D&D General D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?

[EzekielRaiden]

Leather armour, no shield, two weapons, high strength, feats and-or magic items geared toward giving out pain rather than preventing it.

You're still good at it. You have the proficiencies. You never lose them. You're just not taking advantage of them.

This is literally 100% identical to saying that a 4e Fighter still has a mark and a punishment, they can just choose not to use it. What is the difference? Why is a feature in one thing a shackle, and a feature in another merely a perk?

Well, each class being good at a few things while bad at a lot of things is what I'd be after; with the things each class is good at being different and distinct. In other words each class has its own fairly clear niche, and the idea of the adventuring party is to have a group that can more or less cover for each other's weaknesses with their own strengths.

Why not instead have everyone be reasonably competent at the things the game expects everyone to participate in--the things D&D has called "pillars"--and then make each exceptional at some particular thing? Because the key flaw with your proposal is that if there are (say) 4 distinct things people can be good at, you're sitting there bored 3/4 of the time. That...doesn't seem like a good or effective way to get everyone active and enjoying the process of play. It, in fact, seems like a great way to make people mostly bored.

If you're good in one area and mostly pointless in everything else, the natural incentive is to make the thing you're good at relevant as much as possible, so you can be active and participatory as often as possible, not window-dressing. Why not instead make incentives where players are eager to participate at all times? Why not make incentives such that, instead of getting the most enjoyment by making your niche the most important one, you rather get the most bang for your buck by building the team's contribution, collectively? Someone will often be the point man, the lynchpin, the three-point-shooter, the goal kicker, whatever metaphor you like, but a three-point-shooter without a team to support them always loses. They can't win the match all by themselves; they can't even succeed at their shots all by themselves, even though they are the direct cause.

Being a spectator 3/4 of the time isn't exactly my notion of a good gaming experience. Especially in a game allegedly about cooperation and teamwork.

The Wizard's niche should be the casting of effective spells on a not-necessarily-constant basis and with some risk attached, while its weaknesses should be durability, combat, and most other physically-strenuous activity.

The problem is that "effective spells" negates all three of those things, and "most other physically-strenuous activity" is essentially a non-entity in D&D rules in the absence of any formal structure beyond "make some skill checks I guess." Shield addresses the first; fireball addresses the second; and at least seven ultra-traditional spells, which in 5e can be cast as rituals (or are cantrips), address the third, e.g.:

• prestidigitation ("daily care and feeding" type tasks)
• alarm (no need to keep watch)
• find familiar (scouting, surveying, communicating)
• Tenser's floating disk (hauling and carry weight)
• unseen servant (chores of all descriptions; being Strength 2 just means they might take longer)
• Leomund's tiny hut (shelter, protection from the elements)
• phantom steed (overland travel of all sorts)
• water breathing (water as any meaningful form of terrain obstacle)

None of which require a spell slot to be cast, and most of them can be easily slotted into any Wizard's automatic spells without issue. Don't bother suggesting that Wizards lose their ability to choose what spells they get--it's simply a non-starter, even for me, and you know I'm not keen on things that increase caster power.

 

[payn]

What does that mean though? For real. What is being "hard baked"/"hard locked"/lacking "multiple roles and styles"?

Im talking about every fighter needing only Str and Con, every Wiz only needing Int and Dex, etc... Multiclassing being hybrid focused so you cant stray too far from the intended role path design.

Because, for example, the 5e Fighter cannot choose not to be good at defense. I mean, unless you literally just break your character, but anyone in any edition can do that so I assume you have excluded that path. The Cleric cannot choose not to be a great healer, the spells are always there, they can only ignore them, not actually cut them out.

I like a class that can choose how its good at defense. Well armored with a shield? Quick agility making you hard to hit in the first place? Lots of Con allowing you to soak damage? I want all these just in the fighter alone. Please don't tell me to play a rogue or barbarian instead. I want them to have options as well!

So, what actually makes something "hard locked"? Does drifting count? Do subclasses/builds count? If you take a feat and an item and some DM elbow grease, does that count? What is it that makes "multiple roles and styles"?

Fighter is a defender, Cleric is a leader, Wizard is a controller, Rogue is a striker, etc... Hybrid multiclass keeps your focus on the class choice at level 1, but allows you a toe dip into something else but keeps you on the role designed path. I want to make a fighter striker, controller, and/or leader if I want. I also want to be able to multiclass and do the roles in all new and unexpected ways. I dont want the system to tell me the game is played in one expected way.

Also, please note this is all preference, I am not saying any of the above is bad design, I just do not like it.

Surprising, since 3e has by far the most degenerate solutions and dominant strategies of all D&D games. You are hard-locked invisibly, especially if you want to play a character that doesn't use spells.

