D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[pemerton]

CaGI was revised to include a Will Save. But out of interest sake, without CaGI does the fighter lose much of its prestige?

At my table we use CaGI un-errata-ed. (We take the view that the point of the errata was not to solve a balance issue, but to capitulate to critics whose perspective we don't share.)

Other strong control effects the fighter in my game uses include AoE attacks with every encounter power, giving excellent marking opportunities; some upper-paragon or low epic encounter power that slides on a hit and pushes on a miss; and the upper-epic encounter power (Cruel Reaper) that is two close bursts with movement in between them. (And he has the feat that makes CB1 powers into CB2 powers with a polearm.)

As for being unsurpassed in combat - I don't know if I agree with that assessment.

What other class do you have in mind? I haven't seen every class played, so I'm happy to be corrected.

 

[SirAntoine]

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.

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?

I don't think you really want to know what I think a typical session of 4e play actually involves!

I just wanted to point out, for the record, that clerics in AD&D, 1st or 2nd Edition, were everything they needed to be to be big heroes. The same goes for every other class. And kudos to Wizards for making such a go at a board game edition.

 

[pemerton]

4th Edition is very much still D&D, just in a board game edition. The combat roles and mechanics therein were configured for that.

kudos to Wizards for making such a go at a board game edition.

You're just baiting now!

Here are a few actual play links: my most recent session report (of our second-to-latest 4e session); a social-only session; and a description of a series of sessions in the Underdark.

I'm interested to learn in what way these are accounts of boardgame play. At the time, and looking back on them too, they seemed like RPGing to me!

 

[SirAntoine]

You're just baiting now!

Here are a few actual play links: my most recent session report (of our second-to-latest 4e session); a social-only session; and a description of a series of sessions in the Underdark.

I'm interested to learn in what way these are accounts of boardgame play. At the time, and looking back on them too, they seemed like RPGing to me!

I looked them over. My primary reaction is they're pretty intense.

I don't think there needs to be any stigma against a board game edition for D&D. Some would call the D&D Miniatures game one, and the company went on to publish other board games for D&D including Wrath of Ashardalon, the Legend of Drizzt, and Lords of Waterdeep. Board games are Hasbro's primary business, and it was only natural for them to want to re-issue D&D in as much of a board game format as possible. I don't want Hasbro to be alienated, or to lose confidence in D&D. If they could succeed at turning out a D&D board game, that would help the game's sales tremendously.

Hasbro wants D&D to be as popular as Monopoly, or at least as popular as the card games published by Wizards of the Coast. Board games are played by families, and they're even more popular in Europe. Even the division of the core rules into three separate books has hindered D&D's sales over the years. A board game could have let them give you everything in one box, and extended products such as more traditional editions of D&D would sell better in turn as D&D is accepted into the mainstream and liberated of its negative image of devil-worship and for geeks. If it's a game a mother plays with her own kids, that mother won't join an organization of mothers concerned by dungeons and dragons!

You don't see a board game when you look at 4th Edition, but it's right there when you use the grid to help you visualize everything. Yes, this is done in 3rd Edition, too, but notice the change in language for movement rates and areas of effect. It went from feet to "squares". Sounds like a conscious choice to move the game in the direction of a board game. I am sure it was a very hard sell to get Hasbro to turn back to a more traditional RPG edition for D&D. Pathfinder made the difference. Bringing back all of Pathfinder's players to D&D is probably priority #1.

 

[Sadras]

What other class do you have in mind? I haven't seen every class played, so I'm happy to be corrected.

To be honest, my experience as a player in 4e, being a Fighter (levels 1-22), has been horribly marred due to terrible DMing of the absolute worst kind. It was an entirely new group found via the internet. The best thing about my branching out being that I poached two of their players for my own group and after their campaign "ended" we parted ways.

I definitely didn't master the system, so I could not answer you as to which class is factually better, especially since the DM mucked around with the powers of other classes and unhinging some limits - so when I hear that the 4e Fighter was such a great class, and have only my rather disappointing experience to draw from I am amazed on how different my experience was to others. I played in a group with a Rogue, SwordMage, Avenger and Cleric and felt overshadowed by all - I will admit the DM's design-meddling ideas probably had a lot to do with that.

 

[SirAntoine]

To be honest, my experience as a player in 4e, being a Fighter (levels 1-22), has been horribly marred due to terrible DMing of the absolute worst kind. It was an entirely new group found via the internet. The best thing about my branching out being that I poached two of their players for my own group and after their campaign "ended" we parted ways.

