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

[dagger]

I like the 1e approach to magic-users.

1) Magic is dangerous to the caster and other people.
2) Magic often has a price. (haste ages you a year and a system shock roll)
3) Spell casting is easily disrupted.
4) Spellbooks are easily destroyed (well most items are).
5) Spells can be hard to learn depending on your casting stat.
6) Takes effort and dedication (and luck) to earn the power.
7) Some of the spell information is in the DMG.
8) To me the game gives off a vibe that other casters are loath to let other casters 'copy' spells.

 

[boredgremlin]

I like the 1e approach to magic