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

[Hassassin]

None of the above.

Some classes should be very focused on one role (like maybe assassin = striker?). Some should be able to freely alternate between two (fighter = defender or striker). Some shouldn't inherently be limited to any, although an individual character may not be able to handle all (bard).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can we see examples?

These could just as well be about source as class. Wizard = arcane, Fighter = martial, etc...

1. How is the Wizard going to act as a Leader?

Historically, the Wizard is like Dr Strange, able to do anything and everything - except heal much at all. But there's more to leader than healing, and the old 'buffing' wizard build could work fine as a healer. Alteration would be the school, in old-school terms, the wizard enhances and outright transforms his allies to amp up their abilities in and out of combat.

2. How is the Rogue going to act as a Defender?

As more of a Duelist, perhaps? Trade in SA with flanking for SA when an enemy makes an attack that excludes the duelist...

4. How is the Fighter going to act as a Controller?

Something along the lines of a 3.5 'tactical reach'/'chain-gun tripper' build. Prettymuch a melee controller.

 

[Minigiant]

Roles aren't going away for they were always there. You can either focus on them or let them go free all over the game and hope for the best.

Either you dealt lot of damage, healed damage and granted bonuses, were very tough and attracted attention, or controlled your enemies. Some PC could do more than one of the above at a time. Other could do none of them effectively and usually were drags on combat (but many make up for it out of combat)

The second a class can't slay, heal, control, or tank; a combat role is created as this class doesn't have it but another does. Once the players and PCs decided that they wanted someone who can heal, every class with healing got the healer/leader role. This is why 4e added so many self heals.

My answer would be to give every class all the roles in different ways. The hardest role is healing as D&D has a tradition of only non-arcane magic having healing until 4e. This even hard as the all the previous classes are coming back so rolling warlord into fighter. And this is a unity edition so pre-3e players might not like that option.

So I can live with something like option 2 where every class gets 2 combat focuses. Then the PC can go all one way, all the other way, or some combination in between.

Fighter: Defender (armor) or Striker (weapons)
Rogue: Striker (sneak attack) or Defender (light armor duelist)
Cleric: Leader (healing/curing) or Controller (hold person, summoning)
Wizard: Striker (blasting) or Controller (crazy mage stuff)
Druid: Defender (shapershifting) or Controller (nature magic)
Bard: Leader (positive song) or Controller (enchanting songs)
Paladin: Defender (armor) or Leader (lay on hands)
Ranger: Striker (you know) or Controller (poisons/traps/animals)
etc

 

[trancejeremy]

While I think the game always had roles to a degree, they've certainly changed.

Currently they seem to be based on the MMORPG roles - Tanker, DPS, Healer, and Controller (but are missing a pet class)

Previously they were more war-gamish - Heavy Infantry (Fighters/Clerics), Light Infantry (Thieves/Assassins), and Ranged/Artillery (Magic Users)

 

[Oni]

Roles need to be taken and chucked out the window. Make each class unique, give them interesting mechanics, and then let the players decide how they're going to use them. If you say every class has to fill a specific role, or every class has to fill two roles, or every class needs to fill each and every role, then all your doing is putting unnecessary restriction on the design process and making the game feel too regimented and artificial.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Roles really didn't do anything for me.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Can we see examples?

1. How is the Wizard going to act as a Leader?
2. How is the Rogue going to act as a Defender?
3. <skipped>
4. How is the Fighter going to act as a Controller?

1. Abjurer or Diviner.
2. A duelist build that can taunt opponents, encourage them to a duel, perhaps a bit tougher than a normal rogue but relying on a great Dex to dodge attacks
4. The fighter is practically a melee controller already. With great basic attacks, the fighter can plop himself anywhere on the field and deny (or at least punish) options the enemy takes.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

D. Drop the roles.

Combat roles are a metagame design concept. They might serve as a guideline for design, but should not be an explicit reason for a class's existence. Nor should they be explicitly referred to in the game books.

 

[Bobbum Man]

Some roles, like defender, may not work as well without using a combat grid / miniatures - that's a real thing to think about as that becomes optional.

