D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think it's all just a matter of opinion. The 4e roles were invented when that edition was published, in 2008 I believe. So for the first 34 years of D&D, they didn't exist yet.

4e defined expectations for combat in new ways, and used words that mean other things.

4e took words and defined them for the game (if you have better names I am not married to them...especially leader) the fact that they took concepts from 3e mainly (but 3e was in turn based on 2e and so on back) and made those definitions... they didn't just make up any roles.. each of the 4 roles are based on broken down basics of the 4 classics fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric. They have always been there (to varring degrees).

 

[SirAntoine]

no the question is what happens to the system...The exact question was at the game level how do you keep that feel... Maybe I should have said "WHat do you do at a rules level for a character who has no reason to know how to sneak attack?, but you do answer that...



so the system works best if I ignore it... OK, well I can ignore the striker feature (sneak attack or backstab) in 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, or 5e... but of course that isn't the game that's just house ruling and has nothing to do with if there are roles... that would be like if I said "Well I can bring the mark and combat superiority from 4e into the 5e fighter and give him them instead of the extra attacks... that means defender"

this entire thread has gone off the rails now... we started with

"What are the roles in 5e"

and a bunch of people gave their opinions, and I made what is quickly becoming a mistake by saying "Same ones there always was Defender Striker Controller Leader"

right away people made sure to tell me how wrong I was those roles never exsisted and never will in 5e... so I tried to explain why I thought they had never changed... and we went around and around and around...

but here we are back to ten pages ago or so...

The roles are not force on anyone (they weren't in 4e either) they are guides to play the game and help to understand why some classes have some features... my example above is one that came up at my table... and one I heard through out 3e as well. SOme people don't understand what would make a con man or a thief or almost any other non skimisher know just the right places to hit for more damage... wouldn't you think a combat trained soldier and warrior (like a fighter) would be more likely to be able to explote the advantage. My version is that it is a game conceat, a striker feature from way back that does not fit the "We gave them what makes sense" paradigm... but nothing I say will ever convince any of you.

so fine the evil words are gone... nothing in the book explains why anything is there... why can bards and clerics heal but not wizards... reasons... why do all rogue no matter what style learn martial study of landing the right blow when they can, but not any other combat class... it's just simplistic none explained class design...

I still stand by my orginal answer...

The role didn't change, they are just hidden now instead of out in the open.

Actually the advice I gave does not depend on houseruling anything, and you should be able to do it in every campaign. Your abilities as defined by the game do not oblige you to play the character a certain way.

The point you seem to be trying to make is you see the 4e roles in the game still. You also seem to seriously believe they have always been "the roles" in D&D. The first is a matter of no small concern for many people, who would stop playing 5e if they believed too much of 4e is in it; and the second point has been factually refuted.

I would suggest trying to understand the negative impacts of the 4e roles, and accepting that they were invented in 2008. You seem to need to say they were always in the game, but that comes from your particular opinion. It's great, but permit people who hated the 4e roles to say they are gone, and also permit veterans from older editions their know-how.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The point you seem to be trying to make is you see the 4e roles in the game still. You also seem to seriously believe they have always been "the roles" in D&D.

Yes... that is the crux of our disagreement, and I have repatly said the roles are based on 30 years of play...

The first is a matter of no small concern for many people, who would stop playing 5e if they believed too much of 4e is in it;

this is why we have to hide what we get into...

and the second point has been factually refuted.

wait when?!?!? all you have done is say your opinion how do you say anything was factually anything?

I would suggest trying to understand the negative impacts of the 4e roles, and accepting that they were invented in 2008.

they were termed in 200X (the book came out in 2008 but I'm sure it was worked on before) but it was based on 3e heavly and 3e was based on 2e and all the way back... the terms can change... heck you could make up words.. WJ FIH IHD means healing and buffing... that doesn't mean that I just invented the role of WJ FIH IHD I just gave it a dumb name (although to be fair I was hitting random keys... you would think the creaters would come up with better then leader)

You seem to need to say they were always in the game, but that comes from your particular opinion.

wait... but that cuts both ways... because you are only saying YOUR particular opinion...

