D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[pemerton]

My rational for the idea of interposing something between the enemy and the mage's body is the fact the fighter does the same thing. Difference is, that mage build is using magic instead of armor

I think taking this approach to its limit eliminates defender and controller as distinct roles. (Which may or may not be objectionable - I have no strong view, but the 4e design team clearly wanted to capture something they regarded as important in the legacy of the D&D fighter.)

The reason I describe the fighter in my 4e game as a controller as well as a defender is with a reach 3 (polearm plus Eternal Defender) and many close burst 2 attacks (polearm plus an epic feat whose name escapes me) and Polearm Gamble combined with the fighter ability to end movement on a successful OA (and due to his WIS bonus he generally misses OAs only on a 1 or 2, and has a paragon path Warpriest feature that lets him reroll 1s) he can exercise a high degree of battlefield control without having to put his body directly on the line.

In my experience, prior to 4E, if you were focused on drawing damage to yourself, it didn't matter if you were in melee or not or what class you were... you were probably going to die, so every time it happened was a special circumstance. 4E, at least for those I know, introduced the radical new idea that you could do that and reasonably expect not to die.

I think that is a major change (innovation?) of 4e. Though it also fits with some of my memories of name-level AD&D.

The fighter in my 4e game is a dwarf who has second wind as a free action (race plus feat) twice per encounter (feat) for two surges per go (Cloak of the Walking Wounded) with an enhanced surge value, especially when bloodied (Dwarven Durability feat plus some sort of magical Belt). So he is particularly adept at soaking damage, making up for the fact that the party's "official" leader is a hybrid ranger-cleric who has only 1x/enc Healing Word. The other defender is a paladin who has second wind as a free action when bloodied (Questing Knight paragon path), a ridiculous number of surges due to a magic item that lets him take surges from CHA rather than CON (Ring of Tenacious Will), and is not above using Lay on Hands on himself if needs be.

It's probably not surprising, given this, that I see the self-healing elements of the 5e fighter as consolidating a tradition rather than departing from one.

 

[SirAntoine]

The terminological point seems to me a relatively small quibble. You are looking at it from within the fiction - the character is brave; the role label has more of an eye on metagame function - by drawing and absorbing attacks, the character keeps those attacks off the other PCs, and thereby defends them.

The mechanics in 4e are unique. I've discussed this in multiple posts upthread. In AD&D, melee was sticky by default. In 3E melee was non-sticky by default, due to very generous 5' step rules. 4e kept a version of the 3E rules as its default, but then established particular mechanics available to certain characters, and concentrated primarily but not exclusively in certain classes (with fighters as the paradigm), in order to replicate the stickiness of AD&D when the melee involved the characters who chose those mechanics.

The net upshot is that if you write the story of a 4e melee with a fighter at the centre of the scrum, it will read much like the story of an AD&D melee with the fighter at the centre of the scrum. But if you move from the fiction to the gameplay, the mechanical pathway to that fictional outcome was different in each case; and more specific and intricate in the case of 4e.

A footnote to the above: I think we can identify at least three reasons why 4e uses different mechanical devices from AD&D to achieve melees in which enemies are locked down in a scrum with the fighter at the centre of the action.

(1) 4e favours mechanical intricacy as a general feature of its design. It is a game for RPGers who enjoy working with mechanics.

(2) 4e is a successor-game to 3E, so it's default approach to melee is closer to 3E's non-sticky melee than AD&D's sticky melee. Therefore, to achieve AD&D-style stickiness in the special case of the fighter (and similar characters), new mechanics are needed.

(3) 4e's approach, while mechanically more complex than AD&D, makes it easier to support different sorts of character builds for whom melee is not sticky, like the ranger and rogue (who have many ways of generating multi-square shifts, or - in 3E terms - 5' steps of a lot more than 5 feet). In AD&D this sort of character was hard to implement; the only version I know of is the Thief-Acrobat with its Evasion special ability, which is complex in wording and, in my personal although admittedly long-ago experience, not all that easy to use and adjudicate in play either.

Thank you for this post. It was a pleasure to read and I learned a lot I never understood or would have been able to piece together on my own. I am left wondering if I should try to improve AD&D to provide for more freedom of movement in combat for classes like the ranger and rogue. I shall have to take the 4e roles more seriously.

 

[SirAntoine]

Okay, I understand where you are coming from.

