D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[GMforPowergamers]

ok new day lets try again with a fresh start.

Situational modifiers are the conversation! The whole point of this argument is that the combat roles are situational! The thing that many people at my table don't like is the idea of building a character for a combat role when such a role depends on the circumstance of a combat.

no one is suggesting you HAVE to do anything... if you want to ignore lables, that's fine.

With a doorway, you might act as a controller. Without it, you might action surge and be a striker. You are absolutely right that a thief might decide to hold the doorway and be the controller. Or a wizard might buff his AC and hold the door while you fire or jab with a reach weapon past him. Without a door, other tactics present themselves. Roles depend on your actions, not your "build." Combat choices should NOT be arbitrarily narrowed by the rules based on your build.

this seems to be where you are talking past me, I am in no way suggesting changing the way classes or combat work.(well not entirely true I do want MORE options for fighter and rogue, but that isn't really about role and is not for a reason we are talking about so I am skiping it for now)

The idea that mechanical advantages are necessary before you can fulfill a role is a repugnant holdover from 3.5 - 4. My table doesn't want the mechanics of the game to assume that. And 5e doesn't (at present).

once again, the mechanics we are discussing are ones that already are in 5e, not changing...

Bounded accuracy means the 15 AC thief can hold the door in a pinch, he's just doing so with slightly more risk than the 17 AC fighter. And, unless I'm misreading the rules, cover doesn't provide disadvantage, just a bonus of +2 to the opponents' AC (for firing through one character). It's better than being swarmed by 12 orcs!

how does a note on the rogue saying "Sneak attack, the extra action thing and uncanny dodge work togather to fulfill a striker role, and the assassin totally adds to this, well the thief adds more to the role of face and scout" in any way change anything?

See, what some folks on this thread don't seem to realize is that you can play with static combat roles without them being specified in the rules. That's a table choice. But once delineated in the rules and mechanics of the game, you can't play without them. So you are arguing for a change to 5e that will preclude the playstyle at my table. Which is why I don't want to see it happen!

nobody has suggested I can't PLAY with roles, infact as I myself have pointed out here and else where, my character creation last Tuesday night very much discussed it, what we said was by not labeling it that made it hide some things and intentions. On the other hand, if we changed 0 mechanics, and just LABLED the intent of the mechanics how does that stop you from ignorieing mechanics...



((((This next part is not directed at any one, but the whole thread in general))))

What about open discussion of combat and non combat role scares people? I had someone talking about Face and scout and striker a few pages ago, but that got buried under "I don't want roles!". SO I am starting to think I may not have expressed myself clearly.

I in no way want 5e to change the basic mechanics(for the purpose of this discussion on roles) what I want is to lable what we have.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So does that mean you are right and the DnD4 wikia is wrong? "A character with the defender role primarily focuses enemy fire by making it difficult for enemies to move past, and punishing enemies who attack other party members." Because your definition implies that the defender must have the highest offensive output in the game or else a way to make enemies behave irrationally. Where does your definition come from and why should it be preferred?

well at my table there are lots of ways to be a defender, the marks sometimes help and sometimes don't

I had a low damage high AC swordmage of assault in the same group as a lowish AC ranger and a VERY low AC rogue... end result the mark was useless... after a second or two the monsters (and me as a DM) would realize that needing a 16 to hit the sword mage and needing a 10 to hit the ranger, or almost auto hitting the rogue, when the swordmage even with his extra attack from mark was doing about half the damage of the rogue and way less then half the ranger ment "Hit the guy doing the damage" was the best tactic.

now again, people seem to focus on "In 4e it said X, therefore people that want role labled must only want X" when atleast most of us are saying "The roles in 4e were a good start and should be fit in and reworked to be better"

 

[Minigiant]

Adjusted my list
well the roles are what they always been

• Combat
  • Defender (look scariest)
    • Threat
    • Lockdown
  • Leader
    • Healer
      • In Combat Medic
      • Out of Combat Medic
      • Curse Remover
    • Buffer
    • Tactician
      • Move Commander
      • Attack Commander
  • Striker
    • Damage Dealer
    • Threat Avoider
      • Artillery
      • Lurker
      • Brute
      • Skrimisher
  • Controller
    • Blaster
    • Controller
      • Physical
      • Mental
• Exploration
  • Physical one
    • Athlete
    • Acrobat
  • Mental one
    • Arcane
    • History
    • Nature
    • Religion
    • Psionics
  • Scout
  • Lookout
  • "Rogue"
    • Lockpick
    • Trap breaker
  • "Ranger"
    • Tracker
    • Outdoorsman
  • Taxi
    • Driver
    • Teleporter
• Social
  • Face
    • Diplomat
    • Liar
    • Intimidiator
  • Detective
  • Sage
    • Arcane
    • History
    • Nature
    • Religion
    • Psionics
  • Looker
    • Beauty
    • Beast
    • Disguised

 

[Manbearcat]

So does that mean you are right and the DnD4 wikia is wrong? "A character with the defender role primarily focuses enemy fire by making it difficult for enemies to move past, and punishing enemies who attack other party members." Because your definition implies that the defender must have the highest offensive output in the game or else a way to make enemies behave irrationally. Where does your definition come from and why should it be preferred?

