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

[Banshee16]

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.

I disagree.

If everyone is supposed to have parity in all situations, then why not just have one class, and one race. "D&D character". You can each do the exact same things at all times.

There, done.

But that's not the way the game is. Some classes are supposed to excel at certain things. The cleric is a better healer than any other character. The wizard is a better blaster. The fighter is the best at armed combat. The bard is supposed to be one of the characters with the best social skills.

You can't make them all exactly the same in terms of capabilities in particular roles, because they're *supposed* to be different. The bard should excel in social situations, with better abilities at influencing NPC and monster behaviour than any other character. But, the flip side is that he shouldn't be as good at ripping them into meat gibbets as the fighter is.

The problem arises when the rulesbooks, prewritten modules etc. do not give GMs tools to create challenges in all situations, and focus only on balancing combat. Then, characters with a particular specialty (like bards) don't get a chance to shine at the things they're good at.

It's definitely possible. I ran swashbuckling adventures, and there's a class called the Courtier who actually has very little combat ability, but significant social abilities...more than any core D&D class. Given, this was a D20 or OGL game, rather than core. But I think the example is useful. In any case, that class sucked in combat....but in that setting/game, there were plenty of times where combat wasn't an appropriate solution, and the Courtier had chances to shine by dominating social encounters, with actual, mechanical abilities intended to allow them to do so.

If your game is just a dungeon crawl, then yeah....a focus on pure combat balancing makes more sense, as might roles.

But many games aren't just simple like that.

It's not about outshining one's friends. It's in the idea that yeah, some classes are better in some situations than others. We shouldn't apologize for that. If you want to be the big, butt kicking knight in armor, don't play a rogue (for instance). That's where the GM should talk to players, and ask about their character concept, and have the tools to help them realize it.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

No, it certainly wasn't in 3e. Not with feat trees. You specialized with a particular weapon and you focused on that throughout your career if you wanted to play in the big leagues. The generalist was back in the background with the rogue, watching in envy while the specialist dished out punishment that the generalist could only dream of.

Apparently I've been playing and running the game wrong all these years.

Thanks for correcting me.

Banshee

 

[Andor]

I am not answering the poll because it does not contain an option for "I would like to see explict roles die in a fire."

Quick, was Boromir a Striker or a Defender?
Was Aragorn a Leader or a Striker or Defender? He had healing...
Was Frodo a Striker?
Was Bilbo?

Too much LotR?

What was Mad Martigan? Willow? How much control did he exert?

Pick the fantasy series of your choice and pick out the defender.

Roles are overly gamist and almost meaningless without a grid based combat system. Retire them, or plunk them in the optional modules.

 

[Herschel]

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.

This is exactly what roles are. In 4E they decided to codify them so they could give us cool things to do within those archtypes to make them stronger. That's all. My 1E Ranger and 2E Fighter and 3E Fighter with their 2-Handed Swords played pretty close to my 4E Fighter except my 4E fighter had his mark mechanic. Why? Because that's what they were good at.

My Clerics in every edition have played similarly except I could do something on my turn besides heal in 4E (I prefer melee clerics).

Etc.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm a little saddened that a small edition war is breaking out here, and moreso because it seems to be mostly started by 4e fans who seem to think that the only way a person could not be in love with combat Roles is to be a 4e hater.

I'm a big 4e fan. I still don't like roles very much (for reasons stated in this thread). It's not a huge big deal to me if they keep the concept, nor do I think it should be a huge big deal to anyone if they remove it.

I doubt they are going to forget how to balance classes against each other (unless you want homogenization - I don't think they will go for that).

Some classes suit only really one role (like the Assassin) and others could suit two or three (like the Fighter or Wizard). Not to mention the question if Defender, Leader, Controller, and Striker are really the best definitions of role (Is there really much difference between Controller and Defender other than damage soak in the latter and more powerful forced movement in the former? Is that enough of a difference?)

No, I think it best that the designers keep role under consideration while designing class, but not get caught up in it. The books should have some info on good party building (along with a lot of fluff) and that should be it.

 

[MarkChevallier]

This is exactly what roles are. In 4E they decided to codify them so they could give us cool things to do within those archtypes to make them stronger. That's all. My 1E Ranger and 2E Fighter and 3E Fighter with their 2-Handed Swords played pretty close to my 4E Fighter except my 4E fighter had his mark mechanic. Why? Because that's what they were good at.

My Clerics in every edition have played similarly except I could do something on my turn besides heal in 4E (I prefer melee clerics).

Etc.

I'm sorry, I don't think that's true in Fourth Edition. The combat role of "the Fighter class" doesn't match the breadth of scope belonging to the fantasy archetype of "a Fighter". It is limited, highly limited, in part because it must adhere to its role of defender and in part because it can't steal the tactical niche possessed by certain other character types.

The combat roles of 4E are peculiar to the tactical combat game of 4E, which is essentially unique to it. It didn't exist before then; in other editions, when tactical combat took a hand, the tactics used were based much more in "real-world" notions of what would be useful in battle, and less on specific, game-coded, bonuses and abilities which rewarded particular kinds of tactics.

