D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[SirAntoine]

If you don't want your character to have hard-coded limits on the things they do well, don't play a game where classes impose hard-coded limits on things a character can do well.

Much of the problem is the degree of performance demanded. I would be happy playing a character with day-to-day abilities. I would prefer the emphasis be put on individuality and the narrative, rather than the mechanics.

 

[Rejuvenator]

When I talk about roles, in 4e or in any other RPG, I am talking about those mechanical aspects of PC build that yield, for a given character, a significant degree of functionality in respect of some activity which - due to the interface between mechanics and fiction - is a meaningful element of typical play.

When anyone talks about roles in context of 4e, it's fair to assume they're thinking controller/defender/leader/striker. When anyone talks about roles in other editions of D&D or other rpg, it's fair to assume that roles applies more generally, like healer or Face or comic relief or whatnot. If that differentiation isn't apparent to all, miscommunication abounds.

 

[SirAntoine]

Yes. The passages that I've quoted all appear in Gygax's PHB, on the pages I indicate. And the thoughts are really my thoughts.

I infer from your comment that you don't agree that (for instance) the 4e STR cleric functionally closely resembles the AD&D Cleric; or that the AD&D MU can be seen in the 4e wizard, although with weaker artillery capabilities.

If I'm correct, I'd be interested to hear why you think this.

In a board game there is no shared fiction that affects the framing of challenges and the resolution of action declarations. Given that 4e features both these things, it is not a boardgame. Unsurprisingly - given what it says on the box - it is a fantasy RPG.

Listen to Mr. Gygax then, and me the others who have said it then, that the classes are the roles.

And 4th Edition shows that in at least one board game, there is shared fiction that affects the framing of challenges and the resolution of action declarations.

 

[BryonD]

Who does "you" refer to in this passage.

When I talk about roles, in 4e or in any other RPG, I am talking about those mechanical aspects of PC build that yield, for a given character, a significant degree of functionality in respect of some activity which - due to the interface between mechanics and fiction - is a meaningful element of typical play.

A necessary condition of their being roles in an RPG is that their be a significant mechanical complexity in PC build and action resolution (where mechanics touch fiction). No edition of D&D fails to meet this condition.

There are a lot of "you"s in this thread.

The implementation of roles in 4E makes a different game experience than other editions of D&D. This is true unless you happened to play other editions that way by choice, which is possible, but by no means mandatory, nor was it IMO and IME, common.

4E played like a game about creating roles for which a character could be placed upon. Games I like feel like creating characters which could fill a role. The Collins quote fits this.

I know that telling you this 101 times is not going to register any more than the prior 100.

But it is still true.

Just throwing a wide generic definition at the issue doesn't change the reality that there are very significant devils in the details. Your definition is simply not sufficiently nuanced to note this.

Edit: and what this means is that while your comments and the equivalence of roles as experienced by you may be completely fair, it does not remotely apply to everyone. And for many, the roles in 4E are quite intensely unique to 4E.

 

[Aribar]

First, you make two assumptions when you say "...giving them better tools to do 'the things they've always tried to do' while having flexibility to do other things...". The first assumption is these things they've always tried to do are in fact their focus. The entire question is whether such a focus, as articulated with a role, is a part of any character. You clearly think it is, and you are putting it like it is a higher priority to the character. The second assumption is that the player, once given tools to do the things you want, will not want similar tools to be fleshed out in similar numbers for other things they want to do with their characters.

I deny that the tasks assigned by the combat roles have as much priority as is being established, and I am saying if more abilities are given to support those tasks the player will feel like other tasks aren't supported so well.

For some players, they will think their options are only the written options. It just happens.

Is there any evidence against his assumption that 4E gave classes better tools to do the things they've always done? Mechanically and typically in the combat of past editions, fighters could try and defend their squishier comrades and be a threat on the battlefield, clerics supported and healed their friends, magic users had powerful battlefield-controlling spells, and in some editions rogues had precision damage abilities.

In past editions classes could excel at these combat roles (like the wizard), could excel but it could be boring (like the cleric being a healbot), was okay as long as the circumstances were right (like the rogue), or depended on the DM to allow them to perform their job (like the fighter). For example, unlike 3E or 5E, in 4E the fighter had actual mechanics for keeping threats away from the wizard instead of praying the DM's monster didn't just waltz right past and eat a weak attack of opportunity before smashing the wizard.