It's great, but permit people who hated the 4e roles to say they are gone, and also permit veterans from older editions their know-how.

why... why should I be quite when someone asks "What happened to the roles?" why is my insight lesser then yours? I have supported my belief for almost 20 page now with 30 years worth of games... the fact that someone hated the 4e roles (they don't they hate some made up thing that isn't the 4e roles because as I said they were just names given to modes of play) why is there hatred more imporntant then me answering the question asked?

 

[SirAntoine]

4e took words and defined them for the game (if you have better names I am not married to them...especially leader) the fact that they took concepts from 3e mainly (but 3e was in turn based on 2e and so on back) and made those definitions... they didn't just make up any roles.. each of the 4 roles are based on broken down basics of the 4 classics fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric. They have always been there (to varring degrees).

I would ask the designers why and how they made the roles, but from what I've read and heard at seminars where James Wyatt spoke, for example, the roles were a way to focus more on teamwork. One of the other posters here, Neonchameleon, I think his name is, made an interesting comment about the roles, that they were needed to learn how to balance the classes in 5e.

Let's think of the first session in a new campaign, where the players don't know each other. One person suggests, "You, Brian, are playing the fighter so you're the defender, you, Tim, are playing the cleric, so you're the leader, and you, Michelle, are playing the wizard so you're the controller. I'll be the striker, because I am playing the rogue." In my experience, different players would react very differently. I mention this to highlight that people won't always agree to play those roles, and they may even offer up different strategic roles that are superior.

Not everyone broke down the game into any sort of strategic roles, and just because you could see how you could exhibit the 4e roles in any edition of the game doesn't mean that kind of strategy or "talking about it" was a widely played part of the game or rules. 4e is unique because it tried to explore the potential for acting like that, as part of a team. The guy playing the fighter might insist on guarding the rear, and he would have every right to.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's think of the first session in a new campaign, where the players don't know each other.

OK... before we go into this I have to ask... How many times did you play 4e and did you ever enjoy it?

One person suggests, "You, Brian, are playing the fighter so you're the defender, you, Tim, are playing the cleric, so you're the leader, and you, Michelle, are playing the wizard so you're the controller. I'll be the striker, because I am playing the rogue." In my experience, different players would react very differently. I mention this to highlight that people won't always agree to play those roles, and they may even offer up different strategic roles that are superior.

in 20 years I have never see anything like this happen... not 2e not vampire the masqrade, nor 4e... so no I don't expect it was a common way to go...

let me try... I think I will use Matt's game where we were all going to be rebels against an evil empire (yea a tad cliché but he's a good DM once you get used to some odd things)

I had a concept I really wanted to try... I had a Damion Wayne hero clix rebased and painted and I wanted to try out the assassin class. so I spoke up right away and explained my concept and what I wanted to do. I wanted to be the son of a wealthy noble who secretly used an antiant ritual to chop off my own reflection and replace it with a shadow... I now turned my darkness into a force for light and am a rebel... My friend Kurt laughed and then asked "Who gets stuck with leader then?" and there were chrickets... so the DMs older brother pitches this great ranger idea. Then kurt responded "Come on just the two of us left...one of us has to be the healer" followed by the final player saying he wanted to be a reverent dragonborn sorcerer. SO kurt was bumed and me and matt both told him "We can rough it with no healer, just play what you want..." and he did he drew up an elven avenger... you may notice (or not based on how much you know 4e) we were all strikers... and we played and had fun. We even knew based on our classes what we could or could not do.

I also played (a much shorter game) once with a two clerics, a warlord, and a sword mage... the roles are suggestions and are great insight... they are not straight jackets... and much like in another thread where I was told "You have to play 4e like xyz" about hit points, this smacks of someone who never made a group and had fun with 4e...

Not everyone broke down the game into any sort of strategic roles, and just because you could see how you could exhibit the 4e roles in any edition of the game doesn't mean that kind of strategy or "talking about it" was a widely played part of the game or rules.

I bet it wasn't... infact that is my #1 complaint... hidden terms... it wasn't 'talked about widely' it was hidden away "Kinda like don't look behind the curtain"

I never said "Hey everyone always knew this and always talked about it" I said "It exsisted but wasn't common to talk about"

4e is unique because it tried to explore the potential for acting like that, as part of a team. The guy playing the fighter might insist on guarding the rear, and he would have every right to.

