D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[GMforPowergamers]

There would less disagreement if there was more consistency of argument.

I don't see a lack of consistency... Lurker was a monster role/designation... if you look all the monster roles are broken down pc roles...and lurker is a subset of striker (along with skimisher witch fits the 3e and 5e mode better) so no... the fact that I like someone pointing out a 1e rouge played like a lurker (more like assassin in 4e) isn't a disagreement...

No, they haven't. A 3E rogue could just about keep pace with the fighter if the monster wasn't immune to sneak attack, which a lot of 'em were.

I disagree... and of course when you fight something immune to a classes main function, it doesn't do as well...

But AD&D thieves* were never strikers. At all. Their damage output was pathetic. If they were lucky, they could get in one (1) backstab at the start of combat, but after that they were just plinking away with shortbows for normal damage. Did I mention that AD&D didn't have finesse weapons or Dex-based damage bonuses? The thief's job was to scout and find traps, not stab things.

yes the rogue (in 3e) got a big combat upgrade... it is why it goes from lurker to skimisher... both are type of strikers (and yes the 2e one was not as good at strikeing) but the back stab feature on all cut purses makes no sense inless you want to give them burst damage...

Leader and defender are the two roles that have the most historical basis.

I think defender less then leader... leader is really just "what clerics did"

It was widely acknowledged that you needed a sturdy front line to keep the wizard from getting smeared, and a healer to keep everybody alive. But even then, holding the line was not the fighter's only job--fighters also were expected to lay the smack down on bad guys. And the cleric was often a backup front line as well as a healer.

funny since that is all true of 4e too...

[SIZE=-2]*If you want to draw distinctions between "rogues" and "thieves," "rogue" in 2E was a superclass encompassing thieves and bards. And believe me, bards weren't any better than thieves at dishing out damage. The point still holds.[/SIZE]

yea bard opens up a whole nother can of worms

 

[Imaro]

Yep. I'll repeat what I just said:



My point is still completely valid. A rogue can specialize to do more damage than your typical fighter (or other martial class), which by definition, would make him a striker. Just because another class (fighter specializing in DPR) can do as well or even a little better doesn't take that away. It just means they both fit that definition.

Unless you happen to think that only one specific build can be a striker. And let's just say I'd find that a very odd position to take.

And I think therein lies the problem... what's the threshold for a "striker" in 5e? If there isn't one the "role" is ultimately meaningless... if everyone can be one or is one then again the role is ultimately meaningless... this is a far cry from the specialized "roles" 4e presented and implemented with their classes... they're just not the same thing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My point is still completely valid. A rogue can specialize to do more damage than your typical fighter (or other martial class), which by definition, would make him a striker. Just because another class (fighter specializing in DPR) can do as well or even a little better doesn't take that away. It just means they both fit that definition.

Unless you happen to think that only one specific build can be a striker. And let's just say I'd find that a very odd position to take.

The roles were never so hard coded as to ONLY be one thing per class... ever not even 4e...(although 4e could have explained that better...because in the most up front designed D&D ever, they still hid things arg!)

A fighter in 4e PHB1 with great weapon style and the fight powers could keep up with the rogue and surpace the warlock from that same book... (but not the best ranger...it was DPR king, heck a poorly built ranger was still doing great DPR) The entire idea that "Beecuse if you purposely build against type you can play more then one role" or "Because you are secondary X role" means there are no roles then there were none in 4e...


the two best argument against roles is that the controller role is ill defined (and I agree) and the farther back you go the less combat focused classes are so there combat role sometimes takes a back seat (I can understand and see some points to this) How ever...waeither you liked roles or not, no one can answer why every con man PC gets persicion training in melee combat that trained warriors don't (AKA why can't fighters backstab sneak attack?)

 

[Sacrosanct]

The roles were never so hard coded as to ONLY be one thing per class... ever not even 4e...(although 4e could have explained that better...because in the most up front designed D&D ever, they still hid things arg!))

Um...4e straight up told you that class X = role Y. You can't get more hard coded than that. It is literally how they defined each role.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And I think therein lies the problem... what's the threshold for a "striker" in 5e? If there isn't one the "role" is ultimately meaningless... if everyone can be one or is one then again the role is ultimately meaningless... this is a far cry from the specialized "roles" 4e presented and implemented with their classes... they're just not the same thing.

so just to make sure we are on the same page... If I can play a fighter and be a striker, or a ranger and be a striker or a rouge and be a striker... then the striker roll doesn't exsit? or is it because my FIghter can have OTHER roles or my Ranger can Have OTHER roles?