I've got a post that I recently scrawled which should hopefully run down the fair bit of nuance in 4e defending. Handy enough, I used the 4e Fighter as the exemplar. I'll slightly modify it for use here. Without further ado...

---

The 4e Fighter has (a) the basic Opportunity Attack rules (you must spend a move action to shift if you want to get out of melee with someone and not eat an OA - which is only an Opportunity Action in the game's action economy) that synergizes with (b) their suite of abilities that made up their defending niche:

1) A mark that imposed a - 2 to attack anyone but the fighter and provoked an OA if you did so and/or even if you shifted.

2) Allowed for the control of multiple enemies at once by a large number of multi-attack abilities and utilities that would apply the Fighter's mark

3) Basic Attack and OA augmenting abilities that amped Fighters up to just under Striker level damage normally, which would then surpass striker-level damage if enemies violated their marks.

4) Another feature that worked with all of these things to prevent enemies from moving away from the fighter and pursuing a softer target (which would still eat the - 2 to attack if they did so).

5) A large number of skirmishing abilities that let them move all of the battlefield and engage enemies as needed.

6) Top end HPs, Surges, AC, Fort.

---

In total, a base, out-of-the-box 4e Fighter (without any feats) is:

* a skirmisher

* a high-end damage dealer (surpassing leaders/controllers/other defenders)

* a top-end, damage-absorbing tank

* a melee controller or striker level damage-dealer, sometimes both simultaneously, on any given turn (GM's catch-22 choice given all of the synergy above).

That is stock, without customization. You can customize them to be absolutely brutal controllers, strikers, or tanks as you'd like and you can be a valuable secondary leader with the right Skill Powers, Feats, and Utilities. If you're a fan of hockey, they are NHL Defenseman of D&D 4e. They switch from being Scott Stevens to Bobby Orr in the blink of an eye.

 

[Hussar]

So does that mean you are right and the DnD4 wikia is wrong? "A character with the defender role primarily focuses enemy fire by making it difficult for enemies to move past, and punishing enemies who attack other party members." Because your definition implies that the defender must have the highest offensive output in the game or else a way to make enemies behave irrationally. Where does your definition come from and why should it be preferred?

Manbearcat has nicely rebutted this. But, what in what you quoted do you think is actually contradicted by the Wikia quote?

If you ignore the defender, you get punished heavily. Yup, that's pretty much the same definition as the Wikia uses. So, what's your point?

-----
[MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION]

I'd add a line to the Leader role - Tactician - able to grant out of turn actions to other party members. To me, this was by far the biggest defining element of Leaders. But then, I'm a huge fan of the Warlord and find it one of the biggest innovations in 4e.

OTOH, I can see why 5e has shied away from that. It does slow down combat considerably.

 

[Hussar]

Situational modifiers are the conversation! The whole point of this argument is that the combat roles are situational! The thing that many people at my table don't like is the idea of building a character for a combat role when such a role depends on the circumstance of a combat.

With a doorway, you might act as a controller. Without it, you might action surge and be a striker. You are absolutely right that a thief might decide to hold the doorway and be the controller. Or a wizard might buff his AC and hold the door while you fire or jab with a reach weapon past him. Without a door, other tactics present themselves. Roles depend on your actions, not your "build." Combat choices should NOT be arbitrarily narrowed by the rules based on your build. The idea that mechanical advantages are necessary before you can fulfill a role is a repugnant holdover from 3.5 - 4. My table doesn't want the mechanics of the game to assume that. And 5e doesn't (at present). Bounded accuracy means the 15 AC thief can hold the door in a pinch, he's just doing so with slightly more risk than the 17 AC fighter. And, unless I'm misreading the rules, cover doesn't provide disadvantage, just a bonus of +2 to the opponents' AC (for firing through one character). It's better than being swarmed by 12 orcs!

See, what some folks on this thread don't seem to realize is that you can play with static combat roles without them being specified in the rules. That's a table choice. But once delineated in the rules and mechanics of the game, you can't play without them. So you are arguing for a change to 5e that will preclude the playstyle at my table. Which is why I don't want to see it happen!

Sigh, this is why examples and white room theorising gets so tiresome.

Why on earth does your fighter have a 17 AC? Good grief, you can do that at 1st level. Plate is AC 18 before you even start and you probably have that by about 5th level. AC 20 is not unreasonable for a fighter - Plate and Shield does make a pretty decent fighter. So, now we have our AC 15 rogue and our AC 20 fighter.