I will say that, yes, I believe any given character can fulfill any given role in combat, but that if they are not built for that roll it can be extremely difficult. It is possible to have a fighter in the Basic rules act as a controller, but he's going to majorly suck at it. Just like a 4E fighter could be built to fill the controller role, but would still majorly suck at it.

That said, fulfilling a role and being effective at it is an entirely different matter; no, it is not possible for any given character to do that under normal circumstances. I can sit here and cite special circumstances until our grandchildren die of old age that show it is possible, but I believe you are talking about in general. And in general... no, it is not possible.

If you go back and look at my posts much earlier in this thread, you will see me saying that at any given time characters I played with could fill any given role; this is true, but that's because we as a roleplaying group would often intentionally set up the special circumstances that made it possible for classes like the rogue to play roles like defender. Thus, why it is I can give you an answer now that contradicts that earlier stance without actually changing my stance or actually contradicting what I said.

Now, that any given class can fulfill any given role? That I definitely agree with. And it has been my stance all along. I don't disagree it was possible in 4E; in fact, I think 4E's greatest problem is that it gave the illusion it's not possible. I can see several ways to play the 4E wizard as a striker or a defender with ease. It's all in how you apply your magical firepower

4e seems to have given the impression its four roles are the only ones, like they can divide all characters' different abilities and specialties into them symmetrically. They don't fit so neatly.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Okay, you KNOW you're getting tired when you go hunting for two laugh clicks you made and discover they were placed on the wrong posts on the entirely wrong thread. Last post, then bed.

I think taking this approach to its limit eliminates defender and controller as distinct roles. (Which may or may not be objectionable - I have no strong view, but the 4e design team clearly wanted to capture something they regarded as important in the legacy of the D&D fighter.)

The reason I describe the fighter in my 4e game as a controller as well as a defender is with a reach 3 (polearm plus Eternal Defender) and many close burst 2 attacks (polearm plus an epic feat whose name escapes me) and Polearm Gamble combined with the fighter ability to end movement on a successful OA (and due to his WIS bonus he generally misses OAs only on a 1 or 2, and has a paragon path Warpriest feature that lets him reroll 1s) he can exercise a high degree of battlefield control without having to put his body directly on the line.

I can see your point in that, and that's one way I would play a fighter as a controller.

I think that is a major change (innovation?) of 4e. Though it also fits with some of my memories of name-level AD&D.

The fighter in my 4e game is a dwarf who has second wind as a free action (race plus feat) twice per encounter (feat) for two surges per go (Cloak of the Walking Wounded) with an enhanced surge value, especially when bloodied (Dwarven Durability feat plus some sort of magical Belt). So he is particularly adept at soaking damage, making up for the fact that the party's "official" leader is a hybrid ranger-cleric who has only 1x/enc Healing Word. The other defender is a paladin who has second wind as a free action when bloodied (Questing Knight paragon path), a ridiculous number of surges due to a magic item that lets him take surges from CHA rather than CON (Ring of Tenacious Will), and is not above using Lay on Hands on himself if needs be.

It's probably not surprising, given this, that I see the self-healing elements of the 5e fighter as consolidating a tradition rather than departing from one.

I personally didn't have the same experience with prior to 3E, but I have to say it's one of the things I'm glad for. The idea you are no longer simply sacrificing a character to be a defender... That is more of how it should have been.

And, also, I did some math. I managed to get the AC of the fighter as high as 33 and the AC of the wizard as high as 32. I suspect 32-33 are pretty much the top of what you can expect for PCs and most will be below that. Note this uses a LOT of magic items to accomplish. I'll post the math on this tomorrow, after I've slept some.

It shows they both can accomplish the high ACs on about par. Which is rather surprising; I was expecting the Fighter to beat the wizard by a lot more than just one point of AC. So, I'm guessing the wizard's major limit on acting as a defender isn't AC, but their HP. Which is why they need spells to eliminate the capacity of damage to even reach them to compensate.

 

[pemerton]

I did some math. I managed to get the AC of the fighter as high as 33 and the AC of the wizard as high as 32. I suspect 32-33 are pretty much the top of what you can expect for PCs and most will be below that. Note this uses a LOT of magic items to accomplish. I'll post the math on this tomorrow, after I've slept some.

It shows they both can accomplish the high ACs on about par. Which is rather surprising; I was expecting the Fighter to beat the wizard by a lot more than just one point of AC. So, I'm guessing the wizard's major limit on acting as a defender isn't AC, but their HP. Which is why they need spells to eliminate the capacity of damage to even reach them to compensate.