You do realize that in 4e nothing (and no one I know) ever stoped the fighter from taking the rear... that is an ingame tacticle thought, and role had nothing to do with it unless you wanted it to.

 

[SirAntoine]

Yes... that is the crux of our disagreement, and I have repatly said the roles are based on 30 years of play...


this is why we have to hide what we get into...


wait when?!?!? all you have done is say your opinion how do you say anything was factually anything?


they were termed in 200X (the book came out in 2008 but I'm sure it was worked on before) but it was based on 3e heavly and 3e was based on 2e and all the way back... the terms can change... heck you could make up words.. WJ FIH IHD means healing and buffing... that doesn't mean that I just invented the role of WJ FIH IHD I just gave it a dumb name (although to be fair I was hitting random keys... you would think the creaters would come up with better then leader)

wait... but that cuts both ways... because you are only saying YOUR particular opinion...

why... why should I be quite when someone asks "What happened to the roles?" why is my insight lesser then yours? I have supported my belief for almost 20 page now with 30 years worth of games... the fact that someone hated the 4e roles (they don't they hate some made up thing that isn't the 4e roles because as I said they were just names given to modes of play) why is there hatred more imporntant then me answering the question asked?

The facts are the roles came out in 2008 with 4e, 4e used them to provide new focus on teamwork, and most significantly, the experience of other DM's says the roles were not always "to the degree in the game" you have suggested. If you break down the game in your way, looking back, you see them in there then, but such an exercise was seldom if ever committed. You have to apply this to the 4e roles themselves, you can't say but there were roles of some kind. That is not what you have suggested. Your opinion is the value of the strategic roles to the game, as to say you are the kind of player who would try to see roles like these. Many others will just play the game as written.

I repeat my suggestion that you grant other posters their right to want as little of 4e as possible in 5e, and you also grant other veterans their know-how. The prevalence of the kind of thinking about roles done in 4e or even by like-minded players of any edition and time, is not so great as you suggest. That is not an opinion, it is evidence. It does not invalidate the value you see in the roles, though, or render it impossible for the roles to be seen where they are hidden, and that is your word for it. To some degree, 3e was based on 2e, 2e on 1e, etc., but each edition's writers sought to make progress and keeping something for the sake of tradition was not high on their list of priorities.

I made a post that spoke to why people get upset about this. Let me applaud you for your devotion to tradition. If I could elaborate a little further, I think I could get closer to the meat of your discussion:

The combat roles I see in 5th Edition are:

1 str-based fighter, 1 dex-based fighter, 1 skill expert, 1 divine caster, and 1 arcane caster. I believe this is what Pathfinder uses, and it's right on for 5e, too. The two fighters both are the primary defenders and strikers. The skill expert provides help where he may. The divine caster can provide a lot of healing when necessary, but he can fight well, too, and cast a wide variety of spells which include offense. The arcane caster has the most offense, through his magic, but he doesn't need to use it every combat and from round to round he can do anything. I wouldn't say there is a circulated plan for the wizard to try to control the environment and the monsters' movements and other actions, but if the wizard puts his mind to it he can be of help in these areas.

You expect each combat to be different. The dex-base fighter might well be a ranged specialist, so the str-base fighter will need the back-up of the skill expert and/or the divine caster at the front line, and the str-base fighter might be the only character who can stand a chance against the boss enemy.

I would say this is much closer to how the game was played traditionally. There wasn't quite as much potential for dex-based fighters, and the cleric had fewer offensive spells, but only the fighters (and other warriors, such as ranger and paladin) had a clear role in combat, and that was just "go up to the monster and attack". Everyone else had to look for where they could help, and more often than not that boiled down to just attacking with weapons as back-up. Wizards didn't get any offensive spells an unlimited number of times, and they didn't use crossbows. But every extra point of damage was good. You were often pressed from every direction also, so the idea of the fighter holding the line was "if you were lucky".

 

[Sadras]

I'm going to ignore the Roles issue for now, derail the thread slightly, and focus on something else that you said that caught my eye.