About the closest thing to it was the idea of flanking in 3E, which gave rogues and others specific bonuses with Sneak Attack. 4E saw the success of that kind of thing and stretched it out to make of it, essentially, the entire game. Having done that, the next step was to give each class something to do in that tactical game, and given the artificiality and game-like nature of it, the easiest way to do that was to define roles that each could perform, thus putting classes in particular kinds of broad categories that had nothing to do with their description or characteristics and everything to do with the existence of the tactical game.

Without such a tactical focus, all you need is a return to the idea of "this character excels in melee combat", "this character is better at range", "this character stays out of trouble and tries to help", "this character is an excellent bodyguard"; all of these based, not in class, but in the play preferences of the individuals. Some classes will be better than others at each role, but they are not straitjackets which define the class.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What I don't want for example are three defender builds, or three controller builds. I want to be able to take a class and use it's options to build whatever I can think of with what I have. If I want an archer type fighter I don't want to be told I can play a ranger and flavor it to be a fighter.

Sure a fighter could pick up a bow and use it but why would you when you have all these other powers that enable you to do more damage, nevermind the fact that those powers are designed for melee and not archery.

I think "powers" are another problem all together.

 

[Sunseeker]

But that's not the way the game is. Some classes are supposed to excel at certain things. The cleric is a better healer than any other character. The wizard is a better blaster. The fighter is the best at armed combat. The bard is supposed to be one of the characters with the best social skills.

You technically can't have power parity with different "roles", ie: comparing the parity of a defender to a striker, and a striker to a leader is difficult because they're supposed to do different things.

Power parity can only truly be cross-role compared in terms of effectivness. Is the leader's healing keeping up with the damage being dealt? Is the defender's defensivness surviving? Is the striker's strikeryness enough to end the combat before everyone is running on empty?

Actual power parity comparisons can really on be made between two similar roles. Are the wizard and the ranger dealing out approximate damage? Are warlock and the invoker controllering at about the same level?

Their effects will differ, their damage styles and types will differ. a Wizard may cast a massive fireball that takes two rounds but does 10d6. A rogue may do 2d6 per weapon per round. After two rounds, the wziard is pulling ahead by sheer dice-rolled, but the rogue could be pulling ahead in actual damage done. After the combat is over, did both of their damage contribute substantially to the ending of combat? If yes, then we have power parity.

You can't make them all exactly the same in terms of capabilities in particular roles, because they're *supposed* to be different. The bard should excel in social situations, with better abilities at influencing NPC and monster behaviour than any other character. But, the flip side is that he shouldn't be as good at ripping them into meat gibbets as the fighter is.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to give the bard a lute that does 1d10+cha mod damage twice per turn.

The problem arises when the rulesbooks, prewritten modules etc. do not give GMs tools to create challenges in all situations, and focus only on balancing combat. Then, characters with a particular specialty (like bards) don't get a chance to shine at the things they're good at.

You can't really do much more than say "GM, you should make situations that challenge all character roles" in a book. I mean how do you define a social-based encounter. It can come in so many different forms.

It's not about outshining one's friends. It's in the idea that yeah, some classes are better in some situations than others. We shouldn't apologize for that. If you want to be the big, butt kicking knight in armor, don't play a rogue (for instance). That's where the GM should talk to players, and ask about their character concept, and have the tools to help them realize it.

Banshee

Sure, and that's a balanced game. An unbalanced game comes from when the wizard who took only the most wizardy stuff he can find out-tanks the tank who took all the best tanking things he can find. If one class without specializing is able to do the roles of other, specialized classes, then there's a problem.

But not every class is a single role, the Cleric is also a high-cha character and should do reasonably well right along-side the bard in certain situations(say, dealing with the police or church who may consider bards unsavory types). The sorcerer and wizard are also high "communication" characters, but too would excell in their own social situations. Some of these all may overlap, perhaps it's a church of magic? Perhaps the town guards are musicians. ect.... Even still, when a silver tongue cannot win them over, the muscle of the fighter can still come in handy in social situations well.

All roles overlap, but no single class should have a monopoly on a single role or situation.

 

[SteveC]

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.

I think you're missing the point: the roles have been in D&D literally since the beginning. They weren't the only way to play D&D, but they were there and intended to be there. The basic four classes were all a necessary part of the game if you ran it in a traditional dungeon adventure sense. The thief might not have been absolutely required, but then he was the first supplemental character class.

Yes, you had some flexibility, but you also have flexibility with 4E. Even moreso, I'd say, because there's no one class or role that's absolutely required in 4E. I've played campaigns with all of one role and missing more than one role, and they still worked... would it have been the same way with earlier editions?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you're missing the point: the roles have been in D&D literally since the beginning. They weren't the only way to play D&D, but they were there and intended to be there. The basic four classes were all a necessary part of the game if you ran it in a traditional dungeon adventure sense. The thief might not have been absolutely required, but then he was the first supplemental character class.

Yes, you had some flexibility, but you also have flexibility with 4E. Even moreso, I'd say, because there's no one class or role that's absolutely required in 4E. I've played campaigns with all of one role and missing more than one role, and they still worked... would it have been the same way with earlier editions?

I disagree. Classes have been around since the beginning, but the four role of leader, defender, striker and controller simply havent. That is a new interpretation of the game.