Building an actually functional Fighter or Barbarian sucks, and almost always makes you a debilitatingly over-specialized one-trick-pony (or should I say one-trip-pony? I'm so punny.)

It's true the hype specialization is a great weakness of 3E. I still appreciate that it allows the flexibility in design and would like a game that values that concept. I blame the math more than the character options and choice, or lack thereof.

It seems to me that you want the game to actually break the pillars entirely. No more pillars. Because otherwise, you are saying people must be forced to choose to be good at only one of the things the game or mediocre at all of them.

Unless, of course, you play a spellcaster. Then you can be a full time Combatant/Guide/Director/Allure if you feel like it. Or you can let the caddies have some fun in the Combatant space while trivializing everything else because the "Director" role means being good at everything. (The perennial problem of the jack of all trades: how to sail between the Scylla of "good at nothing" and the Charybdis of "great at everything. The 3e Bard fell into the former most of the time. The Wizard, as always, has sailed straight into the latter unless the GM actively plays favorites.)

You got me all wrong, which is why I think the roles discussion is a poor one to begin with. I want every class to have options in every pillar. Yes, I know this has not been realized in any edition to date, in my experience of course.

 

[Aldarc]

Fighter is a defender, Cleric is a leader, Wizard is a controller, Rogue is a striker, etc... Hybrid multiclass keeps your focus on the class choice at level 1, but allows you a toe dip into something else but keeps you on the role designed path. I want to make a fighter striker, controller, and/or leader if I want. I also want to be able to multiclass and do the roles in all new and unexpected ways. I dont want the system to tell me the game is played in one expected way.

Why? A fighter is just a name for the martial defender in 4e. Why does it matter if you can't make a fighter into a leader when the warlord is the martial leader and covers the same thematic ground that a fighter leader would?

 

[payn]

Why? A fighter is just a name for the martial defender in 4e. Why does it matter if you can't make a fighter into a leader when the warlord is the martial leader?

I told you not to tell me to just do this Seriously though, I do not want a tactics based game that requires roles be maintained to work. PF2 followed the 4E path, but its much worse. They try and fool you into thinking its not path based. They do this by offering optimal path A and B. Path C is available, but its obviously bad, reinforcing the idea to stay on the path. Furthermore, they made multiclassing such a PITA, thats its again difficult to get off the intended path.

Anyways, I dont want a mechanically tactical battle sim for my fantasy RPG. I want flexibility in every class and feat choice. I understand this makes the game a bit more ambiguous and less mechanically predictable and thats not cool with some folks. Though im a much more strategic focused player than a tactical one. Its a matter of preference. As I mentioned in another thread this morning, I like mechanics under the hood where if tuned correctly, I dont have to think about them. I dont want to have to turn a wrench while driving to get to where im going. I especially, dont want to be turning a wrench, while the passenger wipes the window clear, and the back seater signals the turns, etc...

 

[Vaalingrade]

You got me all wrong, which is why I think the roles discussion is a poor one to begin with. I want every class to have options in every pillar. Yes, I know this has not been realized in any edition to date, in my experience of course.

I've come to realize that the fact is, there's only really the combat pillar and the people who insist that there's three are at fault for that.

Exploration? Well what people call exploration isn't really. There's not really a focus on encouraging exploration and having things to explore. It's all nods to old school 'punish the party for trying to travel' logistics and penalties for existing in environments. 'Exploration' abilities boil down to coupons to get out of putting up with that crap: can't get lost, don't need food, avoid random encounters. You get to tell your DM 'no' when they try to Old School you. That's about it.

Social? Oh boy. We're just not allowed to have social mechanics because having a character sheet is wrong and bad. If you're not an improve afficionado, if you're shy, if you're soft spoken or not good at talking, well you don't deserve to play a social character. You thought this was a game where you could play people vastly different from you? Naw, dog, this is for the thespians to show off their real life skills. Sit off to the side while the real roleplayers give impassioned soliloquies with their CHA 3 Barbarians.

There never were three pillars. If would be nice if they were, but they were always just a theory. A GAME THEORY! Thanks for watching.

 

[TwoSix]

If D&D were ever to return back to 4e-style roles, I have posited before that MOBAs would probably provide a richer source of inspiration than MMOs or even D&D's classic four team. The sort of classes/roles (nomenclature here varies) one would potentially expect in a MOBA:

• Tank/Juggernaut: melee control, HP sponge, and combat initiation
• Bruiser/Fighter
• Assassin: i.e., melee striker
• Marksman: i.e., ranged striker
• Mage: artillery and/or control
• Support/Healer

Often there are MOBA characters with mixed roles: e.g., Bruiser/Support, Support/Marksman, Mage/Assassin, etc.