If so then 4e did it first... I could play a PHB1 fighter and with choices (class feature/build and powers) make a good striker, and if I choose all combat offensive feats even do better then a rogue and blow a warlock out of the water...


edit: again you fall back on how 4e presented it not the way 4e played... but everyone quickly says 3e and 5 present it differently... even if plays the same?!?!?!?!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Um...4e straight up told you that class X = role Y. You can't get more hard coded than that. It is literally how they defined each role.

OK, so it goes back to again "Presintation" not DESIGN!!!

yes the 4e phb 1 said all fighters are defender and all rouge are strikers...
yes the 5e phb does not say anyone is a striker or defender...

now back to what started this on page 1... "The roles where always there 4e just labled them,"

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the contention is whether the roles (striker, leader, defender and controller) 4e categorized the classes into and semi-enforced are the same roles that the game has always had...

I think there we've got a bit of a subjectivity problem. Before 4e categorized the roles, there wasn't any...well...categorization...of them. Thus, depending on how the play experience at any one table shaped up, different roles could emerge. If some DM liked traps so much that someone "had to play the trap-monkey," then "trap-monkey" was a role, but at the table next door, the narrative-focused DM didn't care about traps, but certainly *someone* in the party had to be the healer, so "healer" was a role, and a third table, both things were roles, and at a fourth, neither were and on and on....there's no One True List of Official And Correct Roles that is there waiting to be discovered.

A lot of tables probably had something pretty close to what 4e had if not spot on to what 4e had when 4e rolled out. So it's still not true to say that 4e invented its roles new out of whole cloth. They might not've been the same informal "roles" any particular group was using at their own table, but that doesn't make them alien to the game as a whole.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A lot of tables probably had something pretty close to what 4e had if not spot on to what 4e had when 4e rolled out. So it's still not true to say that 4e invented its roles new out of whole cloth. They might not've been the same informal "roles" any particular group was using at their own table, but that doesn't make them alien to the game as a whole.

I don't understand how "This wasn't invented in 4e, just first time it was explained in a PHB, and it still exsists in 5e but not as openly stated" is something worth 25 pages of argument... but yes you said it better then I have been trying to for 20ish pages

 

[Imaro]

so just to make sure we are on the same page... If I can play a fighter and be a striker, or a ranger and be a striker or a rouge and be a striker... then the striker roll doesn't exsit? or is it because my FIghter can have OTHER roles or my Ranger can Have OTHER roles?

Again what is the threshold... at what point do we say something is not a striker? We haven't set a baseline for what that even means in any edition except 4e (where it's explicitly presented as a label attached to a specific class).

If so then 4e did it first... I could play a PHB1 fighter and with choices (class feature/build and powers) make a good striker, and if I choose all combat offensive feats even do better then a rogue and blow a warlock out of the water...

Could you make a leader out of that fighter? How about a controller... and how do we decide the fighter you created in 4ed is a "striker" since his abilities and powers are designed around defending? Again what is the level of damage a striker must do to qualify?

edit: again you fall back on how 4e presented it not the way 4e played... but everyone quickly says 3e and 5 present it differently... even if plays the same?!?!?!?!

Because we don't have the standard of play by which to judge the roles... if you disagree answer this... what is the minimum and maximum damage per round a class has to do in order to be considered a striker in 4e? If you can't answer that, or if your minimum falls into a range every other class could achieve the only way we know what a "striker" is, is because it was explicitly called that in 4e... not because there is some explicit role that has been defined and existed throughout all editions.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Could you make a leader out of that fighter? How about a controller... and how do we decide the fighter you created in 4ed is a "striker" since his abilities and powers are designed around defending? Again what is the level of damage a striker must do to qualify?

leader, no...controller I can make a passible one after level 3...once we add in non phb stuff though controller is way easier...just focus on burst an d multi attack powers.

Because we don't have the standard of play by which to judge the roles... if you disagree answer this... what is the minimum and maximum damage per round a class has to do in order to be considered a striker in 4e?

I don't belive there is one... it is "FOcuses on doing lots of damage" the only way to measure is "Who at your table does most damage" the same is true for other roles... Defender by itself is meaningless "Who draws the attention of the attacks in your game" and leader "WHo heals and buffs the best" and COntroler "Ok...this is way more nebulase"