From my lower knowledge base, I don't feel that surprised about AC, just because Mage Armour + 20 DEX = 18, which is equivalent to plate; and it seems that the wizard has no reason not to pump DEX as a second stat. But I look forward to the maths.

I'd also be interested in any views you have on whether bounded accuracy breaks down, or rather if it is an excess of magic items that is being shown to be the cause of potential breakdown. My default assumption would be the latter.

 

[pemerton]

4e seems to have given the impression its four roles are the only ones, like they can divide all characters' different abilities and specialties into them symmetrically.

The roles were clearly about combat; other roles (eg "face", "trap guy", etc) were left mostly (not exclusively) the province of the skill and ritual systems, and there is a lot of flexibility across classes in respect of these. (In my 4e party the paladin is the face, the sorcerer/bard the slightly nastier face, and the invoker/wizard is the skill monkey.)

Within combat, I think they were building off the base of 3E, which itself was built of the base of AD&D, but also looking at the D&D legacy of the four dominant classes, and trying to reach some sort of accommodation between mechanics, fiction and function that fit within the constraints imposed by these various considerations.

For what it's worth, I think the most important thing to keep in mind about 4e-style roles is that if you change the mechanics you change the roles; so you can't identify roles just by thinking about what is happening in the fiction. Striker and controller, for instance, are different only because hit point damage in D&D mechanics is different from condition-imposition. Change the legacy and you change the roles too, I think: 4e vacillated on whether AoE damage is striker or controller because of the legacy tradition of wizards being both condition-imposers and artillery; and as I've been discussing with [MENTION=6777649]Nergal Pendragon[/MENTION], defenders can be seen as a sub-set of controllers who are called out as distinct because of a legacy desire to distinguish fighters (with their high AC and hp) from wizards (who use magic to keep threats from directly targeting their AC and/or hp).

Thank you for this post. It was a pleasure to read and I learned a lot I never understood or would have been able to piece together on my own. I am left wondering if I should try to improve AD&D to provide for more freedom of movement in combat for classes like the ranger and rogue. I shall have to take the 4e roles more seriously.

I'm glad you found the post helpful. Do you have experience of the Thief-Acrobat ability in AD&D? Mine was long ago, and I was not anywhere near as good at understanding and deploying RPG mechanics as I am (or think I am!) now.

 

[SirAntoine]

Ok, again, where are you getting this.

Any defender in 4e has powers that allow him to be sticky - thus drawing attacks to himself and away from everyone else. That's the definition of defender. If you walk past the defender, the fighter is going to smack you and cancel your movement, the paladin is going to cause you pain because you didn't attack him and the other defender classes will do other stuff.

Leaders don't lead? Ummm, what do you call all those powers which grant additional actions to allies? What is my warlord doing when he grants you an extra move action outside of your turn?

Strikers typically cause lots of damage (or at least effects) on single targets and then move away, making it very hard to pin the striker down. Warlock is teleporting all over the battlefield, rogues get to shift everywhere. That sort of thing.

Yes, if you define the roles by single points, you're right, the roles don't really mean anything. But, you're ignoring the rest of the role in order to make your point. Defenders don't make an ally harder to hit, typically, they defend you by interposing themselves between you and whatever is trying to eat you.

I think the word you're looking for is unintuitive. The names for the 4e roles don't mean what they do in everyday language. You have to learn what 4e means by them and what you're talking about in other editions of D&D. Look up the words in the dictionary to get a picture of this. The meanings within D&D are sometimes even esoteric.

Naturally, the rules of a fantasy role playing game such as this need to be learned, but when we start changing the meaning of words we use in everyday language we damage our ability to tell stories with the game and we leave a lot of people behind.

 

[SirAntoine]

I'm glad you found the post helpful. Do you have experience of the Thief-Acrobat ability in AD&D? Mine was long ago, and I was not anywhere near as good at understanding and deploying RPG mechanics as I am (or think I am!) now.

No. I looked at it a few times when I was making characters long ago for 1e, and it seemed a complicated for that system. I never liked the concept, but if it was in the cartoon it was popular.

 

[pemerton]

it seemed a complicated for that system

I agree that the thief-acrobat evasion ability is complicated.

If you end up doing anything about melee mobility in AD&D, and post it, stick a mention of me in it if you think to do so! - I'd be curious to see what you come up with.

 

[pemerton]

The names for the 4e roles don't mean what they do in everyday language.

Agreed.