I'm not sure what you mean by a "defensive character", then. Do you mean "doesn't attack"? In that case a 4e fighter is not a defensive character, given that s/he has few abilities that don't depend upon attacking (including mark imposition). Nor is a paladin very defensive, given that maintaining a divine challenge requires engaging, of which attacking is the primary mode.
D&D 5E What are the Roles now?
- Thread starter Unwise
- Start date
Nergal Pendragon
First Post
Sounds to me like they invested one of their skill specializations in Medicine.
I have never played WoW (or any other MMO game).
When I read the section on "roles" in the 4e PHB, it struck me as serving the same purpose as Gygax's description of character class functions in the introductory part of the Classes section of his PHB, as well as in the class descriptions themselves.
I'm not sure what you mean by "character development", but in AD&D if I choose to play a fighter, it is basically guaranteed that (absent some funky magic items) I will never be a healer or a buffer, but will be a damage dealer who is capable in melee. (Archery options are feasible, but in my experience are rather boutique, and nothing in either the Gygax's PHB text encourages them. Bow specialisation somewhat changes that.)
Likewise, in AD&D, if I choose to play a wizard it is basically guaranteed that (again, absent very funky magic items) I will suck in melee combat (perhaps not once I get access to Tenser's Transformation at 12th level).
For me, paying attention to the suite of mechanical options available under the class label is part of playing a class-based PC. In my experience players who don't do this tend to end up disappointed - eg they wanted to play Gandalf but discover that in AD&D they cannot use a sword and will get cut to ribbons in melee; or they wanted to play a swashbuckler but discover that, in core AD&D at least, wielding a d6 weapon with chain armour and no shield just makes you mechanically weaker than the other fighter PC in plate armour with a d8 weapon and shield, for no compensating mechanical benefit.
I see the role labels as sending signal to help players avoid such disappointment: when you open up the 4e PHB, and learn that the fighter is a defender and the rogue a striker, this is part of the guidance that tells the would-be player of a swashbuckler to incline towards rogue rather than fighter. Further guidance is available by reading the class descriptions and power lists in more detail - much as, in AD&D, if my vision of a "magic-user" is a white witch healer than a perusal of the spell lists will tell me that I want to play a druid rather than a magic-user.
Are you talking about 5e?
In that case, a WIS(Medicine) check (according to p 62 of the Basic PDF) lets a character (among other things) stabilise a dying character. (The word used is "companion" but I assume that is not intended literally - I assume that a check can also be made to stabilise a dying enemy or stranger.)
Someone who takes a skill proficiency in medicine gains a level-based bonus (+2 to +6) to such checks. So how does that character "mechanically have no ability to restore hit points, remove debilitating conditions like blindness/deafness, etc"? - which is the description I used that you quoted.
That character has an enhanced ability to remove a very significant debilitating condition, namely, dying.
A charcter who has that abiity, but no other healing abilities, is roughly analogous to a 4e character who has multi-classed into leader and hence 1x/day can use a minor action healing ability. In my 4e group, 2 of the 5 PCs currently fit that description (the fighter is multi-class cleric, the sorcerer multi-class bard). Another comparison would be a 4e character who has Healing as a skill.
Paying attention to those sorts of build options, and their mechanical implications for play, is what the role labels are for.
Nergal Pendragon
First Post
I mean a character who is primarily focused on defense, or at least acts like it often enough that it can be seen as a primary focus.
Even within X-men and similar franchises, there are examples of this. Wolverine and the Hulk, despite both being rather good at it, don't qualify because they do it so rarely. Superman does qualify because he does it so often that it's pretty much his primary occupation, and it's actually a key part of his personality (this is despite the fact he's far more effective as a striker). Colossus doesn't qualify because it's treated as a secondary ability.
Spiderman also arguably qualifies. He does it more along the attack lines, but he makes it clear that ignoring him to strike at others will cost you dearly and he will constantly get in your way (even if it costs him dearly). Some may see him as more of a controller or striker, though. I personally see him as more of a definition of a 4E defender; he's strong, it hurts when he hits, he's going to be in your way, and he can be severely hurt when things go against him or he doesn't have proper support.
Batman doesn't qualify by any stretch of the imagination. He's probably the poster boy for being a striker.
Nergal Pendragon
First Post
Then you're misunderstanding how 5E works on checks. The player asks if they can do something, and you see if they have a skill that might be related; if they don't have it, you call for a simple ability check. If you're reading the write-up as being literally all a skill can do, then your players are going to quickly be frustrated.
Note that this is part of why 5E is referred to as the DM Fiat Edition in some circles.
If you want to know where I get that the skill descriptions in 5E are not the entirety of what skills can do, there's this section under Skills on page 174:
Last edited:
GMforPowergamers
Legend
yup...I don't understand why people through that around without any mention of MMOs...
this... a simple 1 word (or keyword if you like) that explains to people... I can even understand expanding the roles (or keywords) it isn't about limits it's about forewarning and sending info...
again I have in the last 3 edition and pathfinder seen the "Rogue" question come up... it just came up in my first 5e chatacter creation night... If your concept is to be a non combat spy/thief why do you know how to hit things harder...