I definitely didn't master the system, so I could not answer you as to which class is factually better, especially since the DM mucked around with the powers of other classes and unhinging some limits - so when I hear that the 4e Fighter was such a great class, and have only my rather disappointing experience to draw I am amazed on how different my experience was to others. I played in a group with a Rogue, SwordMage, Avenger and Cleric and felt overshadowed by all - I will admit the DM's design-meddling ideas probably had a lot to do with that.

Just going by the PHB in 4e, the fighter is a little lame once you take into consideration the other classes' powers. Essentials brought the class back to itself more, with the Slayer build. It was a totally new game, of course, but I don't think you should be so hard on this DM for "design-meddling". Did he do anything else that made you feel so badly about his campaign? With the way you describe it, I'm surprised you stayed with it for so long.

 

[Aribar]

I looked them over. My primary reaction is they're pretty intense.

I don't think there needs to be any stigma against a board game edition for D&D. Some would call the D&D Miniatures game one, and the company went on to publish other board games for D&D including Wrath of Ashardalon, the Legend of Drizzt, and Lords of Waterdeep. Board games are Hasbro's primary business, and it was only natural for them to want to re-issue D&D in as much of a board game format as possible. I don't want Hasbro to be alienated, or to lose confidence in D&D. If they could succeed at turning out a D&D board game, that would help the game's sales tremendously.

Hasbro wants D&D to be as popular as Monopoly, or at least as popular as the card games published by Wizards of the Coast. Board games are played by families, and they're even more popular in Europe. Even the division of the core rules into three separate books has hindered D&D's sales over the years. A board game could have let them give you everything in one box, and extended products such as more traditional editions of D&D would sell better in turn as D&D is accepted into the mainstream and liberated of its negative image of devil-worship and for geeks. If it's a game a mother plays with her own kids, that mother won't join an organization of mothers concerned by dungeons and dragons!

You don't see a board game when you look at 4th Edition, but it's right there when you use the grid to help you visualize everything. Yes, this is done in 3rd Edition, too, but notice the change in language for movement rates and areas of effect. It went from feet to "squares". Sounds like a conscious choice to move the game in the direction of a board game. I am sure it was a very hard sell to get Hasbro to turn back to a more traditional RPG edition for D&D. Pathfinder made the difference. Bringing back all of Pathfinder's players to D&D is probably priority #1.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "board game edition"? It doesn't make sense to me. As someone who has played since AD&D, the only difference I see between 4E and the earlier editions is that the books were restructured so that all the player options are actually contained in the PHB instead of occasionally placed in the DMG or sometimes even the MM.

The grid was more important in 4E than other editions, but no edition has properly supported gridless play. I've seen plenty of arguments over whether a melee class could make it to the enemy (or if a sneaky melee class had enough movement to avoid attacks of opportunity to flank enemies for backstabs), or wizards saying "I cast fireball so it doesn't hit the melee fighters" and the DM being forced to decide. Yeah, it technically works and plenty of people do it... But through no help of the actual rules. Knowing a human rogue can move 30" doesn't help me at all determine if she can actually skirt combat, whereas other RPG systems that use zones or actual rules to determine that could.

Also, didn't 4E sell more than Pathfinder for the first half of its lifespan when 4E books were actually being published? I will sadly admit Wizards appears to be chasing Pathfinder with this edition, but it makes no sense. Pathfinder stole the rules and D&D 3E's audience and Paizo's edition warring advertising tactics have made a relatively loyal fanbase. People seem to want "Their favorite edition: Take 2", which Pathfinder does with all the new players 3E brought in and will likely do in their new edition. It would be more logical for Wizards to get a new audience than try and win back the one they lost.

 

[SirAntoine]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "board game edition"? It doesn't make sense to me. As someone who has played since AD&D, the only difference I see between 4E and the earlier editions is that the books were restructured so that all the player options are actually contained in the PHB instead of occasionally placed in the DMG or sometimes even the MM.

The grid was more important in 4E than other editions, but no edition has properly supported gridless play. I've seen plenty of arguments over whether a melee class could make it to the enemy (or if a sneaky melee class had enough movement to avoid attacks of opportunity to flank enemies for backstabs), or wizards saying "I cast fireball so it doesn't hit the melee fighters" and the DM being forced to decide. Yeah, it technically works and plenty of people do it... But through no help of the actual rules. Knowing a human rogue can move 30" doesn't help me at all determine if she can actually skirt combat, whereas other RPG systems that use zones or actual rules to determine that could.

