I've always sort of assumed that the point of levels was to indicate how powerful a character was, and that low level magic would therefore be less powerful than high level might. I suppose when people want incredible powers from magic and the fast advancement from being low level, well I suppose it's only fair to give them what they want. Not if they want incredible powers from might and fast advancement from being low level though, because that isn't fair to the people who only want that for magic users.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E What are the Roles now?
- Thread starter Unwise
- Start date
I've always sort of assumed that the point of levels was to indicate how powerful a character was, and that low level magic would therefore be less powerful than high level might. I suppose when people want incredible powers from magic and the fast advancement from being low level, well I suppose it's only fair to give them what they want. Not if they want incredible powers from might and fast advancement from being low level though, because that isn't fair to the people who only want that for magic users.
Why is the analogy false? The analogy strikes me as quite apt: both are bits of advice on character building and character play located early in the relevant text (p 16 of the 4e PHB, p 8 of the Basic PDF). Both suggest that a fighter is intended to be played (at least by default) in a particular fashion.
I'm not dismissing Imaro's point. I'm rebutting it.
There is no difference between being told that fighters are defenders, and being told that STR matters to fighters. Both are bits of guidance offered to would-be builders and players of PCs.
Similarly, there is no difference between having a more nuanced bit of text stating that fighters might focus on DEX rather than STR, and having a more nuanced bit of text that tells you how to build a fighter whose goal is maximum damage. Both add nuance to the earlier generalisation.
I know Imaro thinks there is a difference, but he has failed to explain what it is. I guess you think there is a difference too; I'm keen to learn what it is.
I know there is a bit in the fighter description that talks about DEX; it is found on p 24 of the Basic PDF. But I don't see how that is any more relevant than this bit of text, from p 76 of the 4e PHB in the fighter class description:
You can choose any fighter powers you like for your character, but fighters naturally fall into two basic groups: the great weapon fighter and the guardian fighter. . . . [As a] great weapon fighter you’re interested in dealing out the most damage you can.
In other words, a fighter can be played as a striker, and the 4e PHB tells us as much - just not on p 16 under the "roles" heading.
For what it's worth, I don't think the table is an error at all. It is a simplified guideline for players new to building characters for the game. Much like the discussion in the PHB, p 16, is a simplified guideline for players new to building characters for the game. Anyone who has experience with mechanically heavy RPGs is going to be able to look over the fighter powers in the PHB and see how to build a fighter to do striker-level damage (including leveraging combat challenge to support that) or see how to build a warlock as a single-target controller.
If any player, or would-be player, of 4e works out that a fighter can be played as a damage-dealer (ie a striker) but then continues to feel resentment that the PHB identified the fighter's role as defender, I am baffled. That would be like resenting the 5e designers because, in a short-cut table, they remarked that STR is important for fighters even though that is not strictly true.
What part of "5e explicity says that STR is important for fighters" is hard to understand? 5e does do that. Even though it is not actually true of the game.
What part of "4e expicitly calls out a fighter build as having the function of dealing as much damage as possible" is hard to understand? Much like the reference to DEX in the fighter class description in 5e, it adds a complexifying gloss to the discussion of roles on p 16. Maybe you never read that part of the fighter class description?
As I have explained above, there is a good reason for the rulebook to state the narrow proposition about building and playing a fighter, even though it is false. I have explained what that is earlier in this post.
I'm not ignoring 5e's core books.
The existence of 5e's core books doesn't change the fact that the most accessible version of the game contains a table stating that STR is important for fighters, although that is not true (and is contradicted by p 24 of the same document).
The existence of 5e's core books doesn't change the fact that some PCs built using those core books will be identical to the PCs that can be built using the PDF. Do you think a fighter build using the PDF can fill any role, depending on the desires of the player at the time? If not - and I don't see how such a character will ever act as the party's main healer - then it is not true, as some have asserted, that any 5e character can fill any role.
Will a Champion fighter who pumps STR and CON, who takes the Great Weapon and Defense fighting styles, who wears heavy armour, and who is not Proficient in Stealth, be able to act as top-of-the-line archer?
If not - and I think that such a character is not a top-of-the-line archer, lacking mobility and stealth - then it is even moreso not true, as some have asserted, that any 5e character can fill any role.
