D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

ok... yea we are on the same page then... was a striker (atleast) as far back as 3e, was through 3.5, and 4e, and now in 5e... but the lable was only applied in 4e... because people hate lables ?!?!?


edit: and +100 on the name sneak attack... I wish it was called "Skirmisher" it would fit better with the new "Just have someone else attack them" paradime... it hasn't really ever been a sneak attack

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

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

A raging strength of 22 by level 5 is kinda low for a barbarian.

Also, you're relying on getting sneak attack damage every time. In actual play, this never happened; if anything, you were lucky to get sneak attack damage half the time. There were groups that never used the sneak attack mechanics at all just due to how many enemies were either outright immune to it or who would inevitably spot the rogue before they even got a chance.

For more realistic play, you have to cut the sneak attack damage in half at level 3, down to 1/3 past level 5, and completely remove it at around level 10. Because that's the actual frequency it usually came into play. The Barbarian rage, meanwhile, kept getting better.

So, it's not that the rogues lacked a mechanic to be extremely dangerous in combat, but that the mechanic was completely worthless due to other game design decisions.

Which is something I am glad to see has been dealt with in 4E and 5E.

 

[Sadras]

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..

Refer below.

then why do we have class features like sneak attack?

The original complaint was wizards cast spells and when they were done with all their memorised spells that was them for the day so they gave them 0-level cantrips. The original complaint was rogues had one backstab per encounter/day (I forget) and they're done, so they gave them sneak attack which is really a backstab cantrip...and so on. It was not to create the role of the Striker like in 4e. Different design process!

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?

I did not introduce mastery of the system. I didn't have to. 4e's definition of a Striker defines how the Rogue class was built or the Ranger with his Mark for that matter. We don't even have to go into the heavy math, feat selection, splat books and what not to see that the Striker outstrips the Fighter in Damage.

so in your mind the fighter is still what?

An awesome class without a 4e role attached to it

I mean you keep compairing them but all that does is show the fighter is a high damage causeing character...

I'm reflecting that the 4e Rogue who was previously a Striker (higher damage output than the Fighter) does not qualify for such a role in 5e since his damage is less than the Fighter's in 5e, because the design process for their abilities was not centred around Roles like it was in 4e.

Consider this. Roles were so important in 4e they were already mentioned on page 15 and 16 of the PHB advising for a party to ensure they cover each role, because that is how the game was designed. Furthermore the roles were all centred around combat. That is how the role descriptions read. ALL OF THEM! As an aside, this heavy emphasis on (combat-orientated) Roles is highly useful as ammunition by 4e detractors.

In 5e, the emphasis is primarily on the Three Pillars of Adventure (page 8 of the PHB). This is a completely different approach to 4e. In fact, and I admit I could be wrong, but only on page 15 do I see a mention of roles - and it is not in the combat sense. The most it gets to 4e is "Most D&D characters don't work alone. Each character plays a role within a party, a group of adventurers working together for a common purpose. Teamwork and cooperation greatly improve your party's chances to survive......"

Based on what I have read, experienced, discussed with others - the 4e defined rolls did not survive the journey to 5e.

 

[yakuba]

but the lable was only applied in 4e... because people hate lables ?!?!?

Because the philosophy of 4e was design a class for a particular role. (Note that this is different than saying that 4e classes are limited to a certain role.) In 4e a class begins with a combat role and then the powers and class features given to that class are chosen to accentuate that given role. This one way to approach class design in D&D and it is unique to 4e.

In 5e classes are designed around (for lack of a better word) competencies. The wizard's compentency is magic spells. A wizard could choose all single target damage spells, all area affect debuff spells, or all area affect damage spells, all buffing spells, or, much more likely, some combination of the above. The available spells and class features are chosen to make the wizard really good with magic spells with little (though not none) consideration of how the available spells accentuate one particular combat role. This does not magically mean that all classes are equally good at all combat roles, but it does mean that the best way to consider combat roles is in the context of a particular character rather than a particular class.

In 4e I might have a Weaponmaster, a Slayer, a Ranger and a Warlord. In 5e I could have a sword and board fighter with Protection style, Heavily Armored, and the Sentinal feat; a Champion with Great Weapon Fighting and Great Weapon Mastery; a Dex based Champion with TWF, Mobile, and Dual Wielder; and a Battlemaster with Inspiring Leader and Healer. They are designed for different roles but they all share the same class, and this his highlights that the Fighter is build around the competency with arms and armor, not a particular combat role.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A raging strength of 22 by level 5 is kinda low for a barbarian.

right... so to explain how I picked it... 5th level is too low to rely on magic items so I went 16 start + 1 at 4th +4 for rageing... so techinly 23, but only even numbers matter so 22...

Also, you're relying on getting sneak attack damage every time.

not every time... but as often if not more so then the barbarian can rage... remember daily limit.

