D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[FormerlyHemlock]

I was actually thinking along similar lines, but instead of ranged was thinking the monk is actually one of the most rounded (between ranged and melee) classes in 5e... especially since monk weapons include spears, javelins, handaxes, light hammers and daggers... all of which he can use Dex for in combat. I also noted that the description of his martial arts ability don't differentiate between ranged or melee or the first attack which means he can attack ranged, move and attack unarmed in melee. This goes to 2x ranged plus unarmed at level 5. If anything it seems like the classes base abilties are supposed to be what entices you against being a purely ranged combatant, they even out the playing field somewhat. I'd also note that the spellcasting abilities of the Way of the Four Elements monk gives even more ranged options through granted spells.

Running with this tangent for a bit:

I've considered the idea of investing in Sharpshooter for my Shadow Monk in order to give a really good ranged option. Pros and Cons:

* Sharpshooter -5/+10 option ("sniping") isn't as good without access to Archery fighting style. Con.

* Would allow her to attack without disadvantage at full 600' range (longbow profiency from being a wood elf). Pro. Mitigated by the fact that a lone Shadow Monk could do mostly the same thing in a different way: Hide every other round so that "unseen attacker" advantage will cancel out range disadvantage on the first attack of that round. BTW, Shadow Monks love long-range archery duels because their "negate one missile hit per round" becomes more valuable.

* Monks don't get Fighter bonus feats, so the opportunity cost is high. She's already got Mobile due to her role as scout (allowing her to kite in close quarters combat without spending Ki points), and getting zero ability increases until level 12 would be really painful given how valuable DX is for her. After 12th level there are still goodies like Lucky and Alert which enhance her primary role (scout, stealthy hammer, untouchable anti-weird-stuff specialist who always makes saving throws).

Ultimately I decided against it: she will remain good-but-not-great at ranged combat because there are other party members who can cover that base if they are around, and when they're not around she can evade anything she can't outright kill. But even without investing anything specifically in ranged combat, she can handle a Deadly ranged encounter with no problem. (E.g. 8 hobgoblins with longbows at level 7 by herself. I made some tactical mistakes and next time she will do even better, but she still cleaned their clock.)

As you say, monks are definitely well-rounded.

 

[pemerton]

Uh, yes he totally can, if he wants to. Fighters get enough bonus feats to be pretty good at it too: Healer, Inspirational Leader can both be applied per short rest. A fighter with both those feats winds up healing far more effectively than an AD&D cleric, and arguably better than a bog-standard 5E cleric.

A 4e fighter works very well as a hybrid fighter-cleric build, too.

 

[pemerton]

The comparison is that the swordmage and fighter "defend" mechanically in totally different manners and yet are both considered defenders...right?

But a fighter and a swordmage aren't totally different in their mode of defending. Both use marks. An assault swordmage defends by inflicting mark punishment like a fighter (and using teleport rather than lockdown to achieve "stickiness"). The shielding swordmage is the most different, defending via damage ablation. It relies upon other abilities (eg some of the at-wills like Booming Blade and Lightning Lure) to achieve "stickiness".

I wouldn't consider a shielding swordmage a paradigm defender, much as I wouldn't consider an avenger a paradigm striker. I think it's relatively easy to build a shielding swordmage who plays more like a sword-wielding wizard or sorcerer, with a dash of leader. Here's a 7th level version, built using only powers in the FRPG (which introduced swordmages):

* At-will sword burst (AoE force damage), Lightning Lure;

* Encounter 1st level Lightning Clash (two attacks for lightning damage), 3rd level Corrosive Ruin (AoE acid), 7th level Flamewall Strike (wall of fire);

* Daily 1st level Whirling Blade (throw you sword at multiple targets), 5th level Lingering Lightning (lightning bolt vs 3 targets);

* Utility 2nd level Dimensional Warp (encounter power friendly teleport), 6th level Silversteel Veil (encounter self-and-allies defence buff).​

That character is not a defender, although the label says otherwise. This is an example of what I have in mind when I say that the role labels are guidelines towards default areas of competence, but not more than that.

If the mechanical way something operates is orthogonal to roles then why are you specifically calling out high AC and hit points as the Defender characteristics?

I didn't say that mechanics are orthogonal. I said that distinct mechanical subsystems for generating outcomes are orthogonal.