Fighter

Battle Guardian - Enemies suffer a -2 penalty to hit allies adjacent to you. This penalty increases by 1 at levels 5,10,15 and 20.

Hold The Line - Once per round, when an enemy tries to pass within 25 ft. of you, you can Shift in front of them as an Immediate Action.

Punishing Blow - Once per encounter when an adjacent enemy makes an attack that does not include you as a target, you can make a Basic Melee Attack against that enemy as an Immediate Action. This attack takes place before the target's attack is resolved, and deals an additional 1[W] damage. At 10th level, this attack deals an additional 2[W] damage, and at 15th Level it deals an additional 3[W] damage.

On the subject of roles, I can take them or leave them. I like that in 4E there is something to the Fighter other than being "sword-swing-y nonmagic guy", but I don't think that they're essential.

I could see a system wherein players can take options that make classes perform different roles, such as a Paladin taking options that make them a striker, leader, defender OR controller.

Or a Wizard for instance:

Evoker: Striker/Controller
Necromancer: Leader/Striker
Abjurer: Defender/Controller
Diviner: Leader/Defender
Transmuter: Controller/Leader
Conjurer: Controller/Defender
Illusionist: Controller/Leader
Enchanter: Controller/Defender

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd like to see the concept completely ignored. Option 3 is the closest.

Let people build the character they want, and don't separate off the combat part of the game from the rest of it.

Combat roles are a metagame design concept. They might serve as a guideline for design, but should not be an explicit reason for a class's existence. Nor should they be explicitly referred to in the game books.

Yeah, that.

 

[steeldragons]

Add another voice to "Drop the roles/No Roles/Roles aren't necessary in/as game rules" rally.

So, the missing poll option to "How would you like 5e to handle combat roles?":

D: Not at all. No combat roles.

--SD

 

[SensoryThought]

I don't understand all the roles hate.

Looking back at the first D&D iterations the classes were all extremely pigeonholed. Everyone got a weapon that they swung each round: fighters usually a sword, clerics got a mace, thieves a dagger or shortsword and mages a staff or dagger. Mages got to mix it up by casting a few hideously powerful spells (magic missile hit and killed low level enemies or sleep knocked out a heap). Clerics could cast a few heals, but mostly after the battle. The thief was weak and their best hope was to get a chance backstab once every couple of combats. In fact, it was designed so fighters would shine most in combat as other classes had non-combat times to be in the spotlight.

I find 4e far more inclusive for letting everyone to get their moment in the spotlight. Roles in my mind help facilitate that.

Yes, it means a 'balanced party) has advantages over 5 rogues. But I think that can be a good thing, plus no one says that you can't all be strikers if that's what your group wants.

 

[MoxieFu]

D. Drop the roles.

Combat roles are a metagame design concept. They might serve as a guideline for design, but should not be an explicit reason for a class's existence. Nor should they be explicitly referred to in the game books.

The poll assumes EVERYONE likes roles and that is very much not the case.

Roles go against the very basics of what the designers want D&Dn to be. They have mentioned Themes and that seems to offer characters a means of defining their characters. I know it's still early in the design process and I hope I like the way they turn out.

From what I can tell so far, Themes offer a choice. Roles enforce a restriction.

 

[Bobbum Man]

Add another voice to "Drop the roles/No Roles/Roles aren't necessary in/as game rules" rally.

So, the missing poll option to "How would you like 5e to handle combat roles?":

D: Not at all. No combat roles.

--SD

Well roles are there whether you want them or not. The question is whether or not they will be implicit, as they were in previous editions, or explicit as they were in 4E. Also, whether or not role will be a function inextricably tied to class, or if it will be more flexible.

 

[steeldragons]

Well roles are there whether you want them or not. The question is whether or not they will be implicit, as they were in previous editions, or explicit as they were in 4E. Also, whether or not role will be a function inextricably tied to class, or if it will be more flexible.

Granted. Implicit, then.

Everyone knows that the rogue is better at hanging back, good with missiles, going unnoticed and sneak attacking. The game does not need to tell me I'm a "striker" or link abilities/skills/powers/whatever they will be to such a title. Give me the skills/abilities and I'll choose how my character uses them...even if it's not the "best/most optimal" way.