This is great. It means that we can choose a role and a class... now I am a bit disappointed in backgrounds, but it is a big leap forward....

Why were you disappointed with backgrounds? I'm curious to know what you had in mind or how they can be improved upon.

 

[SirAntoine]

OK... before we go into this I have to ask... How many times did you play 4e and did you ever enjoy it?



in 20 years I have never see anything like this happen... not 2e not vampire the masqrade, nor 4e... so no I don't expect it was a common way to go...

let me try... I think I will use Matt's game where we were all going to be rebels against an evil empire (yea a tad cliché but he's a good DM once you get used to some odd things)

I had a concept I really wanted to try... I had a Damion Wayne hero clix rebased and painted and I wanted to try out the assassin class. so I spoke up right away and explained my concept and what I wanted to do. I wanted to be the son of a wealthy noble who secretly used an antiant ritual to chop off my own reflection and replace it with a shadow... I now turned my darkness into a force for light and am a rebel... My friend Kurt laughed and then asked "Who gets stuck with leader then?" and there were chrickets... so the DMs older brother pitches this great ranger idea. Then kurt responded "Come on just the two of us left...one of us has to be the healer" followed by the final player saying he wanted to be a reverent dragonborn sorcerer. SO kurt was bumed and me and matt both told him "We can rough it with no healer, just play what you want..." and he did he drew up an elven avenger... you may notice (or not based on how much you know 4e) we were all strikers... and we played and had fun. We even knew based on our classes what we could or could not do.

I also played (a much shorter game) once with a two clerics, a warlord, and a sword mage... the roles are suggestions and are great insight... they are not straight jackets... and much like in another thread where I was told "You have to play 4e like xyz" about hit points, this smacks of someone who never made a group and had fun with 4e...




I bet it wasn't... infact that is my #1 complaint... hidden terms... it wasn't 'talked about widely' it was hidden away "Kinda like don't look behind the curtain"

I never said "Hey everyone always knew this and always talked about it" I said "It exsisted but wasn't common to talk about"

You do realize that in 4e nothing (and no one I know) ever stoped the fighter from taking the rear... that is an ingame tacticle thought, and role had nothing to do with it unless you wanted it to.

I've only dallied with 4e and 3e, but I don't mind strategizing. If someone wanted to guard the rear, I'd be happy to hear it expressed that way, and to hear other tactics expressed as such.

Now for the rest I am only speculating why the 4e roles create such tension.

I think you're underestimating the impact of the 4e roles. They were "budding into the game" for a great many groups. People just want the freedom to define their own role. The 4e roles also are distilling down much more tactical and strategic potential into four roles. When people talk using terms like "meat shield", for instance, they know they are only generalizing or speaking to certain common instances of play. To officially circulate a strategic role and build mechanics around them is to bring that very much into focus, and I just think many players would find that disruptive or a fool's errand.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

wait when?!?!? all you have done is say your opinion how do you say anything was factually anything?

Well, as one example, I pointed out in some detail how the class roles in 2nd edition, to the extent that they exist at all, don't map to MMO-style roles at all. Others have pointed out the fact that, in TSR editions of (A)D&D, "defender" was something you were doing circumstantially for a portion of an encounter, not something intrinsic to your character.

I don't think that constitutes a refutation of your perspective since your perspective really isn't falsifiable, but it might be what SirAntoine meant by "already refuted."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm going to ignore the Roles issue for now, derail the thread slightly, and focus on something else that you said that caught my eye.



Why were you disappointed with backgrounds? I'm curious to know what you had in mind or how they can be improved upon.

I had hoped for more meat on the bones something like the utility powers of 4e (or if you know then the skill powers or skill tricks from 3e) a series of keywords that break down the basics of your character would be nice too


Bring it all back around the way 4e assigned combat roles broken down into the 3 pillars would be great ska how do you contribute in combat and social and exploration... Background could have been a major boon to the social pillar...

In my game we talk about the 5 man bad TV troupes a lot for insperation.

Now to be fair it already does open up MAJOr design space... A fighter sage and a bard soldier both just come to life in my mind... May e as tube edition goes on we will see more backgrounds though