D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[AxisofJedi]

So lets get rid of classes for a moment. If Im playing 5E, and I have a Human Soldier, Elven Acolyte, Dwarven Sage and Halfling Folk Hero with no classes assigned, what are their roles??

 

[Imaro]

Speaking of unconvinced, I'm not sure about your 5e ranged fighter example. He's giving up AC (particularly since he won't meet strength requirements for heavier armor due to MAD and cannot use a shield), requires several feats (which means you cannot play him in the Basic game), and is still seriously sucking hind compared to a ranger. And, there are a quarter of the Battlemaster options that flat out don't work with ranged weapons. Additionally, he's dealing the least damage of any two handed weapon user.

With maxed Dex he's maybe 1 or 2 points behind a heavy armor user in the best armor (and he still uses stealth with no penalty and has a higher initiative bonus) with bounded accuracy overall 1 or 2 points is not really that much.

Also why can't he use a shield? I've already shown the Dex based fighter is also a capable melee combatant through using finesse weapons... so he actually can use rapier and shield to do the equivalent damage of a longsword and board fighter. Versatility the Str based two-hander just doesn't have...

You still haven't shown me why these so called "needed" feats are actually needed for ranged combat to be effective? They make special circumstances easier to cope with and boost the ranged fighter's basic competence (you know what feats are supposed to do) but you have failed to show (except again in special
circumstances) why they are "needed".

As to the battlemaster's maneuvers... you will never have all of them... out of 16 you will have at most 9 and that is playing all the way to 20th level... which you claimed rarely happened so again I'm not seeing how this makes a ranged fighter weaker.

The basic game... well I'll just be frank... who cares. We all know it is a subset of the core rules designed to have the simplest options... so yeah it's limited, not sure if that's a revelation to anyone though. You also can't make a battlemaster fighter, a spellsword and so on... In choosing to play the basic game you are choosing to play with a subset of the core rules...and thus a subset of the fighter class, more power to you but don't then turn around and say it's limited... That said I still believe you can create a competent Dex based/ranged fighter, because I don't agree that there are any necessary feats.

Can you play a ranged fighter in 5e? Sure. I know you can. But, you are certainly going to lag heavily behind the melee fighters in terms of effectiveness in combat. The Protective fighter is much better at working with other PC's, the other fighting styles (other than defense) all deal significantly more damage than you do. Never mind that the ranger is a far, far better ranged combatant than you are. A Hunter ranger is dealing an extra d8 damage on his attacks, so until about 11th level when you gain a third attack, the hunter is almost always out damaging you. Of course, at 11th level, my Hunter has Volley, meaning my bow attacks hit everything within a 10 foot radius of the original target.

You're not lagging behind melee fighters in effectiveness in combat (especially since a Dex based fighter can switch between the two and stay effective in both, again rapier and shield).

Can a Hunter ranger... push a combatant off a cliff with a ranged attack? Can he attack as many times as a fighter of the same level with his bow? Can he disarm a foe with a ranged attack, increase his chances to hit, or increase his damage (by 1d8/1d10 or 1d12 depending on level) while at the same time laying down cover fire for an ally to escape melee by using superiority dice (these are all maneuvers a battlemaster can do with a ranged weapon)? Again if all you're defining effectiveness in combat as is its' most simplistic expression of "does most damage" the 2-hander will win... of course he's slower, getting hit more, can't affect anything on the other side of the battlefield, hide, snipe, etc.

 

[Hussar]

So lets get rid of classes for a moment. If Im playing 5E, and I have a Human Soldier, Elven Acolyte, Dwarven Sage and Halfling Folk Hero with no classes assigned, what are their roles??

But are those roles or archetypes? See, I think this is another area where we're getting tripped up. A Human Soldier, in and of itself, is just an archetype. I'm presuming you mean soldier as in dude in armour, shield, spear. He belongs to some sort of rank hierarchy, has a handful of skills based on his background and class.