So, I suppose, the answer to the poll would be "C", except the poll assumes they will be explicitly defined...which I would rather not see/don't think necessary.

 

[Sunseeker]

Granted. Implicit, then.

Everyone knows that the rogue is better at hanging back, good with missiles, going unnoticed and sneak attacking. The game does not need to tell me I'm a "striker" or link abilities/skills/powers/whatever they will be to such a title. Give me the skills/abilities and I'll choose how my character uses them...even if it's not the "best/most optimal" way.

So, I suppose, the answer to the poll would be "C", except the poll assumes they will be explicitly defined...which I would rather not see/don't think necessary.

Any difference you're making here is entirely splitting hairs.
We all know a rogue is a striker, regardless of if he's got a little gold star over his head that marks him as a striker.

I think this will play in very very importantly into how they integrate essentially similar classes, or classes with very different roles(like cleric, druid, ect...). Will putting "striker" in front of "wizard" prevent him from being a controller? Will putting "leader" in front of cleric prevent him from being a healer? ect...

For certain classes, it's explicit that you are X and can only be X because the system is designed solely around X concept where X is all you are.

For other classes, it's less explicit and in the end where it will matter most, I think it will be interesting to see if Wizards decides to split every class with more than one role into unique classes unto themselves, or combine "core variants" into "themes" or "advenement paths" for core classes.

If the former I think roles will be incredibly explicit, but it won't matter since we'll know we're playing a templar or a hospitalier because of their specific role. If the latter I agree that roles should be more implied given the varitiey the class posesses.

 

[Bobbum Man]

Granted. Implicit, then.

Everyone knows that the rogue is better at hanging back, good with missiles, going unnoticed and sneak attacking. The game does not need to tell me I'm a "striker" or link abilities/skills/powers/whatever they will be to such a title. Give me the skills/abilities and I'll choose how my character uses them...even if it's not the "best/most optimal" way.

So, I suppose, the answer to the poll would be "C", except the poll assumes they will be explicitly defined...which I would rather not see/don't think necessary.

I don't think that they need to be explicitly defined, exactly...but I do think that the rules should provide guidance on what it is a specific option is supposed to accomplish.

I would like to see Ivory Tower design avoided at all cost in future iterations of D&D.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well roles are there whether you want them or not. The question is whether or not they will be implicit, as they were in previous editions, or explicit as they were in 4E. Also, whether or not role will be a function inextricably tied to class, or if it will be more flexible.

Sure, but like "rules lawyer", "power gamer", "method actor", etc when referring to player types, a character doesn't need to come hard-coded into a role. You pick all the damaging options you can for your character, it's a striker, sure.

But even in 4e you can buck the classes's hard-coded role. A druid shape-shifter is more a defender-striker in spite of being labelled a controller.

I find 4e far more inclusive for letting everyone to get their moment in the spotlight. Roles in my mind help facilitate that. .

You don't need explicit use of roles to have that.

The roles might be good for designers to have in mind when designing classes (though they should make options players can pick to skew most classes one way or another - though probably not to the extent that all classes can fit all roles).

And perhaps there should be some mention of the concept in a "Building Your Adventuring Party" session (ie "Make sure you have someone who can soak damage, someone who can mitigate it, someone who can deal it.." etc)

But I don't think it needs to be hard-coded into each class in any explicit way.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think that the four roles have a place in design, insofar as it's good to have certain bases covered in any group.

But I don't think it should be a strongly one class = one role as it was in 4E, and I don't think that the roles should be a forward part of the language of the game.

The four roles, really, are Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. What each of those means is rather complex. Other classes can fulfill aspects of each of those roles, but should be their own thing as well. For example, the Bard can stand in for some of the elements of the Cleric, but also does his own thing.

So, sure, each class should conform a little bit to one of those four, but let's not make it too explicit.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I want every class to have its own role:

Fighterer
Clericker
Wizarder-er (extra er is only at high levels)
Thiefer
Barbarianizer
Sorcerer
Druidifier
Bard-dur (not to be confused with the new bard prestige class: Barad-dûr*)



[sblock][/sblock]


*Can use tower shields.