D&D 5E How would you like 5e to handle combat roles.

[Bedrockgames]

How did it make them less fluid? It just gave characters goodies to make them better at their traditional roles. It was more open in many ways than any other version of the game.

Because before there weren't 4 solid roles. It isn't like defenders, leaders, controllers, and strikers have existed as concepts in the game since its inception. This is one way to cut the pie but not the only way. It could have been cut into three broader categories, or multiple more narrow categories (which is essentially what any felt they were doing before 4E codefied it all around combat). People talked about teamwork and roles in lots of different ways. And the 4e approach for lots of us is too insistint on looking at the game through the lens of 4. I dont necessarily want a character that focused.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But it didn't really remove anything. The game was designed so that every character could be viable at every part of the game (the three pillars, if you will though I'd argue the Fighter skill list is still too limited) and give them tricks to make them better at their traditional roles.

This is exactly what lots of folks didn't want. If it works for you, that is great. For some people, parity is a feature. But for others parity is a problem. Especially when it is designed around making charaters equally viable in any given situation.

 

[Hassassin]

But it didn't really remove anything. The game was designed so that every character could be viable at every part of the game (the three pillars, if you will though I'd argue the Fighter skill list is still too limited) and give them tricks to make them better at their traditional roles.

Compare the 3e paladin to the 4e one. The 3e paladin can just as easily use a ranged weapon - the only ability keyed to melee is his daily smite evil. OTOH, the 4e paladin can only use his powers with a melee weapon. Other examples: the cleric and ranger both lost shield proficiency, the wizard got limited severely, utility and combat powers were separated.

Whether you like these changes or not, they seem to have been made to focus classes on their chosen role.

 

[Herschel]

Clerics can just take shield proificiancy if they want it, same with Rangers. Rangers just have been better with using two weapons since the original Unearthed Arcana. The Paladin in 4E can even be a passable leader. As far a ranged weapon user he's NEVER been designed to be one but he can still be one though not great at it. In fact in previous editions you were supposed to lose powers and XP for fighting at range when you could be in melee.

 

[Herschel]

This is exactly what lots of folks didn't want. If it works for you, that is great. For some people, parity is a feature. But for others parity is a problem. Especially when it is designed around making charaters equally viable in any given situation.

The design goal of power parity is the best thing to happen to a social game like D&D. If one wants to outshoine their friends and pwn noobs then maybe a truly social game isn't the best fit.

 

[Herschel]

I dont necessarily want a character that focused.

You don't have to build a character that is that focused. There's a lot of options out there if one just looks at them. Take a Warlock. You can build it as a striker, a controller or even a defender or leader. Or you can build a character thgat does some of it all. Optimally it will be a bit better at the primary role because it has a specific mechanic to boost that role (the curse damage boost in this case) but that doesn't mean it can't do other things well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The design goal of power parity is the best thing to happen to a social game like D&D. If one wants to outshoine their friends and pwn noobs then maybe a truly social game isn't the best fit.

In your opinion it is. If parity makes your game better that is great, 4E is the game for you. I don't hold that preference against you. For me it dimished the fun, and not because I wanted to outshine others at the table (actually quite the opposite). Why is it so bad to not enjoy the kind of balance 4E advanced?

 

[Hassassin]

Clerics can just take shield proificiancy if they want it, same with Rangers. Rangers just have been better with using two weapons since the original Unearthed Arcana. The Paladin in 4E can even be a passable leader. As far a ranged weapon user he's NEVER been designed to be one but he can still be one though not great at it. In fact in previous editions you were supposed to lose powers and XP for fighting at range when you could be in melee.

I'm not saying the classes are limited in the absolute "you can't do that" sense. Only that by focusing the class abilities more tightly to the idea of one role, they made the opportunity cost of breaking those archetypes much more expensive.

That loss of versatility is something I don't like.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You don't have to build a character that is that focused. There's a lot of options out there if one just looks at them. Take a Warlock. You can build it as a striker, a controller or even a defender or leader. Or you can build a character thgat does some of it all. Optimally it will be a bit better at the primary role because it has a specific mechanic to boost that role (the curse damage boost in this case) but that doesn't mean it can't do other things well.

Again you forced to look at it through the lens of striker, leader, controller, and defender. Not everyone wants that. And while there is some flexibility, I've found this still to be you need to specialize in one role and be less good at another. I would also say hassassin captures one of the big issues with roles in is post.

Again, if you disagree and it brings fun to your game, that is fine. But I have tried 4e several times, i own the core books and have read them. Stuff like roles just don't appeal to me (for anwide variety of reasons).

 

[MarkChevallier]

Every version of D&D has had roles, 4E just cleaned the wording a bit and codified them by giving characters some actual ability/power to be more efficient at those roles.

Saying otherwise is denial, not factual. If they don't spell it out you just pretend it's not there? Kind of silly, no?

In my opinion, this isn't true in the way that roles were implemented in 4E. Character classes before had things they were usually naturally better at, by virtue of the archetype they filled. But the strengths of the class arose naturally out of the vision of the kind of character it represented.

To define a class by its role first, by "this class is a primal defender", led to a strange phenomenon where this led (and, to an extent, dictated) the design. Let the strengths of a character come from it's class's natural leanings (and customisation and play preference of the player), but let those class leanings arise naturally from its common-sense, archetypal description.

Roles are straightjackets for design, and do so in a particularly gameist fashion, one that makes me cringe at the inauthenticity of it. I certainly do not agree that they were, secretly or otherwise, in previous editions of the game in the same way that they were in 4E.

Lastly, I don't mean to be overly critical, but I'd prefer it if you wouldn't say my opinion is denial or silly. It is an opinion which is different from yours, and it is better (both out of politeness and because it engages a better discussion) to present me with arguments, not dismissals. I appreciate you might not have meant it that way.