If you look at my posts in this thread you will see that I have actually tried to analyse the mechanics of 4e and explain how those mechanics, relatively naturally (once a bit of D&D legacy is also taken into account) lead to the 4e roles. I have also tried to look at mechanical resemblances and differences between 4e and 5e which would be relevant to the emergence of similar (or perhaps different) roles in 5e - such as the greater flexibility in the combat movement rules (which makes granting free movement to allies, and imposing forced movement on enemies, less important), and the reduced mechanical duration of combat (which means that imposed non-hp-loss conditions have fewer rounds in which to make a difference).
In my view, continuing that analysis has the potential to be productive. And it opens up new questions, too, about design space, viable PC builds, and their likely appeal to fans of various modes of RPG play and mechanical system. Instead, Imaro and Sacrosanct (and you?) are trying to prove some proposition that I don't fully understand, and that doesn't strike me as very important, but is something like "Classes in 5e support a wider range of builds than classes in 4e" - which is fairly obviously true but seems basically irrelevant to the question of whether or not 5e has roles like 4e, and which classes and sub-classes best, or most easily, fill those roles.
Which players are you talking about? The same ones who read the table that tells them STR is important for fighters, and therefore refuse to dump STR for DEX in building their archer fighter?
Personally I think these players are either very inexperienced in playing mechanically heavy RPGs, or are very hypothetical. But that's just based on my personal experience. Maybe your RPGing world is full of them. If so, commiserations.
Why?
Upthread I was told that a fighter who becomes a healer by taking feats X and Y is comparable to a cleric or a 4e warlord - does 4e count as more flexible because a warlord can still heal even if the player spends all his/her feat slots on skill training?
Hybrids are no more optional in 4e than feats in 5e: the PC build system works fine without them, but without them not every character concept can be easily realised.
It's not true that your 5e fighter with a DEX suitable for being a topline archer will be as competent in melee as any other fighter. That DEX will require sacrifcing ability scores in STR or in CON.
As far as heavy armour is concerned, a 4e ranger can acquire proficiency in that with a feat (a core part of the 4e build system), although s/he has no real reason to do so given that Hide + DEX will give a comparable AC.
As far as skills are concerned, the archer-ranger gets more than the fighter. The only skills to which a fighter has access but the ranger doesn't are Intimidate and Streetwise. In exchange, the ranger gets access to such skills as Perception and Stealth, both fairly core to a top-line archer. If your point is that the 5e background system is superior to 4e's pre-PHB2 approach to skills (PHB 2 introduces flexible backgrounds as a type of forerunner to 5e) I don't think that is controversial: I think the background system in 5e is acknowledged almost universally as a strong element in its PC build mechanics.
Finally, as far as class abilities go - colour me confused: if the complaint is that 4e makes everyone play guitar the same way, then why is it a problem that a DEX-based archer does not get access to the defender class abilities (marking and mark enforcement, OA-movement-ending, and additional hit points and surges) that are fairly central to the f4e ighter's identity? Presumably the reason you're building a DEX-based archer is that you don't want to play a melee-oriented defender.
As per REH's Conan stories, I tend to incline towards might being more powerful than magic in combat. In an RPG, players of magic-users almost always get more flexibility out of combat - they shouldn't be better at combat too!
Conan isn't supernatural in the fiction - but compared to what real human beings can do he is very lucky and effective. In a D&D-style RPG this requires mechanics - eg the ability to ignore roles below a certain number, good saving throws, etc.
Aragorn's ability to turn the tide by rousing his allies' spirits isn't supernatural either - but in D&D how are you going to implement that if not in the form of hit point restoration and/or combat buffs (along the lines of the 4e warlord)?
"Combat as war" doesn't speak to any of this (and tends not to support either Conan-esque or LotR-esque play, because it does not reward Conan-esque boldness nor LotR-esque providentially-guided rightenousness).
I think that [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION]'s point is that there is an edition of D&D that does support these tropes as inherent in its class design.
For what it's worth, I agree with him. The warlord, in particular, is a breakthrough in D&D for enabling characters who resemble Tolkien's battle captains; and the system does more than any other version of D&D (5e excepted? - reports seem to be mixes) to put martial characters (whether Conan-esque or otherwise) on a par with magic-using ones, even at upper levels.
Imaro
Legend
Okay as a common courtesy I'm going to ask that you please stop clipping parts of numerous posters replies and sticking them all in one post... Especially when they become as long as this one. It's a barrier to communication, eliminates context (whether purposefully or not) and honestly I'm getting kind of tired of having to sift through and cut out relevant sections... that said I am just going to go through the entire thing and post replies...
