D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[pemerton]

Is there any evidence against his assumption that 4E gave classes better tools to do the things they've always done?

I just wanted to pick up on this.

In AD&D, a fighter doesn't need a tool like marking to do his/her thing, because melee combat is sticky by default. There is no analogue of the 5' step, and withdrawing from melee is extremely punitive. (A free attack sequence with +2 to hit.) All a fighter has to do, to lock down enemies, is to engage them in melee (and the DMG has detailed mechanical rules for resolving this, but they are not part of the fighter class description).

The need for marking in 4e arises because 4e follows 3E in making combat non-sticky by default. "Defenders" (or "soldiers" if NPCs/monsters) are characters who can override this default by marking, by ending movement, by imposing conditions like slowed, immobilised or prone, etc, from within melee.

In 5e, melee is even less sticky - the movement rules are much more liberal (no distinct "move" action), and OAs are reduced. In principle there is plenty of room in 5e for a "defender" role, to override this default by more generous AOs, condition imposition, etc.

 

[SirAntoine]

Can you quote Gygax saying this? I've just quoted multiple sentences where he says something different. He says that class is a significant determiner of role, but he doesn't say that each class has a unique role.

In fact, he groups multiple classes as having the same role: MU and illusionist, and cleric and druid. I quoted the relevant passages not very far upthread.

In respect of MU and illusionist I think his remarks somewhat elide the fact that an illusionist doesn't have the artillery dimension that an MU has. (In 4e terms, an illusionist is a controller but not a ranged striker.) In respect of the cleric and druid, as I explained upthread, I think his remarks elide the fact that a druid is somewhat intermediate between a cleric and a MU.

Part of why I didn't quote his remarks about the ranger and paladin is because they add very little to his remarks about the fighter: all three classes have the same role, of being good at combat, especially hand-to-hand combat, in virtue of good AC, high hit points and a wide-ranging weapon selection.

Hmm. I have to conclude you either don't know what you're saying or you're trying to be difficult. I don't know if I can help you, but I recommend you stop playing 4th Edition for at least a year and try some earlier editions, particularly AD&D 2nd Edition where they organize the classes into the four core types. That will hopefully give you some experience with the four traditional combat roles, of cleric, fighter, thief, and wizard. I fear the 4th Edition has made it hard for you to communicate.

4th Edition is like a novel in a different genre than what Wizards of the Coast's audience likes. Suppose J.K. Rowling were to do a modern day spy thriller next, or if George R.R. Martin were to take time away from his Game of Thrones writing schedule to do a romance novel. The audience has been wanting Wizards of the Coast to get back to what they were doing before for a long time, and no one wants to deny the artistic merits of the 4th Edition.

Surprisingly few want to see AD&D come back. For those who do, even 3rd Edition with all its glory is the writer's experiment or dabbling in another genre. I know you are a defender of the 4th Edition, to the last. In your zeal, I wonder if you have forgotten that it is just a game. I am a defender of all of D&D and AD&D, and I have been for many years, long before 3rd or 4th Edition were printed. At my table, all players can bring their own character from any edition and play together. They always will.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Presumably it also shows that the world contains square circles and feline canines too!

Or maybe it's not a board game.

If you're talking about the role of the grid in resolving 4e combat, can I point you to DragonQuest. It is also an RPG that comes with a built-in battle map (hexes, not squares) and tokens, too. I've never heard it described as a board game because of this. The idea that an RPG might use tokens and grid to resolve melee combat is hardly something novel to 4e.

The four 4e roles don't change, though. The powers are all written for 4th Edition and it's incompatible with other editions.

Both these claims are strange to me.

The 4e roles do change - this has been discussed at length, with worked examples, upthread.

In the PHB, all the serious ranged AoE attacks are given to a controller - the wizard.

In the PHB2, all the serious ranged AoE attacks are given to a striker - the sorcerer.

In the PHB, the two defenders inflict mark "punishment" by way of extra damage.

In the FRPG, the shielding swordmage - a defender - inflicts mark "punishment" by way of damage mitigation - which when compared to the PHB classes, is closer to the sort of thing that a cleric or warlord would do. They are both labelled leader.

