D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[pemerton]

+1 to hit is probably the ultimate of what bardic inspiration can achieve. I note that even the bard could only give you a +1, so other characters, such as a platoon sergeant, would be hard pressed indeed to match it.

If I am wanting to play Aragorn, or Arthur, I am not looking at modelling my character on a platoon sergeant.

(Conversely, if I'm playing Nick Fury the RPG, my Howling Commandos Sergeant should be able to make some sort of mechanically significant force-multiplication difference).

 

[SirAntoine]

I've recently started playing Icewind Dale EE (restarted 5 or 6 times with different characters) and it is interesting how I have the roles laid out. Not sure if anyone else will find it interesting but thought I'd lay them out anyway.

Fighter, 2 handed weapon (main damage dealer, high hp damage soaker)
Paladin, sword & board defender (frontline defender, good AC, secondary healing support)
Fighter/Cleric, leader (buffs & heals)
Swashbuckler, trap finder (I intend to dual class into fighter once I have hit level 10 where he will become a frontline dual wielding striker)
Assassin, striker (I use the sneak attack option. He is my ranged damage dealer/melee sneak attacker. He managed to sneak attack a shadow and kill it in a single hit with the only magic weapon I had at the time)
Wizard, leader (currently she seems to be doing more buffs than anything, later I expect to add more control/damage options)

Some of the roles were determined before I started generating the PCs; Wulfgar is always a 2 handed weapon damage dealer. The Paladin was mainly because I recall finding a holy avenger at some point when I played the game years ago, I also wanted some extra healing if needed. Which brings us to the Fighter/Cleric; I needed a main healer but didn't want a straight cleric/specialty priest. The swashbuckler's main job was someone who can remove traps and I also want him to be a badass fighter. The assassin is just because I like the portrait of a black clad assassin, no specific role in mind when rolling but he is good at dealing damage (before EE he was a fighter/thief proficient in multiple weapons). The Wizard was because I didn't have one yet, she's a wild mage who has already wiped the party on one occasion, good times.

So there we have how I assigned roles in Icewind Dale. I did this as well when the game first came out, well before 4e roles were specified. Some of the roles were for a specific purpose (defence, healing/buffing, damage, trapfinding) others were really just because I like a picture or to cover a role not necessary in 4e (the arcane magic user).

I have played Icewind Dale and I would recommend the following party:

- traditional LG human paladin, sword and shield, spear, mace, and crossbow
- dwarf fighter, axe and shield, hammer, spear, and crossbow
- half-elf ranger/ cleric, mace and shield, flail, hammer, and sling
- traditional TN human druid, scimitar and shield, quarterstaff, darts, and sling
- half-elf wizard/ thief, sword and dagger (dual-wielded), quarterstaff, and shortbow
- human wizard(invoker), quarterstaff, dagger, sling and darts

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've recently started playing Icewind Dale EE (restarted 5 or 6 times with different characters) and it is interesting how I have the roles laid out. Not sure if anyone else will find it interesting but thought I'd lay them out anyway.

Fighter, 2 handed weapon (main damage dealer, high hp damage soaker)
Paladin, sword & board defender (frontline defender, good AC, secondary healing support)
Fighter/Cleric, leader (buffs & heals)
Swashbuckler, trap finder (I intend to dual class into fighter once I have hit level 10 where he will become a frontline dual wielding striker)
Assassin, striker (I use the sneak attack option. He is my ranged damage dealer/melee sneak attacker. He managed to sneak attack a shadow and kill it in a single hit with the only magic weapon I had at the time)
Wizard, leader (currently she seems to be doing more buffs than anything, later I expect to add more control/damage options)

Well, hey, I'll run with this tangent. My only exposure to 3rd edition is IWD2. I typically used the following roles:

1.) "Decoy." True defender: untouchable in melee but doesn't do much damage except with his spells. Mechanically he's a Monk 1/Rogue 1/Illusionist 8/Dreadmaster 20. Throws out Symbol Of Hopelessness/Animate Dead/Greater Command when needed. Could probably solo the game by himself, sans diplomacy.

2.) "Berserker," focus on physical damage, especially at range. High level cleric with a dash of fighter. Maxed Str. Again, could probably solo the game by herself.

3.) "Blaster"/"berserker", focus on arcane magic but still has good ranged physical attacks. Mechanically, a paladin 2/sorc 28 with maxed Cha and high Str and Rapid Shot. Could probably solo the game by herself.

4.) "Utility." Has face skills and class levels for random buffs like Barkskin needed by other characters, plus Bard 11 for War Chant of the Sith to ease logistics problems.

Meat shields were usually not needed due to horrifically powerful ranged attacks from characters 2 and 3 (plus 5 and 6 sometimes which were just copies of 1 and 3), but when needed, summoned monsters worked just fine, especially in HoF mode.

Relevance to 5E: high-AC characters no longer work well, but mobility and summoned creatures are still awesome. Good ranged attacks are superior to slightly-higher-damage melee attacks because they preserve tactical flexibility. The mechanics of an IWD2 power party don't translate well to 5E, but the mentality does. Don't get surrounded and play smart.

 

[SirAntoine]

If I am wanting to play Aragorn, or Arthur, I am not looking at modelling my character on a platoon sergeant.

(Conversely, if I'm playing Nick Fury the RPG, my Howling Commandos Sergeant should be able to make some sort of mechanically significant force-multiplication difference).