In that context, what does role mean? For me, this is why I keep coming back to the idea of Logistic, Strategic and Tactical level play. His role in those three levels might even be described differently. At the Logistics level, he has access to his organization, which brings all sorts of tidbits. He can bring information to the table that no one else likely could, simply by asking his superiors and they'll tell him. IDHMBIFOM so, I can't remember exactly what soldier brings to the table, but, things like that would likely be what you could expect. OTOH, he probably won't be able to sell your loot because he has no real ties there.

At the Tactical level though, Human soldier doesn't mean anything. Nothing in a Soldier background is really going to apply after initiative is rolled. There's just nothing really tied to what he'd do in combat in that background. Which is fine since backgrounds aren't linked to combat.

I think it would be helpful to the discussion to bring a bit more specificity to the issue. When someone says role, if all you mean is "what this character can do" well, that doesn't really mean anything because it's so broad. It would be better to say, "What is the role of this character in this type of situation".

 

[Hussar]

With maxed Dex he's maybe 1 or 2 points behind a heavy armor user in the best armor (and he still uses stealth with no penalty and has a higher initiative bonus) with bounded accuracy overall 1 or 2 points is not really that much.

Two points. First, because he needs the feats to counter the -2 for cover (shooting into melee draws that lots of times) which negates the +2 he has for Fighting Style. And, because he needs feats, he doesn't get stat bonuses, so, where is this maxed Dex coming from? He's going to have a 15 Dex at 1st level (presuming he gets Sharpshooter) while my fighter has a 16. Stat boost at 3rd for 16 while I get 17 and 18 at 6th. So, basically, you've got +1 to hit and I've got +1 to damage most of the time. And that's assuming Human. Of course, now we're limiting what kind of archery fighter we can have, so, we shouldn't do that should we?

Also why can't he use a shield? I've already shown the Dex based fighter is also a capable melee combatant through using finesse weapons... so he actually can use rapier and shield to do the equivalent damage of a longsword and board fighter. Versatility the Str based two-hander just doesn't have...

Free action to drop the bow. Shield takes one action to put on, so you just lost a whole round while you switched from bow to shield. And you had to drop your bow. Hope you didn't want to shoot again in this combat.

You still haven't shown me why these so called "needed" feats are actually needed for ranged combat to be effective? They make special circumstances easier to cope with and boost the ranged fighter's basic competence (you know what feats are supposed to do) but you have failed to show (except again in special
circumstances) why they are "needed".

Well, the -2 to most of your ranged attacks are pretty prohibitive. Never minding of course that you don't actually threaten any squares around you while holding a bow, meaning no Opportunity Attacks.

As to the battlemaster's maneuvers... you will never have all of them... out of 16 you will have at most 9 and that is playing all the way to 20th level... which you claimed rarely happened so again I'm not seeing how this makes a ranged fighter weaker.

Not necessarily weaker. Just less versatile.

The basic game... well I'll just be frank... who cares. We all know it is a subset of the core rules designed to have the simplest options... so yeah it's limited, not sure if that's a revelation to anyone though. You also can't make a battlemaster fighter, a spellsword and so on... In choosing to play the basic game you are choosing to play with a subset of the core rules...and thus a subset of the fighter class, more power to you but don't then turn around and say it's limited... That said I still believe you can create a competent Dex based/ranged fighter, because I don't agree that there are any necessary feats.



You're not lagging behind melee fighters in effectiveness in combat (especially since a Dex based fighter can switch between the two and stay effective in both, again rapier and shield).

Only while giving up a round of attacks mind you, but sure.

Can a Hunter ranger... push a combatant off a cliff with a ranged attack? Can he attack as many times as a fighter of the same level with his bow? Can he disarm a foe with a ranged attack, increase his chances to hit, or increase his damage (by 1d8/1d10 or 1d12 depending on level) while at the same time laying down cover fire for an ally to escape melee by using superiority dice (these are all maneuvers a battlemaster can do with a ranged weapon)? Again if all you're defining effectiveness in combat as is its' most simplistic expression of "does most damage" the 2-hander will win... of course he's slower, getting hit more, can't affect anything on the other side of the battlefield, hide, snipe, etc.

