D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Manbearcat]

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.

I'm going to beg to differ (++).

Take a look at the thematic and functional overlap between the stock 4e Fighter (Defender), not to mention a build that further perpetuates it, and The Hulk:

* Freakishly athletic? Check.

* Mobile skirmisher? Check.

* Mere presence on the battlefield forces opponents attention onto them thus diverting their attention from elsewhere? Check.

* If they focus their attention onto you, you aren't getting away? Check.

* Cleaving, multi attacking juggernaut that lays waste to hordes of mooks? Check.

* Incredible physical fortitude and resilience? Check.

* A pathological propensity for SMASHing things? Check.

* Green skin with physics-defying musculature? Check.

* Incredibly fashionable purple cut-off pants that are indestructible? Check.

The comparison is pretty apropos imo.

 

[SirAntoine]

I'm going to beg to differ (++).

Take a look at the thematic and functional overlap between the stock 4e Fighter (Defender), not to mention a build that further perpetuates it, and The Hulk:

* Freakishly athletic? Check.

* Mobile skirmisher? Check.

* Mere presence on the battlefield forces opponents attention onto them thus diverting their attention from elsewhere? Check.

* If they focus their attention onto you, you aren't getting away? Check.

* Cleaving, multi attacking juggernaut that lays waste to hordes of mooks? Check.

* Incredible physical fortitude and resilience? Check.

* A pathological propensity for SMASHing things? Check.

* Green skin with physics-defying musculature? Check.

* Incredibly fashionable purple cut-off pants that are indestructible? Check.

The comparison is pretty apropos imo.

None of those qualities fit the role, though. They all fit sturdy brawler, though.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

@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.

Except that what you state is not the the 4E definition of a defender. What you are describing is the way it typically works in other editions of DnD.

Even more so since, in comics, ignoring the Hulk or Thing usually works out for the villain.

 

[Imaro]

None of those qualities fit the role, though. They all fit sturdy brawler, though.

Except for the use of the word juggernaut and the Hulk specific characteristics (purple pants and green skin), I was actually thinking they fit 90%+ of the physical-based superheroes in the marvel universe... And I agree they don't seem like defender (at least as 4e defines it) specific characteristics at all.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm going to beg to differ (++).

Take a look at the thematic and functional overlap between the stock 4e Fighter (Defender), not to mention a build that further perpetuates it, and The Hulk:

I'll ignore the details of the comparison for now in favor of a more fundamental question: is your definition of Defender, "Defender = anyone who does things the 4e Fighter does"? Is that the definition you're going off of? If that's what you mean, then yes, I can see how the Hulk is like a Fighter. This seems to be quite a different definition of Defender than the Wikia definition so I'd like you to confirm if this is how you're using the term "Defender".

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

I hear what you're saying, but I also see that you're saying something different than 4E. Would you say, "I know, but my definition is better" or "You're wrong about the 4E definition" or "Actually, this is the same as the 4E definition"?

 

[BryonD]

I'm not all 4e players, so please don't group me

In your whole reply you are trying to have it both ways. You embrace the "if you don't like 4e you are a H4TER camp" rhetoric of "everything is the same" and critical comments are not opinions but "hurtful" things, and then you say you should not be grouped.

You also blow off critical comments of 4E by saying "same for me for Pathfinder", but you completely miss the point that YOU are the one calling these comments "hurtful" when they are aimed at 4E. If there was anything remotely equivalent in the history of calling critical comments of Pathfinder meanness or the sake of mean people being mean, then pointing out the other side would add to the conversation.

You can't have it both ways.

And, again, the debate is over.
4E lost the market.

 

[BryonD]

But, as you said, you could probably largely figure out what roles they were playing, if you watched them.

So, for the most part, doing the same thing, but now we make it clear, and this is a problem.

I have expressed the distinction.
In 4E the characters were designed to BE a role and you played a character that way. In prior editions the mechanics were designed to play a a character and that character could take a role. And beyond just playign word games it FELT very different. The experience and satisfaction delivered were very different.

I think a case about gamism and narrativism might be made on 4e, but *not* because of the roles.

Of, absolutely not "because" of roles. I consider the gamist mentality of 4E to the the root cause of myriad issues, and the feel of roles is just one of those outcomes. Roles are certainly not the cause here. I agree.

 

[BryonD]

This old Andy Collins quote fits in the story here. It is not a dead-on to the point statement. But it alludes to the difference in focus on character vs. focus on mechanical funtion


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: So you want to bring back a lot of iconic elements – but what about team work?

Andy Collins: […Well, what changed is] how we approached class design. In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience. A lot of the classes designed in the last 30 years are not interesting, are not compelling either in a fight or maybe out of a fight, but just pale compared to other characters on the table top. Who really wants to play a monk when you can play a rogue or a fighter, who can do all these things - ok, the monk gets to jump and run around a lot but what does he really get to contribute at the table that other characters don’t do better than him. The wizard can fly – so why do you need someone who jumps well?

So whenever we were approaching a new class we had to home in on what makes this guy special and unique within in the game - not just in the world of D&D but, since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece. It's got to have a hook (or multiple hooks, preferably) for every class because it’s got to be compelling for people to play it. Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming.

 

[BryonD]

I don't understand your basis for saying this. In the post you quoted I referred to the DMG in which Gygax set out rules implementing his conception of what the various character class roles were/are. Those rules take the form of advancement penalties for playing one's character outside allocated role.

I believe that 2nd ed AD&D has something similar in its XP rules (fighters get more XP for killing, thieves for looting, etc) but I don't myself have a copy of the relevant DMG.

In 3E, as far as I know, and in 4e, there are no rules that relate advancement to role. Hence my remark that descriptions of roles, in 4e, are merely guidelines. They tell you what your PC might be good at, given its mechanical capabilities.

The point remains that you used very different (virtually opposite standards) for your two evaluations.

In what sense? Dealing damage in D&D has always been bolted very directly onto the mechanics. And as far as the "healer" role goes, it is absolutely bolted onto the clerical spell mechanics in AD&D. (As [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, and which you scorned for reasons that are opaque to me.)

Equating "damage dealing" with the concept of 4E roles is not even remotely fair to the conversation.

And this biographical anecdote is diffrent how? When you play 4e with these guys, do they think of their PCs differently? Or do you not play 4e with them?

When I have played Rolemaster o AD&D, some players think of their PCs primarily in terms of mechanical capabilities - this fighter has a shield for defence but lower damage, this fighter has a two-handed sword for maximum offence - and others not. Likewise in 4e - some of my 4e players think in terms of role, but some - especially the wizard/invoker player - very clearly do not. (At least not in 4e terms. In 3E terms his PC is the skill monkey.)

I already acknowledged that other systems could be played in a manner that emphasized roles and therefore people who had been playing this way would likely be big fans of 4E's full-on embracing of this approach. I'm not challenging the existence of this or the merit of it.
I'm saying that it was not the most common style and so no one, including those who did play that way, should be so shocked that a focus there didn't go well.