I saw this question in 2e in the reverse... A newish player made a fighter, and specialized in short sword and was going to fight with one and a spear in his off hand. He had larped before and like this style of using the spear like a shield 9/10 of the time then switching up... when he saw his first backstab he asked "Why can't I be trained to do that, I just do combat." In 3e it started showing up the reverse... "Why do I know how to deliver presion damge."
4e gave an easy answer "Your class is striker, your combat role is to deal damage, if you want to go less damage I have other classes you can play."
dd.stevenson
Super KY
I mean the transformation of a character/player combo from someone who doesn't know their role to someone who does.
That was part of the journey; and then that part of the game got taken out.
Last edited:
dd.stevenson
Super KY
Because it's a similar family of games using exactly the same word for approximately the same thing.
Iosue
Legend
I think this does demonstrate a fundamental disconnect in the conversation. From my perspective, I would not expect a priori that a fighter would be wearing plate at all, unless he was going to open and eminent battle. If my fighter is going dungeon delving, just to pick a common example, I would be inclined to go with Breastplate (AC 14+Dex mod), both for the lightness and no disadvantage to stealth.
4e is taking a lot of hits in this thread, but I just see it as culmination of tendencies that grew out gamers approached the game, and how designers responded to that. A big one is the idea of specialization. Its beginnings are found in the creation of the Thief class, and later in Unearthed Arcana. Then it gained steam in 2e and really exploded in 3e. 4e's explicit, mechanically based roles are just a culmination of that design trend, an attempt to elegantly fix the imperfect expressions of the roles in 3e. So the essential play paradigm of those later editions was to Know Your Role and then relentlessly hone it. If you're a fighter, you are a defender (in 4e's elegant implementation) or a meat-shield (in 3e's less elegant one), so you're pumping AC, STR, and CON, as much as you can. And the game's design plays to this specialization. You can take a (pre-Slayer) fighter in 4e and turn him into a mobile striker, foregoing defending. But he's not going to be as effective as a class designed for striking (unless you really have mastery of the system). But always have the highest AC you can, pump STR and CON, and wade into battle marking foes left and right, and you'll have lots of fun. It's a great feeling to have the DM throw 5 attacks at you and miss with 4. It's a great feeling to have the DM target one of your allies, and then you say, "I get an OA on that."
But. Look at this AD&D PHB table. Only Fighters (and its subclasses) and Assassins can use any weapon. That includes longbows. Only Fighters, Assassins, Monks, and Druids can use spears. Only Fighters can use two-handed swords. Only Fighters can use longbows, spears, and two-handed swords and wear heavy armor. So, if you were a Fighter in AD&D, you had your choice of armors -- study but light armors for dungeon and city adventures, heavy armor for when the crap was about to go down. They could set-up sustained fire of arrows from 210 yards away. When the enemy got closer they could keep them at bay with spears. When the enemy got to close melee range, then they could go to their two-handed swords. That's not even getting into the vs. Type of Armor and vs. Size considerations. There are all these choices for what and how one might play a fighter. So I look at what Skip Williams rights about the fighter earlier in the thread, and it seems kinda off to me. He says, "In a fight, the party's sturdy brawlers generally are the first to attack the foe, usually by moving in and pinning down key foes with melee attacks." But I'm thinking of the Moldvay Basic example of combat, where the first thing the fighters (dwarf and elf) do is engage the enemy with ranged attacks.
For whatever reason, people said, "Forget all that," and tended to just specialize in one weapon (typically the sword), wear their heaviest armor all the time, and then just wade into battle saying, "I attack." Not surprisingly, this was found to be boring, so since 2e the designers at D&D have been looking at ways to make that highly specialized role interesting with various mechanical implementations -- kits, feats, marking, etc. I really enjoyed the 4e fighter for what it was -- and yet, why was the fighter's historical proficiency with ALL armors and ALL weapons given to the Paladin? Why did their ability to layeth the smack down from long distance go, for all intents and purposes, to the Ranger? When I played the 4e fighter as a defender, it was so sweet, but I missed that versatility.
And I think this holds true for just about all the classes. Healing starts as simply a minor part of the Cleric's skill set (complementing their combat and Turning Undead abilities), and eventually they end up as the Healbot, and 4e had to figure out how to make that fun. Thieves were the dungeon skill guys, light on combat ability but with an occasional damage spike, eventually they become the skill monkey with nothing to do in combat (sneak attack being nerfed beyond belief) in a game that was becoming more and more combat oriented, so 4e had to figure out how to make that workable. As for wizards, well...thread upon thread has hashed that out. Suffice to say, they started out as artillery (with a bit of utility), and eventually 4e had to figure out a way to fit them into a party dynamic without overpowering everyone else.
I can't blame 4e for the choices its designers made -- they had good reasons for doing so. All the same, I'm glad that 5e went with a less specialized approach. I like all-around, multi-role characters.