You haven't rebutted it, what you've done is shift goalposts...
Unless of course there are mechanics that enforce this "suggestion"... like marks, no ranged powers, etc.
And yet again... the mechanics enforce you being a defender... a Fighter will be a sub-par striker...
I don't think you are keen to learn it because I've stated the difference numerous times and the only thing you seem keen on is ignoring the difference...
Because that section there due to the mechanical enforcement in 4e is telling you how to get the most damage out of a Fighter as a defender, that still doesn't make him a striker. Like I said earlier the Fighter ends up being a sub-par striker at best.
No it tells us how to build the most damage dealing defender we can... That is not a Striker, at least not as I see them in PHB 1 for the simple fact that this "striker" fighter's damage and effectiveness drop drastically at long range (thus a sub-par striker at best)... the true strikers in 4e don't have that problem.
Well neither of us will know if it's an error or not but stating you can use Dex as your primary attribute is far clearer and direct a statement than inferring that "this is how you do the most damage you can" = "this is how you become a sriker." Let's look at another example... page 61 under Battle Cleric...
"If you choose to concentrate on melee, you find a good assortment of strikes to your liking..." Oh wow they are telling me how to build a Cleric who is a striker... or maybe they're just trying to tell me how to make a cleric who can do as well as a cleric can do in melee... but technically isn't a striker in the mechanical sense.
or here's one from the Wizard section pg. 157...
"Your delight is in powers that deal damage-lots of damage, to many foes at a time. Enormous bursts of fire, searing bolts of lightning, and waves of caustic acid are your weapons." Sounds like you can make a striker out of a Wizard as well, at leats according to how you chose to interpret the descriptive text under the fighter... Of course anyone whose played the Wizard in 4e knows that really isn't true...
That player of the 4e character is going to be pretty dissapointed once he also figures out that his so called striker, unlike the Ranger, rogue and warlock in PHB 1, isn't effective in ranged combat due to the vast majority of his powers keying of Str and being used in melee... but you keep telling them they can be a true striker (which for the record is not what the pasage you keep citing actually says.)
As to your second point I disagree with you, strictly speaking Str is important for fighters since it gives you the most weapon choices and armor choices in the game... but the wider point is that they tell you upfront that it's your choice whether to be Dex primary or Str primary... plain and simple.
You haven't proved it as false...
Yes you are....
I don't think anyone said a specific character could... I think the discussion centered around classes... and in the wide sense a class includes all of it's sub-classes... this is why the corebooks vs. the PDF is important the PDF is an incomplete subset of the game, regardless if you can play the game or not with it... and yeeah it;s kind of hypocritical to cite books 3 years down the road from the core for 4e and try to restrict 5e discussion to the PDF... If you don't have the complete game maybe you should buy and read it before jumping into debates about 5e...
Again this is a build (and a specialized one at that) not a class... Now you've shifted the goal posts again and are creating your own argument to win against...
So now it's roles "like" 4e... because other 4e fans in this thread, who you've chosen to comment with and on replies to have claimed that we 5e fans don't see the 4e designe because were denying it or hate 4e so much we don't want to admit it... you start flinging accusations around like that and you should expect heavy push back... regardless of how supposedly "productive you want the conversation to be. In essence according to the above we're either liars, deluded or to caught up so much in our own biases we can't see the supposed "truth". Yeah sorry but that's not a position at all for productivity.
So they created a fighter without reading the class section... how is that even possible?
This must have went totally over your head even though it seems self-evident to me let me explain... I can only Hybrid once in 5e... there are no multi-hybrids, and you can only ever multi-class throught feats once in 4e (exception being the Bard class)... so if I can cover the competency I'm looking for in 5e without multi-classing you tell me how it doesn't afford more flexibility since I can concentrate on something else when I multi- class or take a feat...
The point is he will be effective due to bounded accuracy, and the fact that his abilities aren't pre-scripted for ranged or melee combat specifically.
So spending character resources to compensate, I don't have to do that in 5e... and hide is situational, come on man quit reaching.
So there are differences... you've strengthened my point. It's not generic archer warrior vs. generic melee warrior... the classes have other competencies attached to them.
Wait, first you say the roles aren't enforced... but now you're listing these abilities (which seem custom made to enforce roles) and claiming they're the biggest differences in classes... which one is it? As to your second point... because all around competent bad ass in combat has been the fighter's archetype in nearly every edition of D&D... and that's the archetype I want to play... not highly competent melee combatant who suddenly becomes mediocre man when combats go ranged...