It would also let the Wizard-types slot themselves as a carry, which I've argued before is the position that a lot of players expect Wizards to fill.

 

[TwoSix]

It does still lean in harder than I'd like to a strict combat/non-combat divide. Nothing to say about who does the talking, how scouting works, wilderness travel and so on in MOBAs.

There's a number of ways it could be handled. You could move non-combat out of class identity and bake it into a non-class layer, like Backgrounds/Feats/etc.

Or you just distribute the non-combat roles to various classes based on existing tropes.

 

[payn]

I've come to realize that the fact is, there's only really the combat pillar and the people who insist that there's three are at fault for that.

Exploration? Well what people call exploration isn't really. There's not really a focus on encouraging exploration and having things to explore. It's all nods to old school 'punish the party for trying to travel' logistics and penalties for existing in environments. 'Exploration' abilities boil down to coupons to get out of putting up with that crap: can't get lost, don't need food, avoid random encounters. You get to tell your DM 'no' when they try to Old School you. That's about it.

Social? Oh boy. We're just not allowed to have social mechanics because having a character sheet is wrong and bad. If you're not an improve afficionado, if you're shy, if you're soft spoken or not good at talking, well you don't deserve to play a social character. You thought this was a game where you could play people vastly different from you? Naw, dog, this is for the thespians to show off their real life skills. Sit off to the side while the real roleplayers give impassioned soliloquies with their CHA 3 Barbarians.

There never were three pillars. If would be nice if they were, but they were always just a theory. A GAME THEORY! Thanks for watching.

I go back and forth on this. I for sure want more attention on the pillars, but you make some very good points here.

A lot of folks view exploration as a challenge to not get hurt. Survive traps and harsh environments etc.. I tend to view those things as potentials, but see exploration as much more. I include puzzles, discovering hidden places, learning the terrain and how to navigate it. There has traditionally been a lot of utility options (for some classes anyways) to do these things, but never has there been a dedicated exploration chapter. Paizo has done a lot of subsystems over the years in their APs that lays a lot of ground here and those have always been met with mixed reactions.

Social has always been the least defined. I think a lot of folks assume this is the free range realm of role play. Though, some mechanics have entered the picture over the years. I know thats been to mixed fan fare as well (players that scream diplomacy and throw their D20 down on the table viewing this as being social for example). Though, efforts have been made to give some physical presence in the form of intimidation and what not. Usually, its a very ambiguous set of mechanics. Paizo has also over the years had some social sub-systems but the downfall has always been relying on Cha to even participate. At any rate, the social pillar is likely the most divided in viewpoint.

I think 5E recognizing the pillars was a huge step, however, they did very little with it. I wouldnt mind some more mechanics and direction in playing in these pillars. What is especially needed is more character building focus on exploration and social. Im a little apprehensive because I don't want a situation where exploration and social is just turned into another form of combat, I especially dont want hard coded jobs in the pillars based on class either. Be interesting to see what the future holds, but I dont expect any immediate. Guess I'll have to rely on my GM portion of the game to facilitate these things myself.

 

[Aldarc]

It would also let the Wizard-types slot themselves as a carry, which I've argued before is the position that a lot of players expect Wizards to fill.

I think that terms like carry, top laner, jungler, etc. are a bit outside of what I have in mind when I talk of MOBA roles. I believe that LoL would call the aforementioned terms like bruiser, assassin, marksman, etc. "classes." However, I think that these are what 4e would call "roles."

I think 5E recognizing the pillars was a huge step, however, they did very little with it.

IMHO, I think that 4e did a bit of a better job. I felt that its reduction was a bit closer to D&D. In the DMG, it separates out (1) combat encounters and (2) non-combat encounters. I think that's the tension present in the class design when we talk, for example, of the fighter and wizard or martials and spellcasters, especially when WotC has designed everyone to have a baseline level of competence for combat encounters while that is not necessarily the case for non-combat encounters.

 

[Pedantic]

IMHO, I think that 4e did a bit of a better job. I felt that its reduction was a bit closer to D&D. In the DMG, it separates out (1) combat encounters and (2) non-combat encounters. I think that's the tension present in the class design when we talk, for example, of the fighter and wizard or martials and spellcasters, especially when WotC has designed everyone to have a baseline level of competence for combat encounters while that is not necessarily the case for non-combat encounters.

I continue to worry about the separation of the two though. That's the road that leads to skill challenges and totally separate competencies within the two realms. I would very much prefer combat with all its assorted tools, sit clearly in the player toolkit as a solution to problems and not as a problem unto itself. Ideally you want a wall of stone spell that is both practical as a way to separate the enemy forces into two or more easily managed groups, and provides a meaningful answer to "how much of this floodplain can we dam off?"