Attack as many times? Yes, actually. At least until 10th level. There's no difference in number of attacks between a ranger and a fighter until 10th and at 11th, the ranger gets volley. Potentially 16x2 attacks (although that would be EXTREMELY rare). Note, again, you're now forcing me to take a battle master fighter to be a ranged fighter. I thought the point here was that any fighter could be a ranged fighter. Isn't that what you meant? Or was it simply that you could write a kind of fighter on the top of the sheet, so long as it's any kind of fighter?

Because, let's not forget, there's nothing your archer battle master can do that my melee battle master can't. But, which are you comparing? Fighter or Ranger? You kind of switched things mid stream.

Anyway, my point is, your "demonstration" might convince you. Fair enough. I'd expect that. But it's hardly a done thing. It's very questionable.

/edit to add.

Let's not forget that the melee guys are hardly inconvenienced at range. Throwing axes use Str and work at most encounter ranges. I'd say that my melee fighter is every bit as versatile as your ranged fighter. I don't have to lose actions switching schticks. I can move, chuck axes, at the same rate that you shoot the bow, and for similar damage (slightly less, 1 point on average) and still don't have to worry about not being armed.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Rangers don't have much over fighters at archery. Yes, colossus slayer will add 4.5 points of damage per round, or horde breaker will add a third attack, but the ranger loses action surge and eventual 3rd and 4th attacks and two ASIs.

In fact, if not for the access to Pass Without Trace and Conjure Animals, I'd say the fighter was hands-down better. But YMMV, both classes are fun.

Edit: the idea that thrown weapons work at "most encounter ranges" is risible however. Maybe you mean "most encounter ranges at my table," but that says more about your table than about the melee fighter's viability. Most thrown weapons have a range of only 20/60 IIRC, so they're virtually indistinguishable from melee-only. Even sometime firing at you from a balcony 20 feet up gives you disadvantage to hit him back. And good luck fighting mobile opponents like wizards and dragons. Melee fighters in 5E have gaping vulnerabilities just begging to be exploited as soon as you exit the little 20' by 20' log cabin where you spend your days. ;-)

 

[SirAntoine]

But...if the roles have always been there, and the only change was that in 4e they were just explicitly called out (and they weren't mechanically enforced)... that begs the question why one of the authors of the 4e PHB felt it necessary to point out that the design and design philosophy behind the classes was different from every edition before...

I believe it is possible to convince the other side. Keep it up!

 

[SirAntoine]

4e only labled the combat roles and left the non combat roles unfdefined, it was 4e's greatest short coming. I asked 100 or so pages ago if maybe combining roles like alignments would be better...

instead of lawful+good, you would have striker+face... but then add a third, one for each pillar.


yup every edition... even 4th, they just didn't have lables....


artillery is a sub set of control, or strike... just like lurker and skirmisher are types of strike, and battlfiend manipulation and target lock are parts of control... it is just a sub set the 2 share...

I'd say it's a little narrowed down in focus. The problem I have with it is not that they have these combat roles, but that they assign them to character classes. I expect fighters to do more things, to excel at both offense and defense, and adhere to either strategy and be equally helpful to the party. It never would occur to me if I was playing a rogue to be "a striker". I would be like like a lurker, sure, but a skirmisher, not really. I would mainly try to help the other characters finish monsters off, or disrupt spell-casting by injuring casters. Anywhere that a few points of damage can make a big difference. Killing minions would be another example, whether they have 1 hp or just a few.

No one needs to make a group with one defender, one controller, one leader as such, and one striker. The four core classes, though, are examples of areas of knowledge that are useful. They make a well-rounded party, but the game can be played well without this combination.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Painting one house doesn't make you a house painter. Throwing one flask of oil doesn't make you a grenadier. What I'm saying is that if you go through the majority of your encounters not doing anything to control the battlefield or the enemies you're encountering, you're not really a controller.