You haven't rebutted it, what you've done is shift goalposts...
Unless of course there are mechanics that enforce this "suggestion"... like marks, no ranged powers, etc.
And yet again... the mechanics enforce you being a defender... a Fighter will be a sub-par striker...
I don't think you are keen to learn it because I've stated the difference numerous times and the only thing you seem keen on is ignoring the difference...
Because that section there due to the mechanical enforcement in 4e is telling you how to get the most damage out of a Fighter as a defender, that still doesn't make him a striker. Like I said earlier the Fighter ends up being a sub-par striker at best.
No it tells us how to build the most damage dealing defender we can... That is not a Striker, at least not as I see them in PHB 1 for the simple fact that this "striker" fighter's damage and effectiveness drop drastically at long range (thus a sub-par striker at best)... the true strikers in 4e don't have that problem.
Well neither of us will know if it's an error or not but stating you can use Dex as your primary attribute is far clearer and direct a statement than inferring that "this is how you do the most damage you can" = "this is how you become a sriker." Let's look at another example... page 61 under Battle Cleric...
"If you choose to concentrate on melee, you find a good assortment of strikes to your liking..." Oh wow they are telling me how to build a Cleric who is a striker... or maybe they're just trying to tell me how to make a cleric who can do as well as a cleric can do in melee... but technically isn't a striker in the mechanical sense.
or here's one from the Wizard section pg. 157...
"Your delight is in powers that deal damage-lots of damage, to many foes at a time. Enormous bursts of fire, searing bolts of lightning, and waves of caustic acid are your weapons." Sounds like you can make a striker out of a Wizard as well, at leats according to how you chose to interpret the descriptive text under the fighter... Of course anyone whose played the Wizard in 4e knows that really isn't true...
That player of the 4e character is going to be pretty dissapointed once he also figures out that his so called striker, unlike the Ranger, rogue and warlock in PHB 1, isn't effective in ranged combat due to the vast majority of his powers keying of Str and being used in melee... but you keep telling them they can be a true striker (which for the record is not what the pasage you keep citing actually says.)
As to your second point I disagree with you, strictly speaking Str is important for fighters since it gives you the most weapon choices and armor choices in the game... but the wider point is that they tell you upfront that it's your choice whether to be Dex primary or Str primary... plain and simple.
You haven't proved it as false...
Yes you are....
I don't think anyone said a specific character could... I think the discussion centered around classes... and in the wide sense a class includes all of it's sub-classes... this is why the corebooks vs. the PDF is important the PDF is an incomplete subset of the game, regardless if you can play the game or not with it... and yeeah it;s kind of hypocritical to cite books 3 years down the road from the core for 4e and try to restrict 5e discussion to the PDF... If you don't have the complete game maybe you should buy and read it before jumping into debates about 5e...
Again this is a build (and a specialized one at that) not a class... Now you've shifted the goal posts again and are creating your own argument to win against...
So now it's roles "like" 4e... because other 4e fans in this thread, who you've chosen to comment with and on replies to have claimed that we 5e fans don't see the 4e designe because were denying it or hate 4e so much we don't want to admit it... you start flinging accusations around like that and you should expect heavy push back... regardless of how supposedly "productive you want the conversation to be. In essence according to the above we're either liars, deluded or to caught up so much in our own biases we can't see the supposed "truth". Yeah sorry but that's not a position at all for productivity.
So they created a fighter without reading the class section... how is that even possible?
This must have went totally over your head even though it seems self-evident to me let me explain... I can only Hybrid once in 5e... there are no multi-hybrids, and you can only ever multi-class throught feats once in 4e (exception being the Bard class)... so if I can cover the competency I'm looking for in 5e without multi-classing you tell me how it doesn't afford more flexibility since I can concentrate on something else when I multi- class or take a feat...
The point is he will be effective due to bounded accuracy, and the fact that his abilities aren't pre-scripted for ranged or melee combat specifically.
So spending character resources to compensate, I don't have to do that in 5e... and hide is situational, come on man quit reaching.
So there are differences... you've strengthened my point. It's not generic archer warrior vs. generic melee warrior... the classes have other competencies attached to them.
Wait, first you say the roles aren't enforced... but now you're listing these abilities (which seem custom made to enforce roles) and claiming they're the biggest differences in classes... which one is it? As to your second point... because all around competent bad ass in combat has been the fighter's archetype in nearly every edition of D&D... and that's the archetype I want to play... not highly competent melee combatant who suddenly becomes mediocre man when combats go ranged...
