D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[BryonD]

no, I address what you say with you and what someone else says with them... the exception is as a post gets longer since I am bad with names (even in real life not just internet) I do sometimes confuse mult arguments on the same point... that is an error I assume is ok, since we all make mistakes.

I pointed out (and went out of my way to) that "If you don't like 4e you are a h4ter" is wrong... The same way I hate being grouped with pathfinder haters is the same reason I don't group people... because you can not like something and still not be a hater, you can even point out why you don't... as long as you do so with respect and don't dismiss others...

I'm glad to hear you say that. But you are still embracing the language.
I'll simply offer that next time you accuse someone of attacking 4E, you step back and consider that you insist you are not calling people H4ters, when it sure it easy to sound that way.
You don't want people to think you are attackign them, stop jumping to the conclusion that they are attacking you.

"Everything is the same" is a slogan, a role if you will, that isn't stating anything but the basic montra of the actual haters... if you have a problem state it, not the slogan.

I already addressed this.

My whole "Same for me with pathfinder" is finding common ground... aka we both feel that way about a D&D... you in no way mean the same thing when you say things about 4e... The funny part is you accuse me of saying things are 'hurtful' when I was using them to try to build a dialog.

But it ISN'T common ground.
I'm not accusing you of saying things are hurtful. You flat out SAID " I get loud when people try to say untrue hurtful and/or antagonizing things about my so far fav edition

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?408712-What-are-the-Roles-now/page32#ixzz3QFos9z00"

and yet sooo many 4e things are hidden in 5e... and 4e (through ddi) is the only edition in history to have a income stream after the books went out of print...

Yep, but they are either things that people were not worked up over (vicious mockery), things that are super easy to remove (overnight healing), or things that ARE NOT there (heavy-handed roles)

well I guess 3e, and 2e, and 1e, and basic, and the orginal... and everything else lost too... so 4e is in good company at least.

I think there is a HUGE difference between being played out over a long period of time and what happened with 4E. If you don't see the distinction, so be it.

 

[Imaro]

I did.
All 4.

Riiight... I'm done.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I probably could have worked that out without the role labels, but the labels give me a guide to what sort of combat capabilities the designers think a PC of a given class is likely to default to. I'm pretty confident the 5e designers had similar sorts of ideas - they didn't just throw the class options together randomly, and the core maths of 5e looks to be reasonably tight. It's just that they are, to a larger extent, leaving it as an exercise for the reader/player to work out what the feasible range of options is.

And given the wizard defender theorycrafted on here, I'm thinking that what the feasible roles are doesn't necessarily match up to the same standards as in 4E. That doesn't mean that certain classes do not necessarily lean certain ways; the warlock, for example, very much obviously leans towards the striker role. But, at the same time, I think it is a case that you can more more easily adapt a class to a role that would be difficult to accomplish in 4E.

 

[BryonD]

How so?

I pointed out that, in 4e, role labels serve the purpose of guidelines. They tell a prospective player of a class what sort of class features/build options they can expect to choose from in building a PC of that class.

In AD&D, there are advancement rules that expressly penalise players who play their PCs in a way that differs from Gygax's conception of the relevant class role.

There aren't any evaluations there, just descriptions.

And I'm not arguing that. But you rejected the logic when applied to 3E in the prior post.

Why not?

In AD&D, if I want to play a character who can reliably deal significant amounts of damage in melee, I will choose a fighter. This is a mechanically-driven choice - fighters have good hit points, good AC and (especially if weapon specialisation is in play) good rates of attack with good chances to hit for good amounts of damage.

(If the game is very low level, and weapon specialisation is not in play, a cleric can also be a reasonable choice to play this role (comparable hp, comparable AC, comparable to hit and damage in a low-level, non-specialisation play environment. But this is not really evidence of flexibility so much as of oddities in the AD&D approach to class balance.)

First, you have already substantially moved the goal post from "dealing hit point damage" to "reliably deal significant amounts of damage in melee". In AD&D, a lot of characters found different ways to "deal hit point damage". This did not create a feeling of a particular role. It was entirely possible for a character to end up being what could be described as a role. But it is a world of difference between choosing to play a character in one way or another and have mechanics specifically designed to promote that game role.

I have no idea what you think a "role" is. Nor, therefore, what you think it means to "emphasise roles".

If you mean "having regard to the mechanical capabilities of the PC", then I have never encountered an RPG in which this is not relevant - after all, they nearly all have rules for building PCs whose mechanical abilities vary.

If a player describes, or conceives, his/her PC as a miracle working healer, but mechanically has no ability to restore hit points, remove debilitating conditions like blindness/deafness, etc, then what am I meant to make of that description/conception?