As to 4e being incompatible with other editions: that is true of every edition (except perhaps the two versions of AD&D, depending on your degree of purism). You certainly can't use AD&D creatures in 3E (their AC and hit points will be off, just for starters). And in another thread you have noted that 5e is not compatible with AD&D.

But converting from other editions to 4e is not hard at all. In the course of my 4e game I have used Night's Dark Terror (a B/X module), Speaker in Dreams (a 3E module) as well as various 4e modules and stuff of my own design.

The cleric and the rogue were both great at combat in every edition.

In AD&D (1st ed, and especially played with UA) the cleric becomes notably weaker than the fighter in melee as levels are gained: weaker to hit, no multiple attacks, and no specialisation bonuses.

The difficulties of playing a thief in AD&D combat are well-known: the fragility is extreme (mediocre AC, poor hp), the to-hit table is not strong even allowing for low XP requirements, and backstab can often be hard to set up. In my personal experience thieves work much better in an all-thief game where there special skills can be more effectively (and collectively) brought to bear.

 

[SirAntoine]

Presumably it also shows that the world contains square circles and feline canines too!

Or maybe it's not a board game.

If you're talking about the role of the grid in resolving 4e combat, can I point you to DragonQuest. It is also an RPG that comes with a built-in battle map (hexes, not squares) and tokens, too. I've never heard it described as a board game because of this. The idea that an RPG might use tokens and grid to resolve melee combat is hardly something novel to 4e.

Both these claims are strange to me.

The 4e roles do change - this has been discussed at length, with worked examples, upthread.

In the PHB, all the serious ranged AoE attacks are given to a controller - the wizard.

In the PHB2, all the serious ranged AoE attacks are given to a striker - the sorcerer.

In the PHB, the two defenders inflict mark "punishment" by way of extra damage.

In the FRPG, the shielding swordmage - a defender - inflicts mark "punishment" by way of damage mitigation - which when compared to the PHB classes, is closer to the sort of thing that a cleric or warlord would do. They are both labelled leader.

As to 4e being incompatible with other editions: that is true of every edition (except perhaps the two versions of AD&D, depending on your degree of purism). You certainly can't use AD&D creatures in 3E (their AC and hit points will be off, just for starters). And in another thread you have noted that 5e is not compatible with AD&D.

But converting from other editions to 4e is not hard at all. In the course of my 4e game I have used Night's Dark Terror (a B/X module), Speaker in Dreams (a 3E module) as well as various 4e modules and stuff of my own design.

In AD&D (1st ed, and especially played with UA) the cleric becomes notably weaker than the fighter in melee as levels are gained: weaker to hit, no multiple attacks, and no specialisation bonuses.

The difficulties of playing a thief in AD&D combat are well-known: the fragility is extreme (mediocre AC, poor hp), the to-hit table is not strong even allowing for low XP requirements, and backstab can often be hard to set up. In my personal experience thieves work much better in an all-thief game where there special skills can be more effectively (and collectively) brought to bear.

Being a board game is okay. 4th Edition should have been called "The D&D Board Game". If not for the classic board game, Dungeon, maybe it would have been! The attempt to make D&D into a board game was both admirable and expected.

The cleric was not pale in comparison to the fighter in 1st Edition, and the thief was only just pale. The thief still was great in combat, though. Even the wizard was a good fighter, even though they didn't get to use a crossbow or have any at-will spells. The game was more balanced.

 

[pemerton]

Hmm. I have to conclude you either don't know what you're saying or you're trying to be difficult. I don't know if I can help you, but I recommend you stop playing 4th Edition for at least a year and try some earlier editions, particularly AD&D 2nd Edition where they organize the classes into the four core types. That will hopefully give you some experience with the four traditional combat roles, of cleric, fighter, thief, and wizard. I fear the 4th Edition has made it hard for you to communicate.

I've played hundreds, probably thousands, of hours of AD&D. And nearly that much B/X. I don't need a patronising lecture on how those earlier versions of the game play.

But if you think that AD&D 2nd ed's organising of classes into "four core types" is some sort of radical contrast with 4e's organisation of classes into "fore core types", please elaborate.