The vast majority of almost every edition's player's handbook has been dedicated to combat (equipment chapters, combat rules chapters, the majority of the spell section...). 4E decided to make well-designed combat rules for the largest mechanical part of the game. It allowed every class to not suck at combat, and made an attempt to let all the classes be equal at social and exploration stuff as well. Your class matters as much or as little as you want it to when it comes to the identity of your character, just like in every other edition.

Would it be neat if the social and exploration pillars were well-made in the same way the combat was? Yeah, that'd be awesome! Where can I sign up for that game's rules?

Much of the problem is the degree of performance demanded. I would be happy playing a character with day-to-day abilities. I would prefer the emphasis be put on individuality and the narrative, rather than the mechanics.

No offense, but why are you playing such a mechanic-heavy game like D&D instead of something like Dungeon World then?

 

[Imaro]

Again I'm wondering have you read the corebooks or actually played 5e? Serious question, what is the extent of your experience with 5e?

So, a Melee Battlemaster has 16 powers, a Ranged Battlemaster has 12.

Uhm no... first they are maneuvers not powers and second all Battle Masters get a total of 9 by 15th level... so no BattleMaster has 16 or 12 maneuvers...

A champion's Improved Critical works with all weapons, but, considering that melee weapons out damage dice ranged weapons, we're back to melee weapons being more effective. Never minding that you need to start spending feats in order to make ranged attacking effective - removing things like disadvantage and cover penalties, none of which actually apply to melee attacks. Oh, and let's not forget that because you have a bow in hand, you no longer get Opportunity Attacks and cannot benefit from a shield.

Melee weapons being more effective how? Pure damage dealing? Only if you go two-handed, which means...
1. You can't be a small race or you suffer disadvantage on attacks
2. You aren't wearing a shield
3. You can only ever use ranged combat effectively within 30ft (Str based) without suffering disadvantage to attacks.
4. You must engage foes in melee to attack thus you are being attacked in return and are open to AoO
5. Can't use stealth while fighting

As to your other points... they don't make any sense.

You don't have to spend feats to be effective in ranged combat, though you should if that's what you want to focus on. the range on a longbow (without disadvantage on attacks) is 150ft... Most melee combatants can't even reach you before you've gotten multiple attacks off... You can also move and hide as a ranged combatant after attacking (since we're assuming cover is common enough to pose penalties in enough fights that a feat is needed to compensate ). Of course I'm not understanding how exactly they would get to the archer if they stay under cover? He'd just continue to shoot at them with the penalties until the law of averages allowed him to kill them... same with an opponent engaged with your ally, it's a free attack where you're not suffering an attack in return or an AoO. I think in your effort to vastly simplify "effective" you've totally glossed over the actual advantages of ranged combat...

But, yeah, just as effective as a melee fighter. Less powers, less damage, lower AC, same movement rates, and you are forced to burn feats. Totally just as effective.

The same amount of powers...ability to snipe, stealth and surprise from up to 150ft away, higher average initiative, no feats are necessary, suffers less direct attacks and AoO (so no need for an AC that is as high as a meatshield)... so yeah I'd say just as effective if not more since they can also melee with finesse weapons while using a shield if necessary. Of course if you had read the fighter section or even the character boards on the WotC forums you'd already know most of this. In fact if it wasn't for the damage disparity there would literally be no reason to ever play a strength fighter...

Yup, in 4e, fighters were, by and large, restricted to basic attacks with a bow. Pretty much the same as a 5e fighter.

Except for the 9 maneuvers a Battle Master can use with a ranged weapon... or the improved crits a champion gets with it... or the spells an EK can use to enhance his ranged attacks... so yeah just like 4e.

Hey, you want to make a 5e bow fighter? Go right ahead. I'll be over here giggling at you as you do about half as much damage and get hit far more often. Let's not forget that while you take things like Sharpshooter feats, I take things like Heavy Armor (DR 3 more or less) or Sentinel (free attacks and turns me into a pretty much straight up 4e style fighter.)