In actual play, this never happened; if anything, you were lucky to get sneak attack damage half the time. There were groups that never used the sneak attack mechanics at all just due to how many enemies were either outright immune to it or who would inevitably spot the rogue before they even got a chance.

nope... not buying it at all... anytime you faced any humoide (orc, goblin, kobold, human, elf, giant) you only needed to flank... not matter how many times they "Spot you" so the two character Barbarian and rogue run up and flank and bad guy can "Spot" the rogue all the way to sneak attack land....

For more realistic play, you have to cut the sneak attack damage in half at level 3, down to 1/3 past level 5, and completely remove it at around level 10. Because that's the actual frequency it usually came into play. The Barbarian rage, meanwhile, kept getting better.

the barbrain that can only rage x times per day???

So, it's not that the rogues lacked a mechanic to be extremely dangerous in combat, but that the mechanic was completely worthless due to other game design decisions.

You know I was glade when some ress to SA was removed (a lot of undead and constructs should not be immune) but I can't imagin a campaign where SA was so useless AND the player kept taking rogue levels...

Refer below.



The original complaint was wizards cast spells and when they were done with all their memorised spells that was them for the day so they gave them 0-level cantrips. The original complaint was rogues had one backstab per encounter/day (I forget) and they're done, so they gave them sneak attack which is really a backstab cantrip...and so on. It was not to create the role of the Striker like in 4e. Different design process!

so just to make sure we are on the same page... by your standard if I made every class in 4e phb1, but did so with out referencing the role... even if they did the SAME things... that would mean no roles?!?!??

I did not introduce mastery of the system.

well sure you did... X did Y better then me... now it could be luck you both guessed and he got lucky or skill he knew something you didn't, but at the end of the day he and you built characters and he did more damage.

I didn't have to. 4e's definition of a Striker defines how the Rogue class was built or the Ranger with his Mark for that matter. We don't even have to go into the heavy math, feat selection, splat books and what not to see that the Striker outstrips the Fighter in Damage.

OK lets do basic math

fighter A has 16 str and +1 class bonus to hit and a great sword for 2d6 damage
ROgue B has 16 dex and rapier 1d8 damage and sneak attack 2d6
Fighter C has 18 str and +1 class bonus to hit and a long sword for 1d8 damage
ROgue D has 18 dex and dagger 1d4 +1 bonus to hit class feature and skeak attack 2d6

all 4 have 1w at wills 2w encounter and 3w daily (miss half) all but rouge B have a class adjustment to hit...

fighterA swings 3w as 6d6+3 9-39
Rogue B swings 3w as 3d8+3+2d6 8-39
Fighter C swings 3w as 3d8+4 7-28
Rogue D swings 3w as 3d4+2d6+4 9-28

fighterA swings 2w as 4d6+3 7-27
Rogue B swings 2w as 2d8+3+2d6 7-31
Fighter C swings 2w as 2d8+4 6-20
Rogue D swings 2w as 2d4+2d6+4 8-24

fighterA swings 1w as 2d6+3 5-15
Rogue B swings 1w as 1d8+3+2d6 6-23
Fighter C swings 1w as 1d8+4 5-12
Rogue D swings 1w as 1d4+2d6+4 7-20

so no basicly the rogue is not blowing the fighter out of the water with out feats or items or other things...

An awesome class without a 4e role attached to it

I'm not sure if it is awesome yet... but it sure does have optional roles all over it... and not admidting it isn't helping anyone. It is mostly a striker (built like a slayer) with little things here and there... your choice of style and sub class matter, but the basic class is most defintly built to deliver damage...

I'm reflecting that the 4e Rogue who was previously a Striker (higher damage output than the Fighter) does not qualify for such a role in 5e since his damage is less than the Fighter's in 5e, because the design process for their abilities was not centred around Roles like it was in 4e.

that is insane... you are literlay baseing everything on 1 time someone out damaged you and the fact that it did not happen again... and that boggles my mind.

Consider this. Roles were so important in 4e they were already mentioned on page 15 and 16 of the PHB advising for a party to ensure they cover each role,

yes and it bothers me that they removed the terms just so people wont asscotiat the new game with the old...

Furthermore the roles were all centred around combat.

they were COMBAT ROLES... of course they...that is what they did illustrate the most direct way to use the class in combat...

That is how the role descriptions read. ALL OF THEM! As an aside, this heavy emphasis on (combat-orientated) Roles is highly useful as ammunition by 4e detractors.

yes... all of the combat roles wher combat orientated, and yes lots of 4e detractors manipulated that into saying it wasn't a role playing game...

In 5e, the emphasis is primarily on the Three Pillars of Adventure (page 8 of the PHB).

great start... I don't entirely agree with the way they do the pillars, but it is close... and a big improvement over 3e and 4e in that way... but has nothing to do directly with roles...since roles only fit 1 of those lillars.

