D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Ashrym]

So, after 60+ pages of threads we get to the point that ‘roles’ are just a bit of jargon? A point of pure semantics to argue about? Agreed.

Pretty much. It's a lot of debate over semantics. Classes clearly have different strengths and weaknesses, obviously, and everything after that is a desire to label and categorize but it's not necessary to label or categorize in order to express those strengths. The strengths exist regardless and that's what we often term when we define roles. If a new player asked me about a class because of unfamiliarity I could explain them easily enough.

 

[Sadras]

However, I would also add, in nearly 30 years of roleplaying, I have yet to find any player that needed instruction about how to play any particular Class they had chosen or what their ‘role’ is.

Hey don't knock it, self-discovery is very important to some for various reasons. Predominantly this term is associated with spiritual or a psychological enlightenment, but as hobbyists we have a tendency of not wanting to be excluded so in D&D achieving an understanding of knowledge of oneself (one's role), can supposedly lead to a heightened roleplaying awareness ergo a tickling (delightful) experience.

However most people tend to avoid being tickled and therefore never truly attain that plateau of self-realization, and thus the experience remains rather esoteric...

 

[pemerton]

I don't know why you attached your observation to (a single sentence from) my post. Free association?

Because you said that defenders would have been better called controllers. I explained why, although you are correct, there was a reason for prising fighters off wizards. I agree that "defender" is not especially intuitive.

 

[Imaro]

Do you get outraged by the bit where 5e tells you that fighters need STR? Or when you're building a DEX fighter do you just ignore the advice as a bit of a generalisation that doesn't apply to you?

Let me turn this back on you to contrast the difference, since I've posted it numerous times and it still hasn't been addressed... could you do this in 4e? Could I decide to make a Dex based fighter who could explore and be a primary archer (before the Slayer came out in 2010)? This is the difference certain limitations were hard-coded into the classes themselves which is not the same as the suggestion (with no mechanical enforcement whatsoever) that one ablity score be your primary.

A second point is I don't know about the Basic PDF (which numerous posters have already told you we are not using) but in the corebooks under the Fighter class it suggests Strength or Dexterity as primary for a fighter... so your example is kind of pointless.

 

[Imaro]

Another 4e legacy in 5e.

And the funny thing is, contrary to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s claim that many 5e fans want to deny everything 4e... no one is arguing it isn't... Hmmm, maybe because that spell isn't some subjective thing with nebulous definitions that is never actually even mentioned in the game.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't make any such assertion. I spoke expressly about 4e, and gave an anecdote from AD&D

You're correct I mixed up posts I apologize for that...

I think we can take it as a given that 5e is a better-designed system than 2nd ed AD&D.

What would be more interesting is if part of the design of 5e is such that any player, of whatever degree of experience, can build a character which will "automatically", as it were, make a valuable contribution to play however played.

Bounded accuracy probably helps support this as a design goal, but it still seems a bit idealistic to me. In the Basic PDF, on p 8, there is a big table that sets out the ability scores, and which classes they are good for. That is exactly the same sort of advice as roles. STR is said to be important for fighters - does that mean that WotC is telling players of fighters who dump STR and favour DEX and CON (for an exploration/archery-oriented character) that s/he is doing it wrong? That all fighters s/hould have high STR?

I think you are seriously underestimating bounded accuracy in this situation. I have been running a sandbox camapign as a test ru of 5e and have had PC's die on 3 occasion. Our rule (to stress test) was that when you dies you started a level behind the lowest in the party. The only concern I noticed in the lower levels was hit points and the disparity there... but as far as contributing to combat... None of the players felt like they couldn't contribute even when there was a 2 level difference... it was slightly harder for lower level characters to hit but only by 2 to 3 points at most. Now this is with some caveats... I was not using magical weapons or items of any kind as the setting is a low magic setting and we were using feats but no multi-classing.

As to you question about the ability scores... I answered that in a previous post, but I'll quickly reiterate... in the fighter section of the PHB it suggests you take Str or Dex as your primary... again as I and others have stated before what you need in so far as explanations about the class are in the actual class sections.

I'll leave it to some other budding sociologist to explain why roles cause outrage whereas the functionally near-identical ability score table is something I've never seen mentioned in a thread.

Because mechanical enforcement was at play in 4e... See my other post about the PHB1 fighter class and Dex.

So are you saying that WotC was wrong, and overly prescriptive, to include that ability score table?

No. I'm saying what I said originally everything you need description wise in 5e is pretty much under the class. Now if you can't be bothered to read the actual class section of a class you want to play I don't think roles will help either... just saying.

I can't remember who you were asking this of, but my answer would be that I"m talking about character builds - for practical purposes, sub-classes would probably be where I'd start.

And I don't think the subclasses fit into specific roles... there is too much choice and variety in most if not all of them. They aren't forced mechanically towards a specific role for the most part...

 

[yakuba]

Do you get outraged by the bit where 5e tells you that fighters need STR? Or when you're building a DEX fighter do you just ignore the advice as a bit of a generalisation that doesn't apply to you?

What part of 5e is that? The quick build section in the Fighter class description opens by saying that one should make either Strength or Dexterity your highest stat (5e PHB, p. 71). Moreover the opening section of section of the Fighter class description opens by emphasizing the ability of the Fighters to fill multiple combat roles.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Because you said that defenders would have been better called controllers. I explained why, although you are correct, there was a reason for prising fighters off wizards. I agree that "defender" is not especially intuitive.

Oh, you thought I wanted them lumped together? No, I just wanted a better name. You could still call wizards something different if you wanted--but I found "defender" a real bait-and-switch at the time since they didn't do any defending.

 

[Imaro]

I actually found that the main limiting system for 4e was not so much the role that you were given but the powers themselves. If you want to be a dex based fighter then you were limited by the powers which were all Strength vs defence which really prevented many character concepts and builds.

Honest question... do you think this tied into role? I mean Dex is the primary ranged stat, and you really can't defend (at least not as the fighter does in 4e) from a distance, so in order to enforce/strengthen the ties to that role you make the powers Str dependent and based around melee as opposed to ranged combat....

 

[pemerton]

What part of 5e is that?

It is a table of ability scores on p 8 of the Basic PDF. Given that the Basic PDF is mostly text and tables taken from the PHB, I assume that the same table appears in the PHB.

It says that STR is "important for fighters".

I don't know about the Basic PDF (which numerous posters have already told you we are not using) but in the corebooks under the Fighter class it suggests Strength or Dexterity as primary for a fighter... so your example is kind of pointless.

Does the PBH for 5e not have a big table of ability scores that says STR is important for fighters?

Also, I don't understand why the Basic PHB is not relevant. It is the most widely and easily available 4e core rulebook, and is intended to provide a player with everything s/he needs to play the game.

Let me turn this back on you to contrast the difference, since I've posted it numerous times and it still hasn't been addressed... could you do this in 4e? Could I decide to make a Dex based fighter who could explore and be a primary archer (before the Slayer came out in 2010)?

Not without going hybrid.

You could make a DEX-based warrior who uses archery; that character is in the PHB (it is a ranger option).

You could also make a STR/DEX based character who shifts between archery and melee. In the PHB that character is a ranger option; with the PHB 3 it could be a hybrid fighter-ranger.

Using Martial Power 2 you can also give your DEX-based ranger DEX-based melee ability. Using PHB 3 you could also make a hybrid ranger-rogue who uses DEX in melee and for archery.

My question is: if a DEX-based warrior archer (with or without STR as a complementary ability) can be built in the system, why does it matter that the class does or doesn't have the label "fighter" attached to it?