Once a character, in building his/her PC, has regard to the link between mechanical features of PC build and capabilities in the fiction, and notes that (in a class-based game) that distribution of features is neither random nor identical across classes, how is s/he not "emphasising roles" ie noting what the general mechanical thrust and capability of the various classes is?

It is clear that you don't understand.
It has been explained many times. I myself have had related debates with you numerous times over the years now.
Your failure to grasp alternative tastes on the matter is problematic.

 

[BryonD]

As far as I can see though, no one is actually arguing that. No one is arguing the merits of roles. What's being argued is the point you've already conceded - that roles have always existed in the game.

I think you deeply miss the point then.

What 4E did with roles was a massive deviation in the "at the table feel".

Simply because person A says "roles" meaning vague concept which has always had some degree of presence and person B uses the same word to means "roles as bolted onto the 4E ruleset", does not mean both definitions have equal meaning or historic standing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then I'm not sure I'm following you. When people talk about roles in the 4e context, they're talking about how 4e clearly defined for you that if you were class X, your role was Y. 5e isn't like that at all. So when you say that a 5e character is doing a 4e role, that's throwing people off. Well, me at least. Because the concept of "striker, defender, etc" isn't new to 4e, so they aren't really 4e only roles if you're talking about general concepts only. When you say a 5e character is doing a 4e role, I'm thinking you mean a role as how 4e defined them. Which is not an accurate comparison because a fighter in 5e is not always a defender as 4e describes it.

I told you from the beginning that they disengaged the role from class, and they did that at the end of 4e... Now 2 people playing the same class can take different roles... they even have 2 classes that have 2 primary roles they can switch between, all in 4e.

so when we say we see 4e role in 5e, we see them how they played 80-90% of time and mostly the way they were used at the end of 4e...

 

[BryonD]

I told you from the beginning that they disengaged the role from class, and they did that at the end of 4e... Now 2 people playing the same class can take different roles... they even have 2 classes that have 2 primary roles they can switch between, all in 4e.

so when we say we see 4e role in 5e, we see them how they played 80-90% of time and mostly the way they were used at the end of 4e...

But has already been pointed out, 4E fans ALSO saw them in prior editions. Hell, this whole thread is about how 4E fans see that in other editions.
What so many people seem to be missing is that it is not necessarily a reversible system.

5E (and 3E and 2E, etc) CAN be played with roles highly engrained into the system.
5E can pretend to be 4E. But it doesn't have to be 4E.
4E sucks at being anything other than 4E.

(I'm not claiming that ANY other system is AS GOOD at 4E as 4E is. For some 4E is truly the holy grail. That's cool.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Becaiuse D&D fans hate being told what to do.

DANGER: DO NOT PUSH BUTTON. JUST TAKE THE TREASURE.

boom. 4 dead PCs

that may just be it...

Maybe so, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, 4e explicitly told you that if you were Class X, you had role Y. 5e does not do that.

nore have I asked it to...

No it's not. These are actual restrictions and limitations (A Ranger is not a fighter with archery powers) since class also affected skills known... weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, hit points, etc. so no it's not a presentation thing... it's limitations being enforced mechanically. In 4e a PHB1 fighter was not a master of all combat... he was a master melee warrior and that was that. In 5e he's back to being a master of all combat or specialized depending upon your choices... there's a significant difference in these two things.

so we are back to "As long as they don't restrict me" but not "WHy can't they tell me a lable." no one has asked to change the mechanics...

 

[Imaro]

so we are back to "As long as they don't restrict me" but not "WHy can't they tell me a lable." no one has asked to change the mechanics...

The simple fact that so many people saw the so called roles?? labels?? whichever one of the various definition 4e fans are using in the thread at this point in 4e as restrictive, whether they were or weren't, is IMHO a good enough reason not to go down that road again. Simple fact is for however many gamers it had an adverse effect. I'm not trying to repeat the mistakes of the past. I'm sorry but contrary to @pemerton 's assertion earlier I'm not seeing these droves of players who are clueless bout building the character they really want in 5e... however since I admit I could be wrong and maybe I'm really just not noticing it... if people really want or need help knowing what the classes are good at, and the description in the books just aren't good enough there is an entire forum with handbooks on WotC's site to help optimize characters.

EDIT: And you still haven't answered the question of what exactly we would be labeling... moment to moment actions? Entire classes? Specific Builds?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And given the wizard defender theorycrafted on here, I'm thinking that what the feasible roles are doesn't necessarily match up to the same standards as in 4E. That doesn't mean that certain classes do not necessarily lean certain ways; the warlock, for example, very much obviously leans towards the striker role. But, at the same time, I think it is a case that you can more more easily adapt a class to a role that would be difficult to accomplish in 4E.

so, following that thought, putting something in the warlock that says just that... leans to strikere???