This is a completely different approach to 4e. In fact, and I admit I could be wrong, but only on page 15 do I see a mention of roles - and it is not in the combat sense. The most it gets to 4e is "Most D&D characters don't work alone. Each character plays a role within a party, a group of adventurers working together for a common purpose. Teamwork and cooperation greatly improve your party's chances to survive......"

I agree that is not what we are talking about... atleast not directly...

Based on what I have read, experienced, discussed with others - the 4e defined rolls did not survive the journey to 5e.

so you don't belive that any class was built with a function in mind for how it would be used? Sneak attack is just "Hey something here" and Rangers getting a spell that functions like there 4e mark, and Warlocks getting one like there 4e curse (nothing like that in 3e) are not hidden bits at all...

Because the philosophy of 4e was design a class for a particular role. (Note that this is different than saying that 4e classes are limited to a certain role.) In 4e a class begins with a combat role and then the powers and class features given to that class are chosen to accentuate that given role. This one way to approach class design in D&D and it is unique to 4e.

yes and no... it is a different approach then some classes had recived before, but one that mirrors other classes...

 

[yakuba]

yes and no... it is a different approach then some classes had recived before, but one that mirrors other classes...

Can you explain this point more fully? I don't understand it as written.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Can you explain this point more fully? I don't understand it as written.

when they sat down to make 4e, and came up with the terms for the roles they looked back at the way the 3e classes where built and there assumption... If I am rembering right it was bard and monk that most astounded them... but for now lets focus on rogue.

SO the rogue (again looking at 3e) had sneak attack, and was really more of a dex based class. It moved around and got burst damage (aka not every round) that put it in a higher damage dealing rate. This time (now onto 4e) they called out exaclt what they were doing... they called sneak attack a striker feature... a way to burst damage.

Now the 5e creators (some of the same guys) went back through all editions to find the most iconic... and look what we got... sneak attack like 3e... a way to burst damage.

At no point do I recommend creating a grid and filling (as some say 4e did...and I have to admit some classes feel that way) HOWEVER using terms to describe the features of a class and what they do... "Hey rogues have this feature called sneak attack and it s extra damage" and "Hey rogues have this uncanny dodge to help against like wise high damage attacks"

 

[Leatherhead]

Because the philosophy of 4e was design a class for a particular role. (Note that this is different than saying that 4e classes are limited to a certain role.) In 4e a class begins with a combat role and then the powers and class features given to that class are chosen to accentuate that given role. This one way to approach class design in D&D and it is unique to 4e.

Much of the problem with the 4e roles is that they take tactics of desperation and exaggerate them to become the primary rotes of combat for the classes that ended up doing them. In many cases what they end up doing is nearly the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.

You have a heavily armored unit designed to break front lines and survive the attempt, somehow becoming the unit that makes the front line.

You have a unit who is supposed to prevent people from death by stabilizing them and dragging them away from combat instead prop people up so they go back into the fray.

You have a unit who is supposed to stay in the shadows and soften up key targets, wanting to remain exposed as long as possible in order to maximize the amount of damage they do so that they can kill the target.

And this is all born of the arms race that hp wrought.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Much of the problem with the 4e roles is that they take tactics of desperation and exaggerate them to become the primary rotes of combat for that classes that ended up doing them. In many cases what they end up doing is nearly the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.

You have a heavily armored unit designed to break front lines and survive the attempt, somehow becoming the unit that makes the front line.

You have a unit who is supposed to prevent people from death by stabilizing them and dragging them away from combat instead prop people up so they go back into the fray.

You have a unit who is supposed to stay in the shadows and soften up key targets, wanting to remain exposed as long as possible in order to maximize the amount of damage they do so that they can kill the target.

And this is all born of the arms race that hp wrought.

you know... there is a good insight there... and really have me thinking... I wonder if going back to 2e (or even less hp) would slow that

 

[yakuba]

so you don't belive that any class was built with a function in mind for how it would be used? Sneak attack is just "Hey something here" and Rangers getting a spell that functions like there 4e mark, and Warlocks getting one like there 4e curse (nothing like that in 3e) are not hidden bits at all...

This is the crux of it. The central question is: In the design process, does thinking about how a class will function or be used, mean that it must be designed around a specific role. And the answer is no. This is the choice that 5e makes. Because considering how the fighter or wizard or warlock will be used does not necessitate does not require consideration of a single combat role. The example you always return to is the rogue, and the rogue in 5e is, in fact, relatively limited in it's combat role compared to other classes. But what about the other classes? Why can't a fighter be designed that effectively be a Striker or a Defender or a Leader? No reason. It just a design choice that was made in 5e that wasn't made in 4e. Same for the Wizard, and the Cleric, and the Bard, and the Paladin, and the Ranger. The relative role limitation of the rogue is not a proof role related design in 5e. Almost every other class is a counterexample.

This is not the same thing as saying Roles don't exist. It just means that 4e is the only edition of D&D where, by design, roles directly associated with class. And that was a very deliberate design decision in both 4e and 5e.