D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Rejuvenator]

So Jane had the Thief stand in the doorway to hold off the orcs?

Maybe. Does the thief have more hit points? A useful scroll? A sword of dancing? Is Jane badly wounded? Is Jane occupied already? I think we both know that your highly circumstantial theoretical example isn't going to prove anything one way or another. You're trying to indicate that Thieves are less meat-shield-y than Fighters since 1E, and there's no need to insult anyone's intelligence that thieves statistically have less hit points than fighters of equivalent level, but a feature isn't the same as a role, and a long way indeed from proving that 5E embraces the 4E Role Philosphy as such.

 

[Eirikrautha]

All this seems like is a really big stretch to attach 4e labels to things that really don't fit into said labels.



He disagreed with him, I don't see anything wrong with that.... He doesn't believe those roles were in other editions of D&D... whether I agree or not, he has the right to state his opinion on the matter.

Actually, I don't. I am not allowed to have or express any opinion that might be construed in recognizing the differences between editions, unless said differences are used to praise the particular edition that some players prefer. Then I may recognize the non-existant differences, which exist now that we like them. At least until the differences aren't useful in proving how whatever edition the person I'm arguing with likes is better. In which case they go back to not existing.

Putting earlier edition labels on 5e can NEVER expand play options. It only serves to restrict (cognitively) what players think they can do. In some editions (3e is a good example, and is one case where my initial statement is incorrect... 4e simply codifies what 3e did), such limits are also mechanical as well as mental. But not in 5e. Which is why I reacted so strongly. Because I don't want novice players to mental restrict themselves where not necessary.

In fact, I just got done running my group through LMoP, all the way to 5th level. And our barbarian didn't kill a single monster the entire time. He moved in and raged, and took half-damage while giving the rest of the party advantage. Which the cleric used to slaughter everything in sight. And our rogue hung out on the fringes and took AoOs to keep all of the mooks in contact. So our barbarian was a "defender" or "leader", our cleric was the "striker", and our rogue the "controller." Did they have to be? No. Nothing in the game mechanics or in their "builds" required them to play that way. On occasion the roles would be switched. That's the strength of 5e. And why the concept of roles is invalid. There are only tactics.

 

[Herschel]

In fact, I just got done running my group through LMoP, all the way to 5th level. And our barbarian didn't kill a single monster the entire time. He moved in and raged, and took half-damage while giving the rest of the party advantage. Which the cleric used to slaughter everything in sight. And our rogue hung out on the fringes and took AoOs to keep all of the mooks in contact. So our barbarian was a "defender" or "leader", our cleric was the "striker", and our rogue the "controller." Did they have to be? No. Nothing in the game mechanics or in their "builds" required them to play that way. On occasion the roles would be switched. That's the strength of 5e. And why the concept of roles is invalid. There are only tactics.

1. If the Barbarian "didn't kill anything" in FIVE levels, he needs new dice. That's not realistic.
2. The Barbarian is the 5E take on the Essentials Berserker, which is a defender/striker hybrid that wasn't very sticky but could soak damage.
3. The Rogue is doing exactly what the 4E Cunning Sneak Rogue did.
4. The 4E Cleric could deal good damage also.

It's all still there, your not seeing it doesn't change that.

 

[Imaro]

It's all still there, your not seeing it doesn't change that.

Okay you're loosing me here... what exactly is still there?

 

[Herschel]

The roles built in to the characters. The Battle Cleric is now called a War Cleric, for example, but it's still the same concept.

 

[Imaro]

The roles built in to the characters. The Battle Cleric is now called a War Cleric, for example, but it's still the same concept.

Battle Cleric isn't a role in the 4e sense though...

 

[Herschel]

Battle Cleric was the "striker" build for Cleric, as was the later Warpriest.

 

[Imaro]

Battle Cleric was the "striker" build for Cleric, as was the later Warpriest.

What "striker" build... a cleric is a leader...it's a melee leader build but what exactly makes it a "striker"?

EDIT: In other words is this builds damage comparable to the other classes labeled striker in 4e? Is that what you mean by "striker" build?

 

[BryonD]

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.

Again, you are completely hung up on ignoring the idea that others are trying to express and focusing all your attention on playing word games.

There is a difference in how role impact the gaming experience in 4E differently than other systems.

When I tried to express my thoughts about the joy of playing the game from the perspective of exclusively being a character, you got completely hung up on the definition of "immersion" and made no effort whatsoever to hear the point of the comments. You just wanted to force your one and only possible meaning of the word onto a conversation that is all about trying to express complex ideas using the words we have in the language. But you wouldn't hear it. So nothing got through.

We are talking about differences in the experience felt by people playing 4E vs. other editions and that issue is complicated. A lot of people are trying to express complex ideas using the words that are available. But you are stuck forcing your one and only possible meaning of the word on the conversation.

In both cases you insistence on word games seems to be a willful effort to reject any hearing of the actual *ideas* being expressed.

So be it. If you are that closed-minded to the perspective of others, then you assessment of the issues will simply be uniformed and and inadequate.

 

[Herschel]

What "striker" build... a cleric is a leader...it's a melee leader build but what exactly makes it a "striker"?

EDIT: In other words is this builds damage comparable to the other classes labeled striker in 4e? Is that what you mean by "striker" build?

It's the "melee damage" build, but still not completely losing out on its basic leader function, namely basic healing ability/option and Channel Divinity (which could also be used to focus melee damage), just not geared towards extra healing, etc. It's an offensive vs. defensive option.

The roles were only general and secondary roles were pretty open, depending on player choices, just like now.