D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[I'm A Banana]

A supporting argument would be along the lines of "The simplest reason for WotC choosing those roles was that these are the roles they identified people playing with." Thus, it must be true that D&D as a game had these roles. If some folks played with 'em, the game as a whole had 'em.

Or when WotC created the roles they named them that way because they match up with MMOrpg terminology and are easily recognizable by many people that would play D&D...

These aren't mutually exclusive. MMO's got these ideas from D&D to begin with.

No they aren't ignoring it as it was actually played... what they are saying is that before 4e the term striker as applied to D&D was so nebulous as to have no real meaning...

That is ignoring the game as it was actually played by lots of tables where "striker"/"damage-dealer"/"DPR"/"heavy-hitter"/"spike-damage"/etc. did have real meaning, at least to those playing at that table.

however 4e took the term defined it and then designed classes within those defined constraints... thus they created those roles whole cloth unless they consulted with these hypothetical tables that had been playing D&D with said roles, which I have no reason to believe they did.

Peoples said they did. If you accept that those people are basically honest, that's reason to believe they did. If you don't accept that, then I don't know why you're continuing to have a conversation with people you think are liars.

I never claimed they were, but I bet if you ask them to define it you'll probably get a nebulous answer at best (and probably wildly differing in that nebulousness)... as we did in this thread when i asked the question.

If I ask you to specifically define what "rock and roll" is, we're going to get onto a slippery slope, too. A strict definition isn't possible or useful. A functional definition -- this is how people actually did the thing and how they experienced it -- is much more useful. And that we have in abundance.

This makes no sense to me, with the number of houserules, variants, etc. that people use in D&D where is the line drawn? or can we just claim any and everything is a part of D&D since someone somewhere might have done it...

The latter.

If you say you're "playing D&D" and you're playing Pathfinder, you're playing D&D. If you say you're "playing D&D" and you run a D&D-brand board game, you're playing D&D. If you say you're "playing D&D" and you run GURPS, you're playing D&D. If you say you're "playing D&D" and you run around the forest and whack each other with foam weapons, you're playing D&D.

If 8e comes out and it's GURPS with whiffle bats, it will just be confirming the way some tables have played D&D forever.

In functional reality, of course, the bounds are not solidly drawn, but are there. It's like the edge of the solar system, or the difference between Rock and Blues, or gender identity. It's an analog continuum based on our own constructs, not a binary divide that exists in empirical science. If someone can't strictly define what a "striker" was before 4e, that doesn't mean they weren't playing REAL D&D (tm) when they played D&D and had strikers. It just means their definition of D&D might not make a circle with yours in a Venn diagram.

 

[Imaro]

Well since D&D is and has anything anyone anywhere decides to claim it did or does... I guess that ends this conversation...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok so at this point we have a divide those that saw it for ever and think it was hard to define before 4e and for some reason returned to that in 5e5e, and those that basically want to dismiss everything group 1 claims.

So when I say "I have seen the 4 roles through out d&d history... Am I lying?

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I said:

"A DPR designed 5E fighter, on average, does more DPR than a DPR designed 5E rogue."

and you directly replied:

"Not necessarily"

and gave an example of a DPR rogue against a defense fighter.

And now you are claiming that this apples and oranges comparison is what you were talking about the entire time?


I can say the opposite using your sentence:

A fighter can specialize to do more damage than your typical rogue (or other martial class), which by (your) definition, would make him a striker.

That doesn't make either CLASS a striker. If one has to optimize or minimally take certain feats/subclasses to become a certain role, then the role is not explicitly built into the class as per 4E.

The very definition of the word role is function. In 4E, the 4 role functions were built in: every Rogue, even non-heavily optimized ones, were strikers. In 5E, that is no longer the case and it was not the case in 1E through 3E. The function of a rogue in 5E is not striker. It's back to being a thief, the 1E stealth/traps/locks/pick pockets/listening at doors specialist with the ability to do more damage if conditions are right, combined with evasion and other abilities gained in 3E. They can be optimized to do more damage than other typical PCs, but so can the Fighter, so can the Paladin, and so can a lot of classes, even non-martial ones.

