D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Hussar]

Pick one definition. Post it. Abide by it.
.

Also, let me ask you... would a fighter holding a door shut to prevent mobs from coming through it to attack their allies be a defender action? After all, that's exactly what the wizard is doing.

No it would not be.

Why?

Because the enemies are not capable of attacking. There is nothing to defend. If anything that's action denial which is a controllery thing to do.

 

[Hussar]

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.

This I agree with.

4e was terrible for trying to tell instead of suggest.

 

[Kramodlog]

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

That is true of any edition. A fighting man could be a woman. And use magic items, which wasn't restricted to the magic user! *gasp*

 

[Hussar]

And how many definitions of "level"?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And how many definitions of "level"?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html

yea, D&D needs to have MORE terms not less, another reason why the idea of labled roles is such a good one.

 

[ExploderWizard]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html

yea, D&D needs to have MORE terms not less, another reason why the idea of labled roles is such a good one.

I will have to disagree. There are already plenty of actual words with real meaning. Use them and cut down on the jargon bloat. That kind of stuff just raises the barrier of entry for new players. The game already has enough jargon without inventing more needlessly.

 

[Hussar]

I will have to disagree. There are already plenty of actual words with real meaning. Use them and cut down on the jargon bloat. That kind of stuff just raises the barrier of entry for new players. The game already has enough jargon without inventing more needlessly.

Not really though. I mean, the idea of defender and striker are pretty intuitive. Leader and controller might be a bit less instantly graspable, but, it doesn't take a whole lot to figure it out. I mean, if I say, "This new class is mostly striker with a dash of controller", most people are going to understand that without too much work. We're looking at a class that mostly deals large damage to single targets with a smattering of battlefield movement restricting powers. Not too much of a stretch.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not really though. I mean, the idea of defender and striker are pretty intuitive. Leader and controller might be a bit less instantly graspable, but, it doesn't take a whole lot to figure it out. I mean, if I say, "This new class is mostly striker with a dash of controller", most people are going to understand that without too much work. We're looking at a class that mostly deals large damage to single targets with a smattering of battlefield movement restricting powers. Not too much of a stretch.

Oh its intuitive all right. It tells me that classes are categorized solely on combat utility and that unless I'm looking for FIGHT! the rpg, I really don't need to give the game much of a look.

 

[Scow2]

LOL! Uh, no. LOL.

So rogues in 4E are defenders?

Because if they're stabbing someone in the back and they're not on the front line, you just lost your wizard or cleric to betrayal.

No. Rogues are Skirmishers/Lurkers. Unless you build one to be a guy who, instead of reacting to the battlefield and using careful positioning/timing and precise bursts, just walks up and trades blows with enemies. Defenders

You can build a Warlord and Barbarian to sort of be Defenders in 4e - or at least the 5e equivalent of a defender (Soldiers) I explained it much earlier in the thread. A soldier is a straightforward combatant, and forms the skeleton the rest of the party functions around.

 

[Imaro]

I remain unconvinced that 4e roles (by which I mean roles as they are presented, defined, etc. in the 4e corebooks) are the same "roles" found in 5e which in a nutshell I consider to be the classes and their descriptions. Furthermore I still haven't seen any benefit that could be derived in 5e from adding labels on top of classes that in their description already tell the players what to expect. As for how they should best use abilities...how about they should best be used however you can creatively think of for the situation?