D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[pemerton]

On the issue of fighters and STR: in AD&D the only way to get a 10% XP bonus, if playing a fighter, was to have STR 16+. So fighters based on DEX rather than STR suffer a de facto XP penalty. Looks more prescriptive to me than anything in 4e, given that there is no other ranged warrior option in the system (unlike 4e, which gives the archer ranger - an highly effective PC that is mechanically very easy to play - right out of the box).

 

[BryonD]

I'm sure some people didn't find 4e enjoyable.

And I know that some people didn't find D&D's "heavy handed" class system, in which only fighters can wear heavy armour (and thereby achieve high ACs without magical assistance) or only fighters can wield the heaviest weapons (and thereby achieve maximum melee capability). So they played games designed to "capture the feel of an individual", such as RM or RQ (or, later, HERO or GURPS).

The whole point of a class system is to channel character building so as to produce characters who "play to form". And of course it's no great surprise that different people like different forms.

All true. And all completely irrelevant to the point.

If you want to discuss the myriad legitimate reasons for not liking AD&D or 3E or whatever, then that is fine.
The point at hand is the difference in how roles work specifically within 4E and how that played its part in 4E being less popular overall than other editions, the myriad reasons notwithstanding.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

in 4e could I make:

a warrior who was an archer: YES
a warrior who is quick and agle: YES
a warrior who could buff and heal: YES
a warrior as complex and powerful as any caster at above 1/2 way through max level: YES

in 5e can you make:

a warrior who was an archer: YES
a warrior who is quick and agle: YES
a warrior who could buff and heal: Maybe
a warrior as complex and powerful as any caster at above 1/2 way through max level: not on a bet


but 4e was the restrictive one ????

 

[BryonD]

but 4e was the restrictive one ????

Recognize you are not talking to me here.

I very much like the 5E core system. But they need to fill some serious gaps in the published scope (IMO). I could certainly create my own content here, but I'd like and happily PAY for more from WotC.
(And for the record, I'm fine without any heal shouting warriors)

I'd also say that you are spinning "restrictive" in two different ways that unfairly compare the systems.

5E doesn't have this content formally published. But it is simply a lack of content.
4E could have ten million published classes and the gamist feel of the core system would still restrict how it played.

 

[Imaro]

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".

We've answered you already the book also notes Dex is an equal alternative to Str for a fighter...

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

Yes, and it also has a section smack dab in the fighter's description that says Dex is an equal alternative... how many times do numerous posters have to repeat this... it would appear the table has an error... since we know for a fact the alternative of Dex is valid as staed in the fighter's description. Any way you look at it the book does make that information available.

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.

Really... after all the posts about how when discussing 4e it has to include everything... Kettle, here's the pot.

Not without going hybrid.

You don't have to multi-class to do this in 5e... more flexibility.

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

Yeah you could but then were getting into differences in skills, proficiencies, etc. or do fighters and rangers in 4e have the same ones?

You could also make a STR/DEX based character who shifts between archery and melee. In the PHB that character is a ranger option;

Do I get proficiency with heavy armors? Do I have equal hit points to a fighter? Do I have an equal amount of healing surges as the fighter? My 5e fighter does...and can be competent in archery and melee...

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.

Both systems have multi-classing but 5e (at least so far in the case of the fighter) has more flexibility within a base class.

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?

Because it's not just a label... it's weapon and armor proficiencies, it's skills, it's hit points, it's healing surges and so on.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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".

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

Setting aside the fact that you're presenting a horrible false analogy of "this attribute is important to this class" as equivalent to "if you're this class, this is what your role is", do you even have the PHB? Are you basing your argument and position about what a game is like based only on the limited basic information?

Okay then...

in 4e could I make:

a warrior who was an archer: YES
a warrior who is quick and agle: YES
a warrior who could buff and heal: YES
a warrior as complex and powerful as any caster at above 1/2 way through max level: YES

in 5e can you make:

a warrior who was an archer: YES
a warrior who is quick and agle: YES
a warrior who could buff and heal: Maybe
a warrior as complex and powerful as any caster at above 1/2 way through max level: not on a bet


but 4e was the restrictive one ????

What part of "4e explicitly tells you that if you're class X, your role is Y" that is hard for you to understand? No one is saying you can't have a class play a certain role in 4e, but we're telling you that 4e explicitly is telling the player what that role is. 5e does not do that. It is a very core and significant difference.