Though, as far as combat roles are concerned, I think that 4e's categories are more accurate. If you are implying that the druid and cleric play the same role in melee combat in AD&D, then you are at odds with Gygax, who (as I quoted) observes that the druid is generally weaker in melee than the cleric, due to poor armour. If you are implying that the 2nd ed bard plays the same in combat as the 2nd ed thief, then you are ignoring that the bard has spells, and no backstab, and so in fact plays a completely different role in combat from the thief.

I know you are a defender of the 4th Edition, to the last.

My interest in 4e is (i) playing it, (ii) discussing on message boards some of the ways in which it plays (strengths, weaknesses, feasible techniques, etc) and (iii) responding to people who try to tell me that because I enjoy 4e I hate D&D, am not an RPGer but a boardgamer, etc.

You apparently regard it as self-evident that 4e is some wild departure from AD&D. I do not. For me, 4e delivers what I enjoyed about the AD&D play experience while getting rid of stuff that, for me, did not make for a fun game. It is continuous with AD&D, not discontinuous.

When I rebuilt my favourite AD&D character in 4e, there was no loss of fidelity. If anything, the character (a fighter/cleric type, rebuilt as a 4e paladin with warlord multi-class) became a truer version of himself.

4th Edition is like a novel in a different genre than what Wizards of the Coast's audience likes

See, by this you are implying that I am not part of WotC's audience. But on what basis? I'm guessing that over the past 5 years I've purchased more WotC products than you have!

Once you recognise that I like D&D - if I didn't, why would I be posting on a D&D message board? - I think my posts might make more sense to you.

And if you want to see what I think a fun D&D game looks like, I am happy to point you to my actual play posts. (I'm pretty sure I have more actual play posts on these boards than anyone else participating in this thread.)

 

[pemerton]

Really? Can you please substantiate this and define what you mean by 'strongest'?

Does the testimony of others count as substantiation?

I would have thought that it's uncontroversial that the 4e fighter is one of the strongest classes in that edition, in the sense of having a very robust and reliable ability to impact the fiction via the action resolution mechanics.

In combat I think the fighter is unsurpassed. Durability is good. Self-buff is good. Damage is good. Control options are very good (not just marks, but the ability to stop movement with OAs, and a good range of forced movement abilities - CaGI anyone?).

Out of combat options are not as strong as a rogue, ranger, warlord or paladin (looking at classes in somewhat similar fictional space) but aren't bad: good Athletics and Endurance, with Intimidation and Streetwise as social options in the class skill list. A multi-class feat can easily add another trained skill and broaden the character's scope if that is desired.

 

[pemerton]

The cleric was not pale in comparison to the fighter in 1st Edition, and the thief was only just pale. The thief still was great in combat, though. Even the wizard was a good fighter, even though they didn't get to use a crossbow or have any at-will spells.

Can you post some examples of the PCs you have in mind.

Gygax thought that wizards were not good fighters - he said so in his PHB. My play experience is consistent with what he says.

A 7th fighter, in AD&D with UA, has 2 attacks per round with a THACO of 14 before STR and specialisation bonuses; plus STR and specialisation bonuses to damage. A 7th level cleric has 1 attack per round with a THACO of 16 and no specialisation bonuses to hit.

The fighter is as effective in melee output as two clerics. That is a significant contrast. And I've experienced it in games - the cleric starts out as a serious melee combatant, but as levels are gained shifts to a secondary role in melee, and becomes more important as a spell-caster.

4th Edition should have been called "The D&D Board Game". If not for the classic board game, Dungeon, maybe it would have been! The attempt to make D&D into a board game was both admirable and expected.

Why would you call a RPG a board game? To mislead your customers?

What do you think a typical session of 4e play actually involves? What is your criterion for boardgame such that 4e is one, but Tomb of Horrors (in which everything is laid out on a keyed grid) is not?

 

[Sadras]

Does the testimony of others count as substantiation?

Sure.

In combat I think the fighter is unsurpassed. Durability is good. Self-buff is good. Damage is good. Control options are very good (not just marks, but the ability to stop movement with OAs, and a good range of forced movement abilities - CaGI anyone?).