For instance, in 4e warlocks and sorcerers tend to achieve mobility via teleporting, whereas rogues and rangers do so via shifting. This creates differences of flavour (magic vs speed and sharp reflexes) and sometimes matters mechanically (eg teleportin can escape immobilisation, can cross water and pits, and can allow gaining elevation without having to climb) but don't make for differences of role. They still produce the same function in play, namely, mobility which (given the action resolution rules and action economy) decreases the likelihood of being targetted, and especially the likelihood of being targeted in melee.

I will note that I find it interesting that on the one hand it's argued that 4e classes have a vastness of flexibility and crossover potential most don't realize yet on the other hand they perform distinct from one another

That's why upthread I've used the phrase "default function". A new 4e player is unlikely just to stumble upon the defending cleric I sketched out above, or the swordmage I've just outlined. And there are some classes that I would never recommend to a beginning player (shielding swordmage, any sort of warlock but especially a Fey warlock, and avenger probably being at the top of that list).

Shouldn't you be looking at the classes as a whole? And if so why can't the wizard's abilities naturally funnel towards defending the party?

A wizard can defend the party. In 4e a cleric or rogue can defend the party. That is not what "defender" means, though.

Defender means being at the centre of the melee scrum. A defender is characterised by being more mechanically effective, and having a greater impact on the outcomes of play, the more enemies s/he is surrounded by. In this way, the 4e defender paradigm has its ancestral roots in the AD&D fighter, who is sticky in melee as a result of the general melee rules for AD&D, but who (unlike non-fighters and fighter-subclasses) doesn't mind being there because of high AC and hit points.

A wizard who relished being at the centre of things - eg via mage armour plus damage-mitigation plus at-will AoEs or ways to use spells for OAs - could serve as a defender.The sorcerer in my 4e game can defend at a pinch, and at late paragon had maximum optimisation for that role (multiple encounter close bursts plus monk multi-class - "drow-jutsu" - to stop enemies getting away, and using his Cloud of Darkness for protection from being hit) but couldn't keep it up for more than a turn or two. Whereas the fighter and paladin can hold that sort of position round after round after round.

The mechanical duration of combats (ie how many rounds, so how much of your limited suit of resources will you need to access to do your thing) is another part of the mechanical environment that underpins the 4e roles. Because 5e combats are mechanically shorter (eg two or three rounds by most accounts) that reduces the scope for the same degree of role differentiation as 4e.

Ultimately (and this IMO is one of the greatest strengths of 5e) neither the fighter or the wizard is, by default, a defender-like character but either can easily step into the role if need be... along with numerous other roles throughout the span of a campaign or even a single adventure... like the controller fighter I talked about earlier or a striker wizard.

Are you saying that either class can be built to be a defender. Or that any given instance of the class - any particular PC - can in one encounter be a defender, and in another encounter be something else? The former claim is about the diversity of builds possible within a class. It strike me as plausible, though I think the narrowness of 4e classes is widely exaggerated. The second claim, which has been made by other posters in this thread, strikes me as implausible. For instance, I don't see how a wizard built using the Basic PDF is ever going to serve as a meaningful defender or healer, nor a fighter build using that document as a meaningful healer.

 

[Hussar]

I think Permerton's last point is very on target.

Are we talking about the ability to create different roles within a given class or are we talking about a given character being able to shift roles from situation to situation. Because, like Pemberton, I'm REALLY not seeing the second one unless you're playing a caster with a LOT of known spells. If your caster has mage armor, false life, stoneskin, and shield, he doesn't have a lot of other spells generally. A sorcerer, for example, doesn't get that many spells at each spell level. He's not going to be shifting between roles that easily.

Cleric might, although, in AD&D he couldn't simply because there weren't that many offensive cleric spells in AD&D. His casting was pretty much pure leader - heals and buffs.

And, let's not forget too, in 5e, there is no such thing as a fighter, cleric, wizard or rogue. That only exists for two levels. At 3rd level you have to choose your specialisation and that will, in a large way, determine you role. A crusader fighter is likely going to be a defender. A Battlemaster will likely be a striker, with a dash of leader. Or, as Imaro points out, you could be a controller, but, after choosing pole arms, feats to support that, and manoeuvres as well, that's what you are. You aren't suddenly going to switch roles once you choose one.

