Gentlegamer
First Post
Roles: Combatant or non-combatant.
Eject the video game terminology from the game.
Eject the video game terminology from the game.
D&D 5E How would you like 5e to handle combat roles.
- Thread starter xechnao
- Start date
S
Sunseeker
Guest
That doesn't help clear the waters in the slightest. Many characters can excel in both combat and non-combat roles. And really when you get down to it, the uses for and people willing to play "non-combat" characters are few. And really how do we differentiate between the two? Are you a combatant if you don't deal any damage but provide healing and buffs? Are you a non-combatant if you're the "face" of the party but never go into battle?
Gentlegamer
First Post
Fighting-men fight. Others don't. (Clerics being seen as a form of multiclass fighter/spellcaster with restrictions)
In a role-playing game, non-combat is the soul of the activity.
I said, get that video game language (and thinking) outta my role-playing game.
Here's a non-exhaustive list of activities in a role-playing game, most of which aren't combat:
1. Building (construction, land acquisition, etc.)
2. Business (an occupation aside from "adventuring")
3. Character Development (detailing game persona’s “history”)
4. Combat
5. Economics
6. Exploration (dungeons and for larger discovery)
7. Intrigue
8. Politics
9. Problem Solving
10. Questing
11. Random Chance (encounters, resolution of combat, etc.)
12. Role Assumption (staying "in character" in actions/thinking)
13. Role Playing (ditto, and speaking thus when playing)
14. Story (backstory and in play)
15. Strategy
16. Theatrics (occasional histrionics and sound effects)
You're a non-combatant if your main character isn't a fighting-man (in general possessing enough hit points to survive expected opposition, armor and weapons to hang with combat opponents). If you're a non-combatant and find yourself in the thick of a melee, your party has failed on some level and needs to retreat and regroup.
Implicit in this is a return to more party + hirelings/mercenaries/henchmen (which can round out the combat 'muscle' of a group) style of adventuring company and way from "special snowflake" combat-oriented "spotlight" game design.
All of the above is my opinion on the feel that 5e should re-incorporate from past editions (since the designers said that's something they want to do), specifically in regard to [combat] roles.
keterys
First Post
The poll appears to be referring to _combat_ roles. All of the non-combat activities mentioned are things that everyone can (and should) be able to do, regardless of their class choice.
I'm pretty sure we won't see a return of the Fighting Dash Man, and at no point did I, or anyone I know, ever feel that other classes were noncombatants in comparison to the Fighting-Man or Fighter. Expert from 3e DMG? Sure. Otherwise, wizards, specialty clerics of Sune, even pacifist clerics in 4e... whatever you are... you're probably fighting, if you're playing D&D.
Personally, I don't care if we have roles or not (and I for one think the controller role is awful), but I do think the roles were helpful to the designers of 4e in ensuring that no classes didn't have a purpose or effective niche. Something that was actually missed in many a previous editions class design.
I'm pretty sure we won't see a return of the Fighting Dash Man, and at no point did I, or anyone I know, ever feel that other classes were noncombatants in comparison to the Fighting-Man or Fighter. Expert from 3e DMG? Sure. Otherwise, wizards, specialty clerics of Sune, even pacifist clerics in 4e... whatever you are... you're probably fighting, if you're playing D&D.
Personally, I don't care if we have roles or not (and I for one think the controller role is awful), but I do think the roles were helpful to the designers of 4e in ensuring that no classes didn't have a purpose or effective niche. Something that was actually missed in many a previous editions class design.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Great, if we're playing a game centered on a low-magic, low-fantasy, medieval world this line of thought works. How do we fit in Shamans, wizards(who could both be seen as learned elders and combatants). From the sounds of your definitions of "fighting men", about the only people who'd be involved in combat would be soldiers and thugs.
This seems only to muddy the issue further. Yeah, I'm not punching people to roll the dice. The PLAYER role-plays the actions of the characters, which can include fighting and not-fighting.
It's 2012, not 1979. Times have changed. The language, the thinking, you name it, it's not what it was. Video-games evolved out of classic RPGs, to attempt to separate the two would be like attempting to remove your left arm. It doesn't do anything other than negatively impact the RPG genre(which includes video games) as a whole.
Tell me, how many people do you think play D&D to be day-laborers?
Which given your theme so-far often includes thuggery and violence.
This is largely an out of game action. Few people sit around discussing the finer points of the character's novella.
4. Combat
Is usually not controlled by the player though it is influenced by it, and again given your setting-theme is largely affected by war and violence.
Is not a combat-free experience. Rare is the cavern with nothing in it.
Which again, given your theme-setting is not without combat. Assassinations, wars, ect... These go hand in hand. Rarely does political intrigue not revolve around the death or killing of someone. There's nary a great detective in history that is not also a skilled combatant.
