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

5e combat roles

  • 1 role. Defender or Striker or Leader or Controler.

    Votes: 27 21.8%
  • Everyone is a striker plus a secondary role: Defender or Leader or Controler.

    Votes: 27 21.8%
  • Everyone can play each role but in different ways.

    Votes: 70 56.5%

Hassassin

First Post
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).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Tony Vargas

Legend
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

Legend
Supporter
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
 
Last edited:

trancejeremy

Adventurer
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

First Post
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.
 
Last edited:


Nahat Anoj

First Post
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.
 

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

Banned
Banned
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

First Post
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.

Olgar Shiverstone said:
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.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top