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

[Mark CMG]

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.

Oh, yes, there are roleplaying ways to approach a combat-oriented roleplaying campaign (as opposed to the game design, rather boots on the ground actual play) game but "tags" and "roles" as part of the actual design of the roleplaying game are very narrow and restrictive ways fo doing so by deisgn and as guidance and, IMO, make for a lesser roleplaying game overall.

 

[Sunseeker]

Oh, yes, there are roleplaying ways to approach a combat-oriented roleplaying campaign (as opposed to the game design, rather boots on the ground actual play) game but "tags" and "roles" as part of the actual design of the roleplaying game are very narrow and restrictive ways fo doing so by deisgn and as guidance and, IMO, make for a lesser roleplaying game overall.

Maybe it's just personal viewpoints that can't quite be conveyed in text, but I see your point. Agree to disagree?

 

[Mark CMG]

Maybe it's just personal viewpoints that can't quite be conveyed in text, but I see your point. Agree to disagree?

Indeed. And I've no doubt you and I would both find a lot of common ground during actual gameplay as well as have tons of fun in games with one another. Discussions of design theory can tend to be polemics and rarely speak to the true fun of actually playing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Honestly, as someone who's introduced a lot of newbies to various games, if you can just get them to have enough fun with the experience that they might try it again, you've been wildly sucessful.

 

[Mark CMG]

Honestly, as someone who's introduced a lot of newbies to various games, if you can just get them to have enough fun with the experience that they might try it again, you've been wildly sucessful.

Yeah, but there are different ways to introduce and different games to introduce them to. I certainly agree getting new players to play is a good thing and getting them to play repeatedly is a laudable goal, but I wouldn't introduce a new player to a combat miniatures game by instructing them to always speak in character nor would I introduce them to a combat miniatures game that had speaking in character as a primary focus of its desig. There are better combat miniatures games that focus on the combat elements. At gamedays, at Gencon, and at Little Wars conventions I run some intorductory combat miniatures games for kids and their parents (or with their parents overseeing them) in a number of styles of play and its a blast. I do it to introduce new players to the hobby and because I was only ten years old or so when I began wargaming in the early Seventies and some likeminded souls were kind enough to teach me and let me play.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the healer, controller and defender role and would like to add the scout.
Doing damage is no combat role, so I voted 2!

No roles is impossible. Since the beginning of D&D it was the fighter who defended the wizard (if he wanted to)
Both did damage.
It should be easy to play out of role, but for beginners it is a real help to have roles. (no one should be forced to be the cleric)

Maybe however, those roles don´t need to be in the class description, but rather in a seperaate chapter in the PHB. An introductery to the tactical combat module, where it clearly states, that certain combinations work better in CLASSIC combat.

4 rogues in 3.x work worse than 4 rogues in 4th edition btw. In 4e you recover faster and can get abilitites to get others up... you just need to approach combat the same way as would 4 rogues in 3rd edition

4e works a lot better in that regard as you may think. It was the presentation that was lacking. And the wrong statements of people who have never played 4e.

 

[Someone]

I'm for dropping roles being hard coded into the classes and allow the players to build their character with a role in mind if they so choose. If a fighter's player wants his character to draw the monsters attention, make it so because a) the rest of the party is doing their part to be difficult to reach and b) because the fighter itself is threatening and dangerous to ignore, not because they have a class feature that punishes enemies for not focusing on him.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm for dropping roles being hard coded into the classes and allow the players to build their character with a role in mind if they so choose.

So push roles into the realm of system mastery and tribal knowledge?

 

[Yazman]

I'd prefer combat roles as an explicit part of the game to be dropped entirely.

I totally agree. They are annoying and stupid, and reek of min-maxy munchkin stuff. Not to mention they have a bit of a shoe-horning effect. Let people decide what they want to do and build towards it. Roles as part of the actual system should be abolished.

 

[Hussar]

Again, see, I totally disagree with Yazman here. How is rules transparency "min-maxy munchkin stuff"? I mean, if I was a min-maxer, then I'll be able to recognize the roles whether or not they are transparent - that's what a min-maxer DOES. Crunch the numbers and create the most mechanically powerful option possible.

But, that's not what roles do. A role simply acts as a guideline for what this given class does best in combat. Nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't say that fighters can never be diplomatic. It doesn't say that wizards make better skill monkeys than just about any other class because of their reliance on Int scores. All it says is that if you play Class X, then the preponderance of effects in combat will center around a given style of activity.

And, it's not that difficult to play against type. You can play a controller or striker fighter with nothing more than the PHB. Sure, he'll still have some defender goodies, but, he'll make a pretty darn good striker or controller as well. Will he be as good of a striker as the ranger? Nope. But, then again, he shouldn't. But, "not better than the ranger" is not a metric of whether or not the character is a decent striker.

Can he deal buckets of damage to single targets? Yup, he can. It might only be two and a half buckets compared to the rogue's three, but, it's still buckets.

Like I said, it's presentation that is killing 4e, not actual mechanics. People look at the role and presume that that's all the character can ever possibly do. And it's utter ballocks. Again, I'm not a regular on the charops boards at WOTC, but 30 seconds of Google and you'll find a dozen striker or controller builds for fighters. You won't find leader builds, that's true, since only leaders grant healing and typically grant extra actions.

But three out of four roles ain't bad.