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

[Gentlegamer]

Roles: Combatant or non-combatant.

Eject the video game terminology from the game.

 

[Sunseeker]

Roles: Combatant or non-combatant.

Eject the video game terminology from the game.

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]

That doesn't help clear the waters in the slightest.

Fighting-men fight. Others don't. (Clerics being seen as a form of multiclass fighter/spellcaster with restrictions)

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.

In a role-playing game, non-combat is the soul of the activity.

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?

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)

Are you a non-combatant if you're the "face" of the party but never go into battle?

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.

 

[BobTheNob]

Im all for getting rid of roles altogether. A player can conform to what 4e would have identified as a role, fine, but I certainly dont think it should be stamped onto a class and certainly exploit/feat/power design should not encourage anyone to one given thing.

 

[keterys]

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.

 

[Sunseeker]

Fighting-men fight. Others don't. (Clerics being seen as a form of multiclass fighter/spellcaster with restrictions)

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.

In a role-playing game, non-combat is the soul of the activity.

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.

I said, get that video game language (and thinking) outta my role-playing game.

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.

1. Building (construction, land acquisition, etc.)

Tell me, how many people do you think play D&D to be day-laborers?

2. Business (an occupation aside from "adventuring")

Which given your theme so-far often includes thuggery and violence.

3. Character Development (detailing game persona’s “history”)

This is largely an out of game action. Few people sit around discussing the finer points of the character's novella.
4. Combat

5. Economics

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.

6. Exploration (dungeons and for larger discovery)

Is not a combat-free experience. Rare is the cavern with nothing in it.

7. Intrigue
8. Politics

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.

9. Problem Solving
10. Questing

Neither of which are seperatable from combat, they can be without combat, but making them continually combat-less makes for a dull adventure.

12. Role Assumption (staying "in character" in actions/thinking)
13. Role Playing (ditto, and speaking thus when playing)

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".

14. Story (backstory and in play)

Stories rarely exist without conflict, and conflict rarely exists without violence.

15. Strategy

A good strategy encompasses how to fight, and how to avoid a fight.

16. Theatrics (occasional histrionics and sound effects)

Relevance?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[nightwyrm]

As long as combat healing abilities are class restricted, you'd always have combat roles - even it it's just healer/non-healer.

 

[Mark CMG]

Problems arise now when you give someone a role, but when you tell them they can't be anything but.

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]

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.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

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.