+1 is significant, though. Back in AD&D, it was at least, but with bounded accuracy I think it could even be more significant now in 5th Edition. Tactical leadership, as opened up by the warlord class from 4th Edition, could have some more significance in 5th from what I have seen. It doesn't have to do a bonus to hit, which as established by the bard, is something that even +1 is the best that class can do. I would recommend the tactical leadership emphasize initiative benefits, granting extra small movements such as 5' steps as in 3rd Edition, and opportunities for complicated cooperative actions that require more than one person to prepare at least one round in advance and then use all their actions for it the next round.

 

[Eric V]

There are such proofs. The problem is you're using verisimilitude and magic wrong.

What the hell does this mean?!! How does one use versimilitude?

 

[Aenghus]

The 4e roles then combine these functions in ways that also evoke legacy elements of AD&D:

* Defenders impose conditions, especially conditions that impede the movement of enemies and conditions that debuff enemy attacks against allies; with the exception of some shielding swordmage builds (who as I explained upthread therefore aren't really defenders in the strict sense), they do this by putting their bodies on the line; some also do significant amounts of hit point ablation, most notably certain fighter builds;

* Controllers impose conditions, force movement and conjure effects (zones, walls) that disrupt enemy positions; for legacy reasons, AoE damage is also classed as a controller function in the PHB, but the PHB2 more aptly characteriss the AoE damage-focused sorcerer as a striker; also for legacy reasons (to do with the traditional contrast between fighters and wizards), control that requires putting the character's own body on the line is broken out into the separate "defender" role;

* Strikers focus on hit point ablation; most also have a degree of secondary control (in some sorcerer and warlock builds this can become a primary function along with damage-dealing);

* Leaders combine the healing function with buffing allies and other force-multiplier effects (granting movement and granting additional attacks) - there is no in-principal reason to combine these various functions, but this is another legacy matter, derived from the traditional healing and buffing function of the cleric.​

I agree with this post in general. But I think the Striker entry above lacks something important - Strikers often have some sort of ability to pick and choose their targets, whether it's stealth, ranged attacks, improved mobility, teleportation etc. This facilitates their job to do damage to the most dangerous targets and bypass any blockers and contrasts them with defenders who typically have less mobility and have to engage the enemy front line, creating a party front line.Those strikers who are less good at target selection tend to be tougher to compensate.

 

[SirAntoine]

I agree with this post in general. But I think the Striker entry above lacks something important - Strikers often have some sort of ability to pick and choose their targets, whether it's stealth, ranged attacks, improved mobility, teleportation etc. This facilitates their job to do damage to the most dangerous targets and bypass any blockers and contrasts them with defenders who typically have less mobility and have to engage the enemy front line, creating a party front line.Those strikers who are less good at target selection tend to be tougher to compensate.

They're more mobile, yes, but that doesn't mean they do better at offense than the defenders. The defenders are the heavy infantry, and the strikers are light infantry, or light skirmishers. If you can get a defender to the most dangerous enemy, you should do that first.

 

[Aenghus]

They're more mobile, yes, but that doesn't mean they do better at offense than the defenders. The defenders are the heavy infantry, and the strikers are light infantry, or light skirmishers. If you can get a defender to the most dangerous enemy, you should do that first.

I don't think the comparison is direct here, at least for 4e. Strikers have similarities to light infantry but do more raw damage than defenders typically, bonus defender damage is often contingent on the enemy making choices that trigger it, and not all defenders have bonus damage mechanics. I saw a major DPS hike between a 4e party with no strikers and one with two , for instance.

*If* the most dangerous enemy can be identified *and* courteously presents himself to be pinned down, sure. Solo fights can work out that way. Most 4e fights aren't solo fights though, and most bosses hide behind a front line. Depending on the situation taking out squishy artillery and controllers might make more sense for the strikers, as bosses tend to be tougher and absorb a lot of damage for no return.

 

[pemerton]

Tactical leadership, as opened up by the warlord class from 4th Edition, could have some more significance in 5th from what I have seen. It doesn't have to do a bonus to hit, which as established by the bard, is something that even +1 is the best that class can do. I would recommend the tactical leadership emphasize initiative benefits, granting extra small movements such as 5' steps as in 3rd Edition, and opportunities for complicated cooperative actions that require more than one person to prepare at least one round in advance and then use all their actions for it the next round.

It would be interesting to see this design space developed.

Initiative makes sense. Movement too.

Because combats in 5e tend to be fairly short, do you think that there would be too much of a risk of the "round one prep, round two deliver" approach to end up being "round one prep, round two it's already over"?

 

[pemerton]

I think the Striker entry above lacks something important - Strikers often have some sort of ability to pick and choose their targets, whether it's stealth, ranged attacks, improved mobility, teleportation etc. This facilitates their job to do damage to the most dangerous targets and bypass any blockers and contrasts them with defenders who typically have less mobility and have to engage the enemy front line, creating a party front line.Those strikers who are less good at target selection tend to be tougher to compensate.

Agreed. A further consequence of this is that the striker role in combat often bleeds into an out-of-combat scout/stealth role (deploying those same mobility/perception/target selection abilities).

For the other roles in 4e, I think there is in general a less-obvious connection between combat role and out-of-combat role. (I guess many defenders tend to be tough, but then I think of the CHA paladin in my own 4e game, various swordmage options, etc.)