D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Psikerlord#]

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.

Completely agree. striker is a 4e only thing. And I'm very, very glad it's gone.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

we mostly agree on this one (although I don't agree it was a good thin in 1e if you do I don't know since I saw no value judgment here). the Niche protection is very different, 4e had skills that other classes could take (since they were spreading out the none combat roles that they still hide) but they had utility powers that gave them non combat niche. again it was a morph of the idea that in 1e or 2e you needed a thief and a cleric to in 4e any striker/leader would do... Niche protection is still there just in a different way (I will leave it to you to decide witch is better, I see some problems with both)

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.

I 100% agree with this, some where back in 2000 the change from 2e to 3e backstab became sneak attack and that increased the damage and decreased the amount of work to get...

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

see here is the thing... look at all (Im going to say 5 please don't pick that apart I know it could be lik15 or something) 5 editions and watch the evolution...

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.

dude you took the words out of my mouth perfect agreed...


now that we agree on what the difference between 1e and 4e are... look at the 2 editions around 4e, 3e and 5e are not at all different then 4e in those ways (well higher damage 1-10d6 over 20 levels instead of 2-5d6 over 21, and in 5e it is easier to get then 3e or 4e)

now think about the term striker... if it fit 4e it atleast fits 3e-5e if not 1e and 2e (not that I am considing that it isn't but for the sake of agreeing to disagree atleast see that 3e isn't the odd man out)

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.

this is actually one of the things I HATE about 4e with a passion, that when they went out of there way to explain part of the equation then left so much blank... by the way this is still me agreeing with you after a fashion... Striker features like sneak attack, or adding a second stat to damage, or curse, or backstab or shrouds or oath all added some way to increase damage... but they can be thrown onto lots of classes.

what I had hoped 5e would do is break down each thing and what it did... a way to explain the class and help get people on the same page. The rogue and the slayer are great examples. Both use dex and deal damage... but there is soo much more in there that makes them different. Martial Striker is a great short hand... but it is still only a very basic look at what they do and how they do it...

 

[Sadras]

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.

Okay I have skimmed some of this thread and looked at some of your examples and it does look like posters have indicated where your math went wrong in your examples re 2e and 3e especially with regards to the damage output of the Fighter, but I haven't seen anyone yet also indicate where you went wrong in your 5e math. Let us look at your example below and I remember in another thread you mentioned your 5e players were 5th level so...

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)

You see, in your example above you give the rogue his sneak attack damage of 5th level = 3d6, but you blatantly ignore the fighter's second attack (so add another 9.5) as well as the fighter's action surge (which means double his attacks at least for that round).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Completely agree. striker is a 4e only thing. And I'm very, very glad it's gone.

what is gone about it?

do rogues still have the ability to sneak attack Yes
is it more SA dice then 4e Yes
Is it easier to SA in 5e then 4e Yes
Do they have special ways to negate damage in 5e Yes

do they have more skills then other classes Yes in Both 4e and 5e

did you loose some cool manuvability and utility from 4e to 5e Debatable

so what makes 4e rogue worse then 5e... other then less damage and harder to get SA off

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Okay I have skimmed some of this thread and looked at some of your examples and it does look like posters have indicated where your math went wrong in your examples re 2e and 3e especially with regards to the damage output of the Fighter, but I haven't seen anyone yet also indicate where you went wrong in your 5e math. Let us look at your example below and I remember in another thread you mentioned your 5e players were 5th level so...



You see, in your example above you give the rogue his sneak attack damage of 5th level = 3d6, but you blatantly ignore the fighter's second attack (so add another 9.5) as well as the fighter's action surge (which means double his attacks at least for that round).

that totally slip by me I need to Txt our fighter to make sure he knows he has 2 attacks...

although that changes little about the 5e issue... the player in question (one that would agree with the premise of the thread and disagree with me I might add) was that well trying to make a non combat rogue he was the second best at everything but damage... all this does is mean he is still second best at EVERYTHING, the fighter pulling ahead does make ME feel much better though... so thanks for pointing that out.

it still does little to change the situation that by choosieng Noble or Sage (have to double check witch he went with) ROgue and putting his best stat in CHa, and second best in Int and 3rd best in Dex he is still very combat capable...


edit: it reminds me of the time in 3e when a Drow rogue/ninja/spelltheif/assassin snuck attack with all 3 attacks a dragon and did over a hundred damage... the barbarian looking at the knife and his axe "HOW?!!? It's just a little knife, I have a huge axe?!?!?"

 

[Sadras]

so what makes 4e rogue worse then 5e... other then less damage and harder to get SA off

For me, it was that my 4e Fighter Dwarf was doing ASTRONOMICALLY less damage than my Rogue ally. Roles are Dead! And I for one am thankful. It looks like roles work for you, and that is fine, but for me, who played under the shadow of the 4e striker and 4e controllers, it was astoundingly miserable. I'm willing to concede I might be alone in feeling this way.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For me, it was that my Fighter Dwarf was doing ASTRONOMICALLY less damage than my Rogue ally. Roles are Dead!
And I for one am thankful.