Neither of which are seperatable from combat, they can be without combat, but making them continually combat-less makes for a dull adventure.
Again, how you RP and what your character does need not be identical. You can be skilled combatant and you can also be a great party "face".
Stories rarely exist without conflict, and conflict rarely exists without violence.
A good strategy encompasses how to fight, and how to avoid a fight.
Relevance?
Mages may have low hit-points and non-pointy weapons but that doesn't make them incapable of combat. Bards may be loaded on instruments and song but they are certainly capable of a brawl.
Sounds more like an emphasis on single-player gameplay. If the game revolves around you having to get hirelings to accomplish your goal and him getting hirelings to accomplish his goal then I question if you're actually playing the game together.
Rare is the diplomat who cannot also poison the kings food, the pickpocket who is incapable with a blade.
While you've listed out an interesting list, almost all of those things exist because of combat. Design is wasted on roles that do nothing in combat.
Exactly. There is no reason one can't be a diplomat and skilled with a blade, build a home and know how to cast a spell. Problems arise now when you give someone a role, but when you tell them they can't be anything but.
Last edited:
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Problems arise from the design assumption that roles should be given in the first place. Players choose or don't choose roles for their character moment by moment in a roleplaying game, the same way we meatspacers do away from the table.
Ratinyourwalls
First Post
A.) They should be hidden away.
B.) There should be three roles. No striker role. Everyone wants to be able to deal damage.
C.) Each class should have three basic builds - One that suits the controller role, one that suits the defender role, and one that suits the support role. They don't need to out and out say it though.
D.) You need to retool/retrain these builds easily. Even quicker than what 4E offered with retraining rules. Nothing sucks more than a new splat book coming out and having to reroll your old character to play the new material.
B.) There should be three roles. No striker role. Everyone wants to be able to deal damage.
C.) Each class should have three basic builds - One that suits the controller role, one that suits the defender role, and one that suits the support role. They don't need to out and out say it though.
D.) You need to retool/retrain these builds easily. Even quicker than what 4E offered with retraining rules. Nothing sucks more than a new splat book coming out and having to reroll your old character to play the new material.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
The purported assumption that people continue to erroneously make is that if a person is a "striker" they can be nothing but that. Calling a rogue a dtriker does not mean that the rogue is suddenly incapable of performing any other function in the game. Removing the tag likewise does not make them any better at it.
RangerWickett
Legend
Team Fortress 2 has 9 classes in 3 roles - offense, defense, and support. They equate to striker, defender, and leader/controller. You can 'switch' whenever you die. There are lots of different ways the classes fill their roles.
In 5e, if they do have roles, I'd like some way for classes to switch. Maybe different stances for warriors, or different 'types of mana' for spellcasters.
In 5e, if they do have roles, I'd like some way for classes to switch. Maybe different stances for warriors, or different 'types of mana' for spellcasters.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I agree. Noone should be locked into their role forever, save rerolling. While I don't feel everyone should be able to do everyone whenever they want to, I do feel that most roles should be able to fill the shoes of most other roles given the need or desire.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
If the tag is unnecessary, then it can simply be removed as unnecessary. If the tag is potentially restrictive because it puts players in the mind that their so-called combat role overly defines them then it needs to be removed to maintain what you are saying it isn't so, that it isn't meant to be restrictive. If the tag is actualy restrictive then it needs to be removed because it is poor design. I'm seeing no convincing counter-arguments to these three points.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
The tag serves as a guideline. Experiences players like myself know a class's function isn't limited to it. But it does provide a good baseline for new players.
Hussar
Legend
I have to admit, I've never really understood the dislike of roles, other than "Oh noes, it's from video games, it must be baaaaaaad!" Which, honestly, I have no patience for.
Good grief, I don't even play video games and I can still recognize that that MOUNTAIN of analysis that has been applied to how video games work is of great value in RPG design. There are differences between TTRPG's and video games of course. But, there are a number of similarities as well. A number of the basic concepts do port back and forth.
Why wouldn't you want to avail yourself of that analysis? Why stick your head in the sand and try to re-invent the wheel? Or, worse yet, try to prevent the wheel from being invented in the first place.
Roles didn't originate in video games. They might have been codified there, but, roles have their origins in wargaming. The terminology might shift, but the concepts are all right there.
When discussing how a class operates in combat, why wouldn't you use the language that's been developed to discuss how a given class operates in combat despite the change in medium?
The problem comes when people want to do two things:
1. Conflate role with what the character can do. Role talks about combat. That's ALL it talks about. It does not comment in any way, shape or form on what a class does outside of combat. Claiming that all a fighter can do is "defend" ignores the fact that defend has nothing to do with what a fighter does outside of combat.
