damage compared to other classes. And the TSR era thief just doesn't fit that build. Way too many things need to align in order for backstab to work.

Yea, that doesn't track with Rogue at all to me... using that as our working role type I can't put the 4e rogue in that at all...

 

[steeldragons]

When they were sneak attacking. Sure. The thief was/is a striker...then. As anyone of any class who is attacking is striking. They were also the trap finder, and/or the trap disabler, and/or the stealthy guy, and/or the face, and/or the trickster, and/or the climber, and/or the scout, and/or the spy, and/or the conman, and/or the explorer, and/or the appraiser, and/or the treasure hunter, and/or the burglar, and/or...And the same [thief] character was at least half of those on any given day. Citing that 2e had backstab/sneak attack (and 1e and basic, for that matter) doesn't mean 4e defining "roles" existed in those editions.

The presence of "sneak attack" does not make the Thief a "striker role" by any definitions except for 4e's. Any more than the fact that a Fighter can make effective melee attacks makes them a "defender" or the casting of spells make a Wizard a "controller."

One can not take "what came after" [the 4e roles]...things that were derived (/evolved/emerged from/incorporated/or whatever other phrase one won't find insulting) from something else...and use it to define the "what came first."

Or rather, one can't and not expect folks to get all up in arms and disagreeable-like.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When they were sneak attacking. Sure. The thief was/is a striker...then. As anyone of any class who is attacking is striking. They were also the trap finder, and/or the trap disabler, and/or the stealthy guy, and/or the face, and/or the trickster, and/or the climber, and/or the scout, and/or the spy, and/or the conman, and/or the explorer, and/or the appraiser, and/or the treasure hunter, and/or the burglar, and/or...And the same [thief] character was at least half of those on any given day. Citing that 2e had backstab/sneak attack (and 1e and basic, for that matter) doesn't mean 4e defining "roles" existed in those editions.

this is crazy now... everything you said about 1e or 2e is MORE true about 4e, the utilities that they gave helped them be

They were also the trap finder, and/or the trap disabler, and/or the stealthy guy, and/or the face, and/or the trickster, and/or the climber, and/or the scout, and/or the spy, and/or the conman, and/or the explorer, and/or the appraiser, and/or the treasure hunter, and/or the burglar, and/or

so it is still the same thing... the striker part doesn't negate any of that stuff... again the edition that labled them gave them utility powers that helped them be better at the things you say 1e an2e had with little to no help...

The presence of "sneak attack" does not make the Thief a "striker role" by any definitions except for 4e's. Any more than the fact that a Fighter can make effective melee attacks makes them a "defender" or the casting of spells make a Wizard a "controller."

then what makes a 4e rogue different from a 1e thief?

One can not take "what came after" [the 4e roles]...things that were derived (/evolved/emerged from/incorporated/or whatever other phrase one won't find insulting) from something else...and use it to define the "what came first."

sure you can let me prove that with my post from a few days ago...

I had to sit down with 4 new (to me) players and a DM I bearly knew at all and I was the first at the table to play a warlock... everyone kept thinking that ment a specialist wizard... I had to explain how it was different, and it took awhile, I wish I understood the 4e terms back then in 3.5 because "Im more striker then controller" would have saved me at least an hour of explanation...

Or rather, one can't and not expect folks to get all up in arms and disagreeable-like.

sure you can... A word was used to describe a style of class, it doesn't matter what edition it was in or even what game... it is pretty generic but fits...

 

[steeldragons]

ugh. Points missed, avoided or just plain lost. I'm just not invested enough to care to continue.

Annnnd....wait for it...THERE it is. We have achieved full Regret.

I'm outtie. Carry on and enjoy all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ugh. Points missed, avoided or just plain lost. I'm just not invested enough to care to continue.

Annnnd....wait for it...THERE it is. We have achieved full Regret.

I'm outtie. Carry on and enjoy all.

ok bye... I guess you totally will never explain what the difference is in a 4e rogue and 1 or 2e thief... you know since both do exactly what you said, and the 4e one is labled a striker, but some how it is wrong to lable the others that way even though they do the same thing...


going on even more it was pointed out by one of my player via txt that 2e had the hardest time for thief to get it's bonus damage, but 3e made it ALOT eaiser and ALOT more of it... then 4e kept it at the same amount it came up and lowered the damage it self (but remember it was bad because it was labled striker) and then 5e went back to the 3e damage amount (more then 4e) and made it MORE likely to come up... so if 4e is guilty of anything it is giving the rogue more utility and less damage... how does that track with the striker title being bad?

 

[yakuba]

then what makes a 4e rogue different from a 1e thief?

1) Niche protection. a 4e rogue has no exclusive skills that a non-rogue can't have. The 1e thief is the unique source for some types of non-combat utilities.

2) Reliability of damage. As you've agreed, a 1e thief is only likely to sneak attack once per combat. Moreover, compared to the 1e specialized fighter the thief is only doing modestly more damage in that one attack than the fighter is doing every single round even with sneak attack. The 4e rogue's sneak attack has a much softer condition which can, in general, be met at worst every other round, and can in practice often be met nearly round.

Thus the 4e rogue has reliably high damage versus the unreliable damage of the 1e thief.

The 4e rogue can be relied on for high damage output, the 1e thief cannot. That is why the 1e thief is not a striker. In the 4e DMG monster role parlance you could properly call the 1e thief a lurker.

I'd also add that although the 4e PHB does indicate defenses and mobility and lower toe-to-toe survivability in defining the striker, many people, myself included, only think of the striker as a damage dealer regardless of survivability. Even in the 4e context both the Barbarian and Slayer have high survivability and they are Strikers.