I still don't understand...
both 4e and 5e attack with dex add dex to damage...
4e level 1-10 +2d6 sneak attack (upgrade to 2d8 with feat)
5e level 1-10 +1d6-+5d6 sneak attack
4e level 11-20 +3d6 sneak attack (upgrade to 3d8 with feat)
5e level 11-20 +6d6-+10d6 sneak attack

level 1 compare +3.5 to +7 (+9w/feat) 4e higher
level 5 compare +10.5 to to +7 (+9w/feat) 5e higher
level 11 compare +21 to +10.5 (+13.5w/feat) 5e is double... double the 4e sa damage
level 15 Compare +24.5 to +10.5 (+13.5w/feat) 5e is more then double
level 20 compare +35 to +10.5 (+13.5w/feat) 5e is triple...

in 4e I had to flank or surprise (like 3e) in 5e there are more ways to get SA off...
the fighter switch back from defender to striker (Making a defender is very hard in 5e) that doesn't mean roles are dead, it just means they hid them again

Your dwarf was doing less damage, today it would do more... but is the rogue doing less?

It looks like roles work for you, and that is fine, but for me, who played under the shadow of the 4e striker and 4e controllers, it was astoundingly miserable. I'm willing to concede I might be alone in feeling this way.

your not alone at all... infact I bet we agree on a lot... I just don't understand how giving the fighter the striker role and more damage (and a lot better designed then 2e or 3e I might add) takes away from the rogue still being the same rogue he had been for 15 years now...

 

[Sacrosanct]

With the way 5e sneak attack rules work (by the way, I hate that term because it's not really a sneak attack any more, it's a precision attack), with being able to apply it any time you have advantage or when there's an ally near, I do consider the rogue as being able to be a striker. If that's what you want. Not all rogues of course, but you can easily have one because with 5e, you can reliably and consistently apply that damage.

But AD&D? Just not seeing it.

 

[Sadras]

(Making a defender is very hard in 5e) that doesn't mean roles are dead, it just means they hid them again

4e design process - match classes to roles - build powers to accentuate roles.
5e design process - identify class - build abilities thematic to the class.

You're saying roles are hidden. I'm saying because the design process is different, roles do not exist.

Your dwarf was doing less damage, today it would do more... but is the rogue doing less?

In 5e, the Rogue is doing less damage than my Fighter, so by my standards the Striker role does not exist. Where you and I might disagree is the definition of Striker. But let us see how 4e defines Striker (page 16 of 4e's PHB1)

Strikers specialise in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. Not true in 5e, the disparity in damage is far less in 5e. And a case can be made that the Fighter does more damage than the Rogue at certain levels.

They have the most concentrated offense of any character. Not true for 5e.

Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery or magic to move around tough foes and single out enemies they want to attack. True for 5e.

So out of the three Striker requirements as defined in 4e, only 1 has been fulfilled in 5e which does not make a strong case for Roles existing in 5e.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

4e design process - match classes to roles - build powers to accentuate roles.
5e design process - identify class - build abilities thematic to the class.

so in your mind being able to throw Xd6 damage where X equals half your level, and the ability to uncanny dodge for half damage is thematic to all rogue... I'm sorry I see the same thing I saw in 4e..

You're saying roles are hidden. I'm saying because the design process is different, roles do not exist.

then why do we have class features like sneak attack?

In 5e, the Rogue is doing less damage than my Fighter, so by my standards the Striker role does not exist. Where you and I might disagree is the definition of Striker.

lets go with yours... If your buddy showed up to a game with a rogue in 5e that did more damage then your fighter would that mean "OMG roles are back?!" or would it just mean that you both went for maximizing damage and he got ahead?

edit: I had to come back to this... you say that if rogues do less then fighters the striker role is not in play, what stops fighters from just being strikers (look none of there marks or other things came forward so they can't be defenders)?
In 4e I built a slayer fighter half orc... I had a big sword and a longbow... I also took the feat that gave me a skill power and mix and matched skills a bit. I then took a theme(but I can't for the life of me remember what one) I was the face of the party, a light armor high dex mostly archey fighter that had a big sword as back up... I was dealing much more damage then our rouge (thief) and was better with skills then him... I also had better hp althouth are ACs were within 2 of each other for all 15 levels we played. The fact that I built a fighter that out did the rogue doesn't mean anything... all editions have levels of skill mastery, and I built a powerful character.

But let us see how 4e defines Striker (page 16 of 4e's PHB1)

Strikers specialise in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. Not true in 5e, the disparity in damage is far less in 5e. And a case can be made that the Fighter does more damage than the Rogue at certain levels.

They have the most concentrated offense of any character. Not true for 5e.

Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery or magic to move around tough foes and single out enemies they want to attack. True for 5e.

So out of the three Striker requirements as defined in 4e, only 1 has been fulfilled in 5e which does not make a strong case for Roles existing in 5e.

so in your mind the fighter is still what? I mean you keep compairing them but all that does is show the fighter is a high damage causeing character...

I mean by those standards even a PHB1 4e fighter was a striker... +1 to hit is concentrated offense, he has big weapon profs and 2w encounter and 3w daily at first level... if you go to splats there second encounter power (at 3rd level) could be 3w... the rogue was stuck with d4,d6, or d8 weapons, had a lower to hit and still only had 1w/2w/3w attacks...