D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Imaro]

His basic toolbox contains a majority damage-focused elements, not exclusively, as you and others try to claim.

And what we've been trying to tell you and the rest of the 4e brigade is that 5e isn't constructed like this... thus the 4e roles don't exsist in 5e... My Fighter's basic toolbox isn't geared towards me being a defender... because he doesn't have features like combat superiority and combat challenge or numerous defender powers based solely on Strength and only Strength with a lack of ranged weapon options hard-coded into the class...

 

[Imaro]

He doesn't have a class feature d6/tier damage bump, but if you make choices when creating your character, he can put out better damage than the Warlock built for control while still providing basic healing for teh party.

Wait, lol... so he's a striker when compared to a striker built in an effort to do something totally different... Ah...ok.

 

[Herschel]

Compare the proficiency bonuses... simple weapons all +2... short sword/longsword +3. One is more accurate then the other.

EDIT: Wait how is only being able to use simple weapons... not a restriction?

Broadswords and Scimitars are +2 also, swords, and no t simple, as are Great Axes, Warhammers, etc.

Again, they aren't restricted to using simple weapons, that's a flat-out lie on your part. They need to use the simple bashing weapons if they want the best effect from their simple, big-swing, bashing maneuvers.

 

[Imaro]

Broadswords and Scimitars are +2 also, swords, and no t simple, as are Great Axes, Warhammers, etc.

We were discussing martial weapons a swordmage would use...

Again, they aren't restricted to using simple weapons, that's a flat-out lie on your part. They need to use the simple bashing weapons if they want the best effect from their simple, big-swing, bashing maneuvers.

Battle Clerics are proficient in simple weapons... or are you now claiming that they will take a +0 vs. the Swordmages +3 in the example we are discussing? How is this making a case for them doing more damage? A swordmage can use a Greatsword with the proficiency bonus and the extra damage if he's willing to take the hit to AC... so again... how is the Battle Cleric a striker but the Swordmage does poor damage?

 

[Herschel]

And what we've been trying to tell you and the rest of the 4e brigade is that 5e isn't constructed like this... thus the 4e roles don't exsist in 5e... My Fighter's basic toolbox isn't geared towards me being a defender... because he doesn't have features like combat superiority and combat challenge or numerous defender powers based solely on Strength and only Strength with a lack of ranged weapon options hard-coded into the class...

Yes, they do. The Fighter's toolbox is built towards being a meat shield with choices to either be more sticky or more geared-towards offense. The class features in 4E were such a small part of what made characters fulfill a role, but gave characters a building block to add on to, if the player so chose. In 5E they're rolled in to feats you likely won't see until level 3, but they're still there.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

That sounds like a bad experience!

What sorts of changes did your GM make?

Even without mechanical changes, if the GM was running a lot of combat encounters with only a very small number of opponents, that would reduce the effectiveness of a fighter (who is good at controlling large crowds, marking them, etc) while enhancing the rogue and avenger (both single-target specialists).

Also, if the GM took a punitive approach to non-combat resolution (I think there is a bit of a D&D tradition along these lines, running through 2nd ed and 3E) that could have hurt your fighter too, who will tend to be better in non-combat with imaginative play and adjudication.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, they do. The Fighter's toolbox is built towards being a meat shield with choices to either be more sticky or more geared-towards offense. The class features in 4E were such a small part of what made characters fulfill a role, but gave characters a building block to add on to, if the player so chose. In 5E they're rolled in to feats you likely won't see until level 3, but they're still there.

What are you talking about? The fighter's default features in 5e are generically geared to make him better in combat... period. He's a fighter in every sense of the word... not a "defender".

 

[Herschel]

We were discussing martial weapons a swordmage would use...

And what part of BroadSWORD don't you understand? Scimitars and Glaives also work.

Battle Clerics are proficient in simple weapons... or are you now claiming that they will take a +0 vs. the Swordmages +3 in the example we are discussing? How is this making a case for them doing more damage? A swordmage can use a Greatsword with the proficiency bonus and the extra damage if he's willing to take the hit to AC... so again... how is the Battle Cleric a striker but the Swordmage does poor damage?

+0? They're +2, only 1 less than the swordmage. You can also train in a "better" weapon, either through background, theme, feat or even multiclass.

Weapon size is also a rather small factor in damage. Extra attacks, bigger attacks, add-ons and static modifiers are where the real damage comes from.

 

[Imaro]

And what part of BroadSWORD don't you understand? Scimitars and Glaives also work.

The whole point was maximizing damage for the two classes... and Broadsword isn't a martial weapon...

+0? They're +2, only 1 less than the swordmage. You can also train in a "better" weapon, either through background, theme, feat or even multiclass.

You said he wasn't restricted to simple weapons... if he uses anything outside of that he gets no proficiency bonus... thus +0.

Weapon size is also a rather small factor in damage. Extra attacks, bigger attacks, add-ons and static modifiers are where the real damage comes from.

Yeah, yeah... yeah... but you've cited no concrete evidence that a shielding swordmage does significantly less damage than a "striker" Battle Cleric... but hey I'm open to specifics... so how much more, on average, damage does the BC do as opposed to the SM?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We were discussing martial weapons a swordmage would use...



Battle Clerics are proficient in simple weapons... or are you now claiming that they will take a +0 vs. the Swordmages +3 in the example we are discussing? How is this making a case for them doing more damage? A swordmage can use a Greatsword with the proficiency bonus and the extra damage if he's willing to take the hit to AC... so again... how is the Battle Cleric a striker but the Swordmage does poor damage?

ok, it is the powers... a cleric takes the at will that does 1w+str and if it is a simple weapon+1d6, now the swordmage with a greatsword is doing 2d6, and the cleric with a mace does 2d6... the swordmage takes an encounter power that deals 1w, the cleric takes either the 3w encounter or the 2w +if it is a simple weapon +1d6...

now since most swordmages fight with 1 handed weapons it is 1d8+int or 1d8+int and effect, or 2d8+int and effect, well the cleric does 2d6+str or 3d6+str or 3d6+str and a effect.

My swordmage went for 5 or 6 levels with no 3w attacks and only a daily 2w attack...