D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[GMforPowergamers]

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

we would lable the big parts of class put there and why... we would be making keywords that help guide someone WHO IS INTRESTED, but not restricting someone who is not...

again, the answer to "Why are all rogue trained to hit harder?" or "Why do all cleric's and Bard's have healing spells but not sorcerer or warlock?" or "Do I have to take heavy armor if I am prof in it?"

by the way all 3 of those have been asked some of them by D&D vets...

 

[BryonD]

I've put these two quotes together because I think the first once is a nice instance of the phenomenon that the second one describes.

When I read p 16 of the PHB, it never occurred to me that the game was telling me what a fighter, or cleric, or whatever should do. I read it as describing what, by default, a character of that class is likely to do. So I read it as basically giving me some shorthand build advice: if you want to play a melee-oriented, "centre of the scrum" character, choose fighter or paladin; if you want to play a "force mulitplier" character, choose cleric or warlord, etc.

This would all be well and good, except that the mechanics of 4E anticipate and reinforce the gamist elements of these roles in a much more heavy-handed manner than many people were accustomed to experiencing, or found enjoyable. It isn't about passing this off as what the character "should" do and whether or not the player simply chooses to run with that or not. It is about how the game puts those expectations into the mechanics and constantly remind the player of the "should". Even if you ignore it every time, putting a character on a set of game mechanics designed to play to form is different than playing a game with a set of mechanics designed to capture the feel of an individual.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

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

Um... could you reword this? I don't understand what you're asking.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Um... could you reword this? I don't understand what you're asking.

if we can all agree what you said is atleast mostly true

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.

would there be harm in asking that warlocks get labled that way... not "THOU MUST BE A STRIKER" but "Hey this class was designed and leans to the striker role..."

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

if we can all agree what you said is atleast mostly true

would there be harm in asking that warlocks get labled that way... not "THOU MUST BE A STRIKER" but "Hey this class was designed and leans to the striker role..."

It would create arguments and people claiming that playing the class as anything other than a striker would be playing the game outside of the way it was intended to be played.

However, saying the class leans towards a striker role, but is best played as the player wishes, drops the hint that it was designed a certain way while eliminating the arguments about how it's supposed to be played.

So, in text, acknowledging it leans a certain way but being careful about wording isn't an issue. IIRC, the 5E PHB actually does this a couple of times in the introductory chapters.

 

[SirAntoine]

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

It would be repeating established information and the term needs to be two or more words long so it's not misleading and so unintuitive.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It would be repeating established information and the term needs to be two or more words long so it's not misleading and so unintuitive.

agreed... infact like alignment imagine a way of putting 2 together, instead of Lawful-good have face-striker...

 

[SirAntoine]

Defender should be called heavy cover instead, and be distinguished between melee and missile. A character can specialize in providing heavy melee cover or heavy missile cover.

Controller should be called unstoppable magic, and be distinguished between arcane and divine. A character can specialize in using unstoppable arcane magic or unstoppable divine magic.

Leader should be called force multiplier, and be distinguished between magical healing and martial prowess. A character can specialize in being a force magical healing multiplier or a force martial prowess multiplier.

Striker should be called light cover, and be distinguished between melee and missile. A character can specialize in providing light melee cover or light missile cover.

 

[Hussar]

Let's agree to disagree.

Why did Wizards of the Coast take the roles out in your opinion?

Because of fans like Exploder Wizard above who took the definitions to mean far more than they did and spent years bitching about it to all and sundry. They had to stealth add 4e elements to keep those people happy.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

About intuitiveness: "striker" is intuitive and "controller" is somewhat intuitive. My brief experience with 4E was that the term "defender" was counterintuitive: defenders did none of the defensive things I was expecting them to. "Controller" would have been a better label.

In contrast, in 5E you can very feasibly build someone who supplies defense to the whole party. I won't call him a "defender" because that term is now ambiguous, but a paladin with Protection style or Lore Bard with Cutting Word is quite fun, not to mention protection auras, bardic inspiration, and the Bless spell. I guess we could call that a "protector" although that sounds like Phssth(pok).