BryonD
Hero
IMO, this is again a completely reasonable position, but missing the distinction in what different groups WANT from an RPG.
"On par" in this context is completely a gamist term.
It would be absurd of me to suggest that there are not a lot of people who express consistent concern over wizards being more powerful than fighters in 3E. This is even true within a lot of groups which greater prefer 3E.
But the reality remains that there are a lot of people who do not experience this problem. My group, for example, typically plays through the low levels and into the mid teens. When you have a level 15 party running, there is no doubt that the wizard can do some truly amazing things and have moments of shine that stand out amongst the party. But I still have players who want to play fighters and come away from those L15 sessions feeling very happy with their contributions and influence on the game, all while (and this is the key part) feeling like their character was distinctly a badass fighter.
If you just want a pure and balanced tactical combat system then 4E is that. But if you want a system that puts a simulation of individuals into challenges and says "it ain't balanced, find a solution" then 4E (for many) actually does a decidedly inferior job of that. Those same gamist bits that make it a balanced tactical game are constantly there reminding you that being a balanced tactical game is at the forefront of this engine's duty.
Yes, you can roleplay on 4E. There is no slight challenge to that claim. But I can roleplay my character in Descent. And I can make a 100-point GURPS character and roleplay Superman on him. Nothing can ever stop anyone from roleplaying. But the mechanics on these systems do an inferior job of supporting that immersive part of roleplaying. The people at the table will be the same. And no matter how good you are at immersing yourself in ANY roleplaying opportunity, if that is what is important to you, then having a system that support that immersion is what you want, then why not have a system that puts that as a more important matter than balance?
Interestingly, in my group there are two players who almost always play the wizard (or other comparable class). And both of these players frequently play fighters when they are not playing wizards. and they find them both equally (very) fun. I'm confident that if you sat them down and pressed them on the differences in "blasting" power, they would agree with you. But (and I'm guessing here) I also think they would look at you a little strange for getting hung up on the question. Because they don't look at it as percentages and d6s. They look at it as characters is a quasi-realistic asymmetrical world and they are facing challenges and looking for creative solutions which stack the deck in their favor.
But a couple key points are that I do, again, agree that there are even highly pro-3E groups who share the inequity concern. So obviously this is just one piece of the bigger puzzle of why different editions are popular or not. And second, it is amazing to me that I've run into so many 4E myrmidons who are incapable of accepting that the distinction I've described above can even exist.
As to 5E, I haven't played high enough level to truly judge yet. But it does seem to have split the difference. I don't really care though. If it works great as a character simulator and then balance is built onto that without negatively impacting that first priority, then excellent. I think 5E still needs some major gaps filled. But the core system gets the job done so far.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I may not be the world's greatest expert on 4e, but I don't see anything in 4e's class design that facilitates plot-level deception, preparation, and trickery like the cited Odysseus regularly engaged in. Maybe one could argue that the skill challenge mechanic do, but I've seen more of that kind of behavior in older edition (AD&D) play than in either 3e or 4e and skill challenges aren't part of 4e class design. (I consider the question of why such behavior is, IME, abandoned for those editions to be open and personally confusing.)
I do think that 4e's system supported a much more "gonzo" style of fantasy "X's and O's" tactical play (which, I think is hardly controversial). However, I don't see that any class in 4e would have in its class design a Divert River power for playing Hercules. Whereas in a Dungeon World (or similar narrative-centered) game, such a thing would be trivial, and likely wouldn't even risk unbalancing the game.
Those were very good powers, but that's a secondary role at best, no?
GMforPowergamers
Legend
yes... but again if you take those powers AND add a mark (I would totally call it cover fire) you could build a ranged defender... nothing would stop you
GMforPowergamers
Legend
skill powers from phb3 started down that road... mixed with backgrounds I was hopeing 5e would expand on it...
I have players that had played the same way for 20+ years regardless of edition, the idea that people "Forgot" how to role play because of the edition confuses me...
I don't know dungeon world, but I was hopeing for more like that in 5e....
Imaro
Legend
Actually I think it's more a question of scope (as in what are the differences in what the two can accomplish) in the same way arcane magic and divine magic tend to have different scope (with some exceptions) in what they are capable of. If magic and mundane have the same scope then what is the point of the distinction?