Also, didn't 4E sell more than Pathfinder for the first half of its lifespan when 4E books were actually being published? I will sadly admit Wizards appears to be chasing Pathfinder with this edition, but it makes no sense. Pathfinder stole the rules and D&D 3E's audience and Paizo's edition warring advertising tactics have made a relatively loyal fanbase. People seem to want "Their favorite edition: Take 2", which Pathfinder does with all the new players 3E brought in and will likely do in their new edition. It would be more logical for Wizards to get a new audience than try and win back the one they lost.

"Board game edition", "board game format", "like a board game", whichever you prefer. The point is 4th Edition was the first edition of D&D to come so close to a board game. It was a big experiment, but I imagine it started with a decision handed down from Hasbro some time during 3rd Edition's run to "see where you can go with making D&D attractive to our board game customers". It was an opportunity.

Pathfinder's success was owed to the success of 4th Edition. Even with its success, though, D&D 3.5 remains almost as popular, and combined with D&D 3.0 may equal or exceed Pathfinder. This is number of games being run for each system from what I've read about online sites like rolld20 and from what I've read from other posters. So Wizards of the Coast has a very loyal fanbase with 3rd Edition still, and if you count most of the Pathfinder players as adherents to that general style, 5th Edition is speaking to a lot of people besides the 4th Edition fans and the oldschool crowd.

I'd say it's a clear majority, maybe even upwards of 80 or 85%. Hasbro should have really made a D&D board game, though, not just a D&D edition with board game features. Like with D&D Miniatures, it could have attracted its own audience and the 3rd Edition consumers would have seen continued product support for their edition like "D&D never changed". These are the most significant issues in our community today. I have been following this for a few years, and it got so bad 3rd and 4th Edition players would separate into camps at game stores.

The 4th Edition powers and abilities, and combat roles, are configured for a board game like experience. It's very cleverly done, and I give them a 9 out of 10.

 

[Aribar]

I have no idea what you mean by board game; those are as varied in mechanics and execution as tabletop RPGs and video games. What's a board game like experience? If you don't want to answer me, that's no big deal to me and I can just leave the discussion. Role playing, social and exploration stuff is still done in the exact same way as previous editions (although with rituals available to everyone, magic users weren't the sole holders of the trump card there). It's primarily combat and pacing rules that changed drastically, and that was to fix issues in previous editions, primarily 3E, such as boring (or worthless) healing in combat, the 5-minute adventuring day with spells, boring or a lack of downtime rules (by cutting out mandatory downtime entirely), easier monster and encounter creation, etc.

 

[SirAntoine]

I have no idea what you mean by board game; those are as varied in mechanics and execution as tabletop RPGs and video games. What's a board game like experience? If you don't want to answer me, that's no big deal to me and I can just leave the discussion. Role playing, social and exploration stuff is still done in the exact same way as previous editions (although with rituals available to everyone, magic users weren't the sole holders of the trump card there). It's primarily combat and pacing rules that changed drastically, and that was to fix issues in previous editions, primarily 3E, such as boring (or worthless) healing in combat, the 5-minute adventuring day with spells, boring or a lack of downtime rules (by cutting out mandatory downtime entirely), easier monster and encounter creation, etc.

I can't relate to your observations about the changes between AD&D and 4th Edition "mostly being the players' options all being in the PHB, and not some in the DMG or even in the MM", first let me say. I didn't know how to answer you exactly, but you give me more of an opportunity here with asking what I think is in a board game like experience.

1) characters, or pieces representing your place, move from square to square on a board
2) all players take equally significant turns
3) there are clear objectives

Some of my observations have been the "Dungeon Tiles", for example, which are like a changing board. You reconfigure the pieces for each room where an encounter takes place. It's very different than imagining your way through the dungeon, and keeping a map, but of course there could be outdoor encounters.

The vernacular is number of squares, and there are new board game like rules about sliding, pushing, and pulling. These are perhaps not meant to be taken this way, not by someone who isn't thinking of D&D as a board game, but they are fitting for a board game and deliver a similar feel.

The players taking equally significant turns point is best shown with the combat roles themselves. Teamwork is focused on in new ways, and the balance you see in 4th Edition establishes a hitherto unseen parity between all characters and participants. This permits a board game experience. In a traditional D&D game, characters are not balanced in this way. They are still balanced, of course, but I mean in different ways. The goals are to balance them in such a way that they aren't too powerful as individuals in their world, not so that everyone playing in the same game has an equally important character at all times.