2. Try to argue that somehow TTRPG's are special snowflakes and not games. That TTRPG's do not share any commonality with other games out there. Unless, of course, we happen to like a particular game, in which case, commonalities are perfectly fine to discuss.
4e's biggest problem wasn't that it focussed on combat to the exclusion of everything else. It really doesn't. There's all sorts of things in 4e that push the game in other directions. Unfortunately, 4e's biggest problem was and is, presentation. You open the PHB see the Wall of Powers most of which are combat focused and presume that that's all the game is about. You see Roles and presume that they dictate how the character must be played.
Roles are no more proscriptive than alignment was. They are descriptive, in exactly the same way alignment was descriptive. But, unfortunately, they're not presented that way and we wind up with these discussions where people are, quite reasonably given the presentation, presuming things about the game that are possibly less dominating of the game than they might be.
4e is a game is DESPERATE need of better presentation.
Good grief, I don't even play video games and I can still recognize that that MOUNTAIN of analysis that has been applied to how video games work is of great value in RPG design. There are differences between TTRPG's and video games of course. But, there are a number of similarities as well. A number of the basic concepts do port back and forth.
Why wouldn't you want to avail yourself of that analysis? Why stick your head in the sand and try to re-invent the wheel? Or, worse yet, try to prevent the wheel from being invented in the first place.
Roles didn't originate in video games. They might have been codified there, but, roles have their origins in wargaming. The terminology might shift, but the concepts are all right there.
When discussing how a class operates in combat, why wouldn't you use the language that's been developed to discuss how a given class operates in combat despite the change in medium?
The problem comes when people want to do two things:
1. Conflate role with what the character can do. Role talks about combat. That's ALL it talks about. It does not comment in any way, shape or form on what a class does outside of combat. Claiming that all a fighter can do is "defend" ignores the fact that defend has nothing to do with what a fighter does outside of combat.
2. Try to argue that somehow TTRPG's are special snowflakes and not games. That TTRPG's do not share any commonality with other games out there. Unless, of course, we happen to like a particular game, in which case, commonalities are perfectly fine to discuss.
4e's biggest problem wasn't that it focussed on combat to the exclusion of everything else. It really doesn't. There's all sorts of things in 4e that push the game in other directions. Unfortunately, 4e's biggest problem was and is, presentation. You open the PHB see the Wall of Powers most of which are combat focused and presume that that's all the game is about. You see Roles and presume that they dictate how the character must be played.
Roles are no more proscriptive than alignment was. They are descriptive, in exactly the same way alignment was descriptive. But, unfortunately, they're not presented that way and we wind up with these discussions where people are, quite reasonably given the presentation, presuming things about the game that are possibly less dominating of the game than they might be.
4e is a game is DESPERATE need of better presentation.
the Jester
Legend
Other.
Everyone chooses the role they play, and any class can manage any role.
Everyone chooses the role they play, and any class can manage any role.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
No, actually, it provides a particular baseline for new players, one that stresses importance in combat, which is a great way to foster a combat game. Experienced players like myself knows that the way to streamline how someone approaches a game is to serve up tags that steer them toward the types of play at which the game excels.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I'm not seeing the counter-argument. You say it's bad that a game steers players in the direction of which that game excels. Well DUH. If a game is good at X then getting players more involved in X will make them more fully capable of enjoying the game. Noones arguing that 4e wasn't a combat-heavy edition, to that end, the tags worked out fine. I honestly never met anyone who felt they were missing out on any part of the game because their rogue was considered a striker.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
I see why you keep misunderstanding the point. I'm not specifically talking about 4E, though some would say that is an example, and this is the same argument happening in other threads. I'm saying if non-roleplaying elements of a game are the ones being stressed then a game becomes less focused on roleplaying and the game becomes less of a roleplaying game as a result. I'm fine with non-roleplaying games that focus on combat and guide players toward combat oriented styles of play but I feel that roleplaying games should focus primarily on roleplaying which isn't primarily about combat. I additionally feel that narrow views of how someone should approach combat within a roleplaying game restrict how a roleplayer can roleplay in any given combat within a roleplaying game. If a roleplaying game design avoids funneling characters toward specific approaches to combat, I feel it is a better roleplaying game design for those times when combat does come up within a roleplaying game, as it allows for more meaningful choices for the player to make while approaching the game from moment to moment during roleplaying gameplay.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Ah, I see the argument you're really getting at. IMO, "role-playng" encompass a lot of things and yes I agree that a system that too heavily emphasizes any one of them is lacking. However, combat can be just as much role-playing as non-combat activities. It's only a lesser or greater aspect really depending upon the campaign.
Similar Threads