How does an archer fighter get hit more attacking from 150ft away against targets that are continuously keeping cover? Now you're really just showing your ignorance of the system. Also just an FYI... sharpshooter is a single feat that not only negates all those penalties for cover, increases my effective range to 600ft but also allows me to take a -5 to hit in order to increase my damage by 10 (and don't forget I already get a +2 with ranged weapons from archery style)... but yeah you keep laughing from 600ft away...

Although, all that aside, I cannot for the life of me find the rules that let fighters add their Dex to damage with ranged weapons. I know it's there, but, where the heck is it?

It's under damage rolls in the combat section of the PHB...

 

[Imaro]

For example, unlike 3E or 5E, in 4E the fighter had actual mechanics for keeping threats away from the wizard instead of praying the DM's monster didn't just waltz right past and eat a weak attack of opportunity before smashing the wizard.

Just a quick correction here... 5e gives you the option to take mechanics (Protection style/Goading Attack maneuver/Sentinel feat/etc. for keeping threats away from someone if that's what you want your fighter to do, but it doesn't force those mechanics on your fighter if that's not within the concept of your character.


EDIT:

It allowed every class to not suck at combat, and made an attempt to let all the classes be equal at social and exploration stuff as well.

I'm sorry say what now? There were vast differences in 4e as far as social and exploration capability... The easiest example being the disparity in the number of skills between it's classes...

 

[Aribar]

There are definitely options, just like how there were attacks of opportunity and feats in 3E... But I've personally found them wimpy. If I recall correctly, by 4th level you can have that style, maneuver, and feat... And then you really don't ever improve your stickiness. And short rests are so long that people don't take them as often, meaning you can't use your superiority dice to keep enemies away as often.

I will freely admit that I'm basing the social/exploration stuff off of my own experiences and therefore not the most valid data point, and I said "attempted" for a reason. At the very least, it moved rituals away from magic users and made the skill and difficulty system much easier to actually use than at least 3.5 did for my group.

 

[Hussar]

t's under damage rolls in the combat section of the PHB...

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?408712-What-are-the-Roles-now/page110#ixzz3S3tpn5la

Thanks. I knew it was there, was just having trouble finding the bloody page. No need for the snark.

Imaro, I have to ask, because this came up before, how often do you have combats that start at 150+ feet away? It's an honest question. In all my years of gaming, this has almost never happened. Maybe once a campaign. If that. Is long range combat that common in your games? If it is, then I could see why you would think that an archer fighter is effective. IME, this just doesn't happen.

/edit to add:

Just checked the PHB and yup, it's there. WOW is that buried. Single line, buried in the middle of a section on damgage that says you use the same ability to deal damage as you used to hit. You'd think they could have called that out a little more clearly considering this is a big departure from pretty much every earlier edition. But, again, thanks for that [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I knew it was there, I just couldn't find it. Not in the index, nor in the table of contents.

 

[SirAntoine]

Is there any evidence against his assumption that 4E gave classes better tools to do the things they've always done? Mechanically and typically in the combat of past editions, fighters could try and defend their squishier comrades and be a threat on the battlefield, clerics supported and healed their friends, magic users had powerful battlefield-controlling spells, and in some editions rogues had precision damage abilities.

In past editions classes could excel at these combat roles (like the wizard), could excel but it could be boring (like the cleric being a healbot), was okay as long as the circumstances were right (like the rogue), or depended on the DM to allow them to perform their job (like the fighter). For example, unlike 3E or 5E, in 4E the fighter had actual mechanics for keeping threats away from the wizard instead of praying the DM's monster didn't just waltz right past and eat a weak attack of opportunity before smashing the wizard.

The vast majority of almost every edition's player's handbook has been dedicated to combat (equipment chapters, combat rules chapters, the majority of the spell section...). 4E decided to make well-designed combat rules for the largest mechanical part of the game. It allowed every class to not suck at combat, and made an attempt to let all the classes be equal at social and exploration stuff as well. Your class matters as much or as little as you want it to when it comes to the identity of your character, just like in every other edition.

Would it be neat if the social and exploration pillars were well-made in the same way the combat was? Yeah, that'd be awesome! Where can I sign up for that game's rules?



No offense, but why are you playing such a mechanic-heavy game like D&D instead of something like Dungeon World then?

The said "better tools" are in fact only better for some of the things characters may want to do. They are also intended for 4e only.