The very concept of striker classes no longer exist. The concept of a player wanting his PC to do nova damage, sure, that still exists. But some of the 4E striker classes no longer nova the best in 5E. They are no longer strikers. There is no longer a set of classes that are the absolute best at nova-ing right out of the box whose role it is to be a striker.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well since D&D is and has anything anyone anywhere decides to claim it did or does... I guess that ends this conversation...

Only if the conversation is about what defines and limits D&D.

If the conversation is about roles in 5e, it actually makes conversation possible, because the alternative is "there are no roles in 5e because the rules don't mention any." And that doesn't reflect the game as it is actually played at some tables...clearly.

 

[Imaro]

Only if the conversation is about what defines and limits D&D.

If the conversation is about roles in 5e, it actually makes conversation possible, because the alternative is "there are no roles in 5e because the rules don't mention any." And that doesn't reflect the game as it is actually played at some tables...clearly.

What conversation when the burden of proof for one side of the argument is... because we/they said they were there, are you calling us/them liars? (which we all know is against the board rules and a great way to shut down things like actual evidence, proof, etc.)... *shrug* ok, you win.

EDIT: You keep using this subjective "how it was played at some tables line" which again can vary so much it's practically useless when it comes to establishing or discussing anything.

 

[Joe Liker]

Man, I am not usually one to throw this around, but if you can find me a D&D group that never made up anything of their own, I'm pretty much going to say that they were playing D&D wrong.

That's why I said, "It's a matter of degrees," in the hope that my statement wouldn't be blown out of proportion.

 

[Imaro]

Ok so at this point we have a divide those that saw it for ever and think it was hard to define before 4e and for some reason returned to that in 5e5e, and those that basically want to dismiss everything group 1 claims.

So when I say "I have seen the 4 roles through out d&d history... Am I lying?

Of course not... now let me ask you a question... do you think there's a possibility you could be mistaken?

 

[Joe Liker]

Ok so at this point we have a divide those that saw it for ever and think it was hard to define before 4e and for some reason returned to that in 5e5e, and those that basically want to dismiss everything group 1 claims.

So when I say "I have seen the 4 roles through out d&d history... Am I lying?

It doesn't matter whether you are lying or not because in refusing to define your terms you have rendered meaningful conversation impossible.

If you mean "roles as explicitly codified and executed in the rules of the game," the answer is no, that does not exist in 5e.

If you mean "roles as I personally (and presciently) have understood them ever since D&D was a twinkle in Gary Gygax' eye," then yes, that will obviously exist in every RPG with any degree of character customization. If you choose to play that way, then you are ensuring the existence of the roles, regardless of the edition or the rules or anything else.

Either way, there's nothing to talk about. The only reason this thread has gone on so long is because people keep conflating the two very different definitions.

So pick a definition, and you'll find your answer above. I really don't see what else there is to say.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I said:

"A DPR designed 5E fighter, on average, does more DPR than a DPR designed 5E rogue."

and you directly replied:

"Not necessarily"

and gave an example of a DPR rogue against a defense fighter.

And now you are claiming that this apples and oranges comparison is what you were talking about the entire time?
.

This is what you said that I quoted, and what I was disagreeing with. I left that part in the quote because it was important to my reply:

For example, the 1E thief was not a striker and the 5E rogue is not a striker. Neither one of these classes averaged more damage than their respective level fighter overall

This was the relevant part that I was disagreeing with, that you conveniently left out in your post above replying to me, as if the only part I was reply to was that last sentence about DPR. And as I have shown, a 5e rogue can average more damage than a respective level fighter, depending on how you're building your PC. Try to have at least a little intellectual honestly please, and don't selectively delete parts of your statement I had quoted. They were quoted for a reason.