Oh, and if you are still confused what a defender does, this is what a defender does:

[video=youtube_share;-m6UKS1L0YQ]http://youtu.be/-m6UKS1L0YQ[/video]

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

For instance, I don't see how a wizard built using the Basic PDF is ever going to serve as a meaningful defender or healer, nor a fighter build using that document as a meaningful healer.

Built using the basic PDF, your characters are not going to have many options at all. In fact, most of the talking we've done about characters on this thread has ignored the basic PDFs.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I think Permerton's last point is very on target.

Are we talking about the ability to create different roles within a given class or are we talking about a given character being able to shift roles from situation to situation. Because, like Pemberton, I'm REALLY not seeing the second one unless you're playing a caster with a LOT of known spells. If your caster has mage armor, false life, stoneskin, and shield, he doesn't have a lot of other spells generally. A sorcerer, for example, doesn't get that many spells at each spell level. He's not going to be shifting between roles that easily.

If your caster has all of those spells, then you're focused entirely on personal defense. None of those spells actually allow you to play the role of a defender.

Try looking at Arcane Lock, Burning Hands, Hold Person, Web, Evard's Black Tentacles, Wall of Force, and similar spells. Being a defender as a magic user tends to focus on creative use of spells.

 

[SirAntoine]

Sure. And anyone can cast fireballs and charm enemies, given enough support (eg magic items, like the UA wand of fireballs, that don't have a class requirement for use).

What distinguishes a "defender" is that s/he can hold the corridor by drawing primarily on his/her own resources rather than by being propped up by others. That's a matter of degree, but then so are many interesting distinctions in other areas of life too!

Only in 4e, those resources include never before seen abilities without which the characters couldn't "lock down enemies" or "control the melee". That is one reason why the 4e defender is unique.

When I think of the fighter or "whoever" running in and drawing attacks to himself, I don't think of him as a defender, but as a brave character who led the way and fought to kill the monsters, not defend anyone else. He is not the defender, but the party's front-line striker or attacker or leader or controller.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think Permerton's last point is very on target.

Are we talking about the ability to create different roles within a given class or are we talking about a given character being able to shift roles from situation to situation. Because, like Pemberton, I'm REALLY not seeing the second one unless you're playing a caster with a LOT of known spells. If your caster has mage armor, false life, stoneskin, and shield, he doesn't have a lot of other spells generally. A sorcerer, for example, doesn't get that many spells at each spell level. He's not going to be shifting between roles that easily.

Cleric might, although, in AD&D he couldn't simply because there weren't that many offensive cleric spells in AD&D. His casting was pretty much pure leader - heals and buffs.

And, let's not forget too, in 5e, there is no such thing as a fighter, cleric, wizard or rogue. That only exists for two levels. At 3rd level you have to choose your specialisation and that will, in a large way, determine you role. A crusader fighter is likely going to be a defender. A Battlemaster will likely be a striker, with a dash of leader. Or, as Imaro points out, you could be a controller, but, after choosing pole arms, feats to support that, and manoeuvres

People who like wizards choose them because they like being able to change their specialization on the fly. I've got a wizard who, in 4E terms, is normally a defender and a striker, and can play a controller (Confusion/Web/etc. plus his Repelling Blast from warlock dip) or a Leader (Stoneskin, Inspiring Leader, Rary's Telepathic Link) whenever he feels the need. Plus a summoner or diviner, or a taxi.

 

[Scow2]

Only in 4e, those resources include never before seen abilities without which the characters couldn't "lock down enemies" or "control the melee". That is one reason why the 4e defender is unique.

When I think of the fighter or "whoever" running in and drawing attacks to himself, I don't think of him as a defender, but as a brave character who led the way and fought to kill the monsters, not defend anyone else. He is not the defender, but the party's front-line striker or attacker or leader or controller.

If he's Front Line, he's a defender. Though, frankly, I prefer the terms "Soldier" or "Brute", depending on more subtle nuances in the character.

 

[SirAntoine]

If he's Front Line, he's a defender. Though, frankly, I prefer the terms "Soldier" or "Brute", depending on more subtle nuances in the character.

LOL! Uh, no. LOL.