A player can technically play a flumph as a PC if they want in any edition, but because players are explicitly told which races are playable, that's what players are going to play.

Also, your argument is based off of subjective opinion for that last one, so you can throw it out the window right now. What is "powerful" in a game in the context of everything that occurs in a game? That is different from table to table, and isn't something you can measure in DPR.

Your sig is becoming more and more ironic. It's starting to remind me of Animal Farm, and I expect to you at some point change it to "I'm with D&D...Any Edition. But some editions are better than others.", because you sure try awfully hard to criticize every other edition as not as good as 4e via comparison.

 

[Imaro]

On the issue of fighters and STR: in AD&D the only way to get a 10% XP bonus, if playing a fighter, was to have STR 16+. So fighters based on DEX rather than STR suffer a de facto XP penalty. Looks more prescriptive to me than anything in 4e, given that there is no other ranged warrior option in the system (unlike 4e, which gives the archer ranger - an highly effective PC that is mechanically very easy to play - right out of the box).

But if you have two high scores in AD&D you could be an equally adept archer and melee fighter... without a penalty. $e just says no to the fighter being a decent archer regardless of scores or anything else. Why? Because none of his powers concern archery... thus at best he will always be a poor to mediocre archer.

 

[Minigiant]

Heh
Maybe card game style terms would have been better descriptors for roles.

Threats
Removal
Disruption
and ummm..
Combos?

I dunno.

 

[Imaro]

in 4e could I make:

snip
a warrior as complex and powerful as any caster at above 1/2 way through max level: YES

in 5e can you make:
snip
a warrior who could buff and heal: Maybe
a warrior as complex and powerful as any caster at above 1/2 way through max level: not on a bet


but 4e was the restrictive one ????

Yeah the first one in 5e is called the Battlemaster with the Rally, Distracting Strike, Goading attack... the Inspiring Leadership feat and so on...

As to your second point, in 5e a fighter can be a caster...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

]Also, your argument is based off of subjective opinion for that last one, so you can throw it out the window right now. What is "powerful" in a game in the context of everything that occurs in a game? That is different from table to table, and isn't something you can measure in DPR.

um... who said anything about DPR? you know what makes wizards far more powerful and complex... it isn't damage, it's options...

Your sig is becoming more and more ironic. It's starting to remind me of Animal Farm, and I expect to you at some point change it to "I'm with D&D...Any Edition. But some editions are better than others.", because you sure try awfully hard to criticize every other edition as not as good as 4e via comparison.

It's only Ironic when in a discussion (and I use the term loosely at this point) with people who disrespect one edition of another... because again, in the 4e form I would be considered a h4ter for wanting 4e to change and be better.

so I will again say this: Every edition has it's ups and downs... I have barely touched 5e yet, so I will hold off on it... You just HATE 4e so much that anyone who says "Hey X and Y where good" looks like the worlds largest 4e fan next to you.


What 5e could learn from BOTH 4e and 3e is to give a better more fleshed out series of maneuvers to the combat classes, ones useable more then everyonce in a while... Likeing the 3.5 Warblade and the 4e core fighter does not mean I am "Some editions ar better than others" it means "SOme editions DID this or that better then this other one."

during the playtest I was pushing for the 2e wizard, the 3e warlock, the 4e warlord, and the 3.5 warblade to all be represented in 5e... I also liked the idea of 3e prestige classes over 4e paragon paths. I even suggested putting race/prestige class so if you want to play a DWARF, or ELF as a class you could... I like Pathfinder's skill system better too. I also liked the 3.5 artificer and the 3.0 psionic classes. I wanted to split the rogue combat (skimisher) and the rogue skill monkey/rp stuff so you could play either or (maybe rename the combat end swash buckler) I also wanted a warror gish class like the ranger or paliden... my suggestion was to mix 3.5 dusk blade with 4e swordmage and pathfinder magus... I also suggested combining Defensives and saves, replace AC with toughness def, Reflex Def and Mental Def, then make the saves Will Save and Fort Save... I liked the HD mechanic but wished the healing spells keyed off it more (aka instead of cure light healing 1d8 it healed 1HD of target+wis mod of caster)

so yea, I think that I can claim to be pretty spread in my D&D preference... the fact that I like 4e in no way discounts my ability to like D&D in general...