D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Imaro]

So if I understand the direction the discussion is now heading ...

You're about to say, "Here's what I want my character to be able to do well, now how do we make that happen in 5e?"

Is that not the very definition of a CharOp forum?

This seems to be exactly what [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] is asking for, but he wants it official, in the books and only in the limited form of combat roles that were presented by 4e for some reason...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This seems to be exactly what [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] is asking for, but he wants it official, in the books and only in the limited form of combat roles that were presented by 4e for some reason...

that;s it... I have given you every chance... but you are now bold face lying. I have said time and time again that the combat role was only part of it, and that I had hoped that not only would we get combat and non combat roles... it is not even just a strawman, but you are now actively ignoreing me and what I have said...

You know now that I think about it, you must know that you are now just twisting what could be a discussion. I was wrong to think that this was anything but edition waring. 4e had combat roles, not even the best they could be... but instead of working on improving them you will pretend they never where...

 

[Imaro]

that;s it... I have given you every chance... but you are now bold face lying. I have said time and time again that the combat role was only part of it, and that I had hoped that not only would we get combat and non combat roles... it is not even just a strawman, but you are now actively ignoreing me and what I have said...

Since you're calling me a liar show me where you said non-combat roles were a part of 5e because I can quote your original statement which was that 5e had the same roles as 4e... .those are all combat roles... which is what has been discussed by you and those responding for numerous pages since people disagreed with your assertion.

You know now that I think about it, you must know that you are now just twisting what could be a discussion. I was wrong to think that this was anything but edition waring. 4e had combat roles, not even the best they could be... but instead of working on improving them you will pretend they never where...

You're right it could be a discussion but I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. You cry edition war when really it boils down to the fact that people are disagreeing with your claim that 5e has the same roles as 4e. that's not edition warring, I haven't stated anything bad or negative about 4e in the entire discussion... I just don't agree with you, that's not edition warring.

I don't want to "improve" 4e's combat roles (seems like that topic would be better suited for the 4e forums). You want to hash out how to construct roles in 5e that's cool, state that then, but the point you've been harping on (and the source of disagreement with many of the others who have been participating in this thread) from your original post was that these roles exist in 5e and are somehow hidden or obscured which I and others just plain disagree with. I'm not pretending anything since you've failed to offer up any substantial proof or evidence that the 4e roles even exist in 5e.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Since you're calling me a liar show me where you said non-combat roles were a part of 5e because I can quote your original statement which was that 5e had the same roles as 4e... .those are all combat roles.

here is today... a few hours ago

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

 

[Imaro]

here is today... a few hours ago

Thats a reply to why you were dissappointed in 5e backgrounds and has nothing to do with the conversation around roles... But you posted it so I'm assuming you knew that already...

 

[TrippyHippy]

If Backgrounds are indeed what replaces Roles in 5E now, then let me just say:

Roles suck; Backgrounds rock!

Which about sums up everything I am going to say about that.

 

[MechaPilot]

The party roles in 5th Edition would be the traditional ones, also known as the core classes. Note the roles from 4th Edition were completely unique, and a departure from tradition.

The 4e roles are not completely unique to that edition of D&D. The roles are a combat construct, and they can be seen in their implied form in other editions of D&D. The thing that is unique about 4e's roles are 1) that they made choice of role and choice of class part of the same choice, and 2) that the role you chose provided mechanics to make you more consistently good at that role.

While I liked 4e's roles and their addition of mechanics to make characters better at their roles, I felt the edition would have benefited more from being able to make a choice of role independent from your choice of class.

I personally think that the 4E roles came mostly from MMORPGs, not D&D.

MMOs would seem to be the obvious corollary, but I contend that the MMO roles came from the strengths of the traditional D&D party: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard. If you look at the traditional D&D party, what do you have?

The cleric is the only one of the four who heals and removes status effects (poisons, diseases, death, etc). The thief's role in combat as a damage dealer is clearly exemplified by the backstab/sneak attack ability. The fighter is clearly a threat to the party's enemies because of her high damage potential and the protection that heavy armor affords her. And the wizard has an arsenal of spells, the most effective of which are typically not geared toward dealing large amounts of damage.

 

[Sacrosanct]

um... I don't play video games and I find it insulting to think that because someone uses terms from paper and dice RPGs, it is easy to be dismissive "Dumb video game terms" but try to look at what they are...

I own a Wii and a PS2, and both are used by my 8 year old nephew, and for occasional Netflix/DVD watching... I have never played in an MMO, nore will I entertain the idea of playing one. The last game I cared about was skylanders...before that Grand theft VIce City, so don't be too quick to lump people

Jesus man, do you take offense at everything like it's some personal slight at you?

and just so you know, whether or not you play video games doesn't change the fact those were originally video game terms that made their way into ttrpgs

and I wasn't calling anything dumb or disparaging anything. This whole "you making up insults no one is saying just so you can be offended" is getting really old. This whole thread is like that

 

[MechaPilot]

In prior editions and in 5E, there isn't that much stopping the fighter from focusing on being a pure damage-dealer who doesn't just absorb damage. In fact, the fighter wasn't even the best class for absorbing damage as of 3E; that was the barbarian.

It's interesting that you say this, because that's also indicative of 4e's roles.

4e's implementation of role provides a mechanical benefit that makes you better at that role, the same way the barbarian's damage resistance in 3e makes them better at absorbing damage. A defender role also doesn't prevent a character from focusing on damage-dealing, just as the barbarian's damage resistance doesn't force it to focus on being a defender. However, having the defender role does mean that out of all of the roles you will be the most effective at that one.

 

[MechaPilot]

Roles were intended to limit the versatility of classes so no one class was able to manage something like 90% of the game from it's own resources, and therefore classes were going to depend on each other in a way they hadn't since some rather early in the history of D&D. 5e has discarded those limitations in favour of letting caster classes have the huge range of competencies that the FR/2e/3e paradigm insists on.

Do you have a source for that? If not, I think what you're describing is the glass-half-empty view of roles.

Half-empty: roles limit versatility.

Half-full: roles make a character more effective at performing that role.