But, again, this is a complete misread on what roles actually mean. Roles mean "This character will be best suited to doing this", whatever this happens to be. Is there a doubt that a fighter would be the best suited to holding a doorway? Sure, the thief or the wizard might do it, but, isn't the fighter the one best suited? Aren't the fighter abilities the ones that are the best for this particular job - defending a point and holding back the baddies?

You want someone to do damage to a lot of targets at once. Do you bring the rogue or the wizard? Not that a rogue couldn't set a deadfall trap or a cave in trap. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, by and large, in general, if you want to do damage to a lot of creatures at once, you are generally looking to the wizard and not the thief or the fighter. Cleric in a pinch, perhaps, but, again, the wizard is the one who's best qualified here. Thus, controller.

You want someone to do lots of damage to one guy and bring the pain? Who's your go to? The cleric? Maybe, but, generally not likely. The wizard? Again, possibly, with the right spells, but, often it's an all or nothing kind of deal. OTOH, an assassin rogue works pretty darn well in that role. Ranger does darn well as well. Fighter? Possibly. With the right toys anyway. And, I think Paladin's might qualify here as well. Strikers.

Again, 5e doesn't really have a leader role, since no one can grant extra actions. Healing's covered, but, meh, that was always a minor element of leaders in my mind. Actually, bard's might make a decent leader now - at least in the buff/debuff realm.

But the idea that the descriptive term of roles doesn't exist or that mechanical advantage is necessary is a "repugnant holdover" is a joke. If you think that's true, then explain why fighter's got weapon specialisation in 2e. After all, if all decisions should be situational and tactics are built on the in-game scenario only, then why the MASSIVE upgrade to fighter combat ability going from 1e to 2e? Note that rangers also got a big bump in 2e as well since they started out with two weapon fighting. Only paladins didn't get an big offensive bump going from 1e to 2e. Since there is virtually no difference between 1e and 2e monsters outside of giants and dragons, why did the classes get a huge offensive bump?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've got a post that I recently scrawled which should hopefully run down the fair bit of nuance in 4e defending. Handy enough, I used the 4e Fighter as the exemplar. I'll slightly modify it for use here. Without further ado...

Thanks, but my question wasn't "What is a 4E fighter?" it was "Where did Hussar's definition of defender come from?" He says The Hulk is a Defender, but by the 4E definition it isn't. Ultimately we are examining whether the "(Superhero) Strong Guy = (4E) Defender" equivalence holds. Examining the nuances of the 4E fighter isn't germane.

 

[Imaro]

@Minigiant pretty much nails this .

A defender does not make anyone harder to hit. A defender presents such a threat on the battlefield that if you ignore the defender, you get your ass handed to you.

Just like Hulk, Thing or any other defender in comic books.

Eh, this wasn't necessarily true, especially with later defenders like the Aegis of Shielding Swordmage...

EDIT: And doesn't the fighter actually make another target harder to hit once he marks you?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Manbearcat has nicely rebutted this. But, what in what you quoted do you think is actually contradicted by the Wikia quote?

If you ignore the defender, you get punished heavily. Yup, that's pretty much the same definition as the Wikia uses. So, what's your point?

First off: look, you've made a positive claim here that "Strong Guy = Defender." That claim isn't supported by the Wikia definition. It's not enough for you to say that your definition isn't contradicted by the Wikia quote: I'm asking where your definition comes from, because it isn't supported by the Wikia quote. What is it supported by?

Your definition was: "defender does not make anyone harder to hit. A defender presents such a threat on the battlefield that if you ignore the defender, you get your --- handed to you." To make the contrast between your definition and the wikia definition really concrete: let's say the Hulk does 1000 HP of damage to you if you attack him, or 1000 HP of damage if you try to run away, or 1000 HP of damage if you attack Wonder Woman. By the 4E Wikia definition, the Hulk is not a Defender, because he punishes everybody, not just those who attack "other party members." By your definition, well, it's unclear whether the Hulk is a Defender or not. It depends on the offense/defense ratio of everyone else in the party. If there are any glass cannons around then the Hulk is still not a Defender, because the incentive is to knock out the glass cannon instead of the Hulk, whom you can't knock out anyway.

By your definition, glass cannons are Defenders. I'm asking where your definition comes from.

 

[Minigiant]

The job of the defender is to be the primary target of the enemy.

Defenders do this by either:
1) Being the scariest and most immediate threat
2) Making the rest of the threat in the party harder to deal with
and or
3) Punishing the enemy for targeting other threats

Each 4e defender class defended differently. The Fighter did it mainly by being as scary as a striker. Paladin rely more on punishment. Wardens relied on lock down. Swordmages varied based on aegis.

Pre-4e and 5e, defenders of all classes rely on the threat of high damage and chokepoints. Either they wave a "target me sign" or sit in a doorway. Via feats they can attempt lockdown or punishment.