By your logic, being a heavily armored fighter triple specialized in your dual weapon fighting, making your persuasion check to convince a guy to be your friend and work for you (effectively the same thing charm person does) makes you a controller as your role?

Good to know.

An individual check is a transient effect that does not endure, at least by RAW. If Charm Person lasts as long as it apparently did (I did not play the early editions), charming a person for a whole day or possibly eternally is substantially different. One gets you what you want for a single encounter, and may provide the foundation for future rolls. The other (potentially) earns you a permanent companion, that can participate in fight after fight (until someone--you or the target--dies.) If the spell wore off after a few minutes, or had multiple saves, sure, it's not controlling for multiple combats. Neither is Sleep, and nobody argues that's not a control spell.

And if you have persuaded your DM to let you make permanent allies with a single persuasion check? Sure, you're doing some Controlling. You're Controlling the DM!

 

[SirAntoine]

Let me add a follow up to my point earlier. In Basic D&D, the same class (a fighter) could be (and was, depending on how the player wanted to play him or her)

* Strength based. The brutal warrior who focused on doing as much damage as possible
* Dex based. Either the heavy armor&shield type to be as hard to hit as possible, whose role was to be on the front line taking the brunt of the attacks.
* Dex based. Ranged weapons. The bow or javalin. Hit and run fighter
* Con based. Has as many HP as you could get to extend your survivability.

Or you could play a cleric that also fit all of the above if you wanted, in addition to a healer, protector, smiter, etc. I don't think there is any need to talk about how a MU could focus on damage dealing spells, or utility spells, or control spells, etc, etc--filling any number of roles that could change literally every day.

What people are forgetting about Basic D&D was that every weapon did the same damage (d6) unless you used an optional rule. And every class got the same bonuses to abilities. A cleric with a 16 STR would do more damage with a weapon than a fighter with a 15 STR forever until that somehow changed. This allowed classes to take on these "roles" you associate with different modern classes. Also, for the meat of the game (up to level 10), the attack matrix for fighters compared to a class like the cleric weren't really that far off. Heck, in Basic (the version we're talking about here as per what GM said that I replied to), there is no difference in the attack matrix. Everyone got better at the same rate when they hit level 4.



When I talk about roles in D&D, I'm talking about the entire game. If 4e changed that to mean that roles only mattered in combat, then that's a HUGE disservice to the game. Because like the thief in early D&D, your role wasn't combat focused for one. You still had just as much importance to the group as anyone else overall, so placing the value on combat seems to short change yourself, because D&D is sooo much more than combat. To me, roles are based more on archetypes you want to play. And in Basic, the roles are very basic (no pun intended) and loose. Nothing so narrowly defined as striker, controller, healer, etc. It was "magic user" and "fighter" and "thief" and "cleric" because each of those classes could do one of several different roles, depending on you choose to play them. Not something automatically predetermined when you choose the class.

The average fighter was lucky to have a bonus at all in strength, dexterity, or constitution in Basic.

 

[SirAntoine]

yeah, if you could do that in most encounters. But charm person doesn't do that. After you charmed your target, you are doing absolutely zero control over any enemies you happen to run into from that point on. You're not changing the environment to affect their movement, you're not forcing or coercing them to do anything---nada. So if you aren't doing anything to control the environment or the enemies, I'm hard pressed to call that a controller. The only thing you're doing is throwing another body at them.

A controller does things like grease, hold person, wall of X, sleep, evard tentacles, stone to mud, etc. Charming a henchmen in town and using that henchmen as a meat shield and protector for you during later encounters isn't controlling those later encounters at all.

That isn't the point. The point was that if you wanted to play a wizard from a book, myth, folklore, or TV show or movie, you were encouraged to play a magic user. Because the magic user was the one who cast spells from wands, spellbooks, etc, and didn't have to pray to a god for divine magic. There are mounds of evidence in the history of D&D that supports this.

The term would be more suitable for a wizard who specializes in enchantment/charm or mentalism. Even summoning monsters would be controlling.