CaGI was revised to include a Will Save. But out of interest sake, without CaGI does the fighter lose much of its prestige?
As for being unsurpassed in combat - I don't know if I agree with that assessment.

 

[pemerton]

The implementation of roles in 4E makes a different game experience than other editions of D&D.

The 4e implementation of spells makes a different game experience from other editions of D&D, too.

That doesn't mean that other editions of D&D didn't have spells. And it doesn't mean that they didn't have roles, in the sense of differing fields of functionality, mechanically structured and determined.

If I was a commercial RPG publisher, I would be very interested to try and understand why the move from sticky melee (in AD&D) to non-sticky melee (in 3E) is widely treated as non-controversial or even no change at all; and then the re-introduction of sticky melee by way of "defender" abilities that allow condition imposition is seen as a wild departure from tradition. The explanation can't be simply the outcome in the fiction - because a fighter in melee in 4e absolutely resembles the fighter in melee in AD&D, a durable death-dealer at the centre of the storm while his/her friends (wizards and thieves in AD&D, adding rangers and sorcerers in 4e) snipe and blast from the sidelines. Looked at this way - which is how I tend to look at it - the 4e fighter re-establishes D&D tradition, but within a mechanical framework inherited from 3E rather than AD&D.

Luckily I'm not a commercial publisher, and so don't need to work out in what circumstances fictional outcomes are regarded as more important than mechanical process (say, the debate over martial healing) and in what circumstances mechanical process is regarded as more important than fictional outcome (say, the debate over CaGI). My gut feel is that there is a certain approach to RPGing that I personally associate with mechanically casual 2nd ed AD&D play (and to a lesser extent with early-to-mid-90s Vampire play), but that is really just conjecture. I've never been a mechanically casual player, even during that period.

 

[SirAntoine]

I've played hundreds, probably thousands, of hours of AD&D. And nearly that much B/X. I don't need a patronising lecture on how those earlier versions of the game play.

But if you think that AD&D 2nd ed's organising of classes into "four core types" is some sort of radical contrast with 4e's organisation of classes into "fore core types", please elaborate.

Though, as far as combat roles are concerned, I think that 4e's categories are more accurate. If you are implying that the druid and cleric play the same role in melee combat in AD&D, then you are at odds with Gygax, who (as I quoted) observes that the druid is generally weaker in melee than the cleric, due to poor armour. If you are implying that the 2nd ed bard plays the same in combat as the 2nd ed thief, then you are ignoring that the bard has spells, and no backstab, and so in fact plays a completely different role in combat from the thief.

My interest in 4e is (i) playing it, (ii) discussing on message boards some of the ways in which it plays (strengths, weaknesses, feasible techniques, etc) and (iii) responding to people who try to tell me that because I enjoy 4e I hate D&D, am not an RPGer but a boardgamer, etc.

You apparently regard it as self-evident that 4e is some wild departure from AD&D. I do not. For me, 4e delivers what I enjoyed about the AD&D play experience while getting rid of stuff that, for me, did not make for a fun game. It is continuous with AD&D, not discontinuous.

When I rebuilt my favourite AD&D character in 4e, there was no loss of fidelity. If anything, the character (a fighter/cleric type, rebuilt as a 4e paladin with warlord multi-class) became a truer version of himself.

See, by this you are implying that I am not part of WotC's audience. But on what basis? I'm guessing that over the past 5 years I've purchased more WotC products than you have!

Once you recognise that I like D&D - if I didn't, why would I be posting on a D&D message board? - I think my posts might make more sense to you.

And if you want to see what I think a fun D&D game looks like, I am happy to point you to my actual play posts. (I'm pretty sure I have more actual play posts on these boards than anyone else participating in this thread.)

You claim you like D&D, and I can believe you, but you also change the goal posts every five minutes. 4th Edition is very much still D&D, just in a board game edition. The combat roles and mechanics therein were configured for that. No one seriously expected someone who was playing 3rd Edition to convert.

I have already explained, time and again, how way off the 4e combat roles are. I never said "combat roles" were never part of D&D before. You keep finding a new way to show "if the shoe fits...", while ignoring the point people were making. These are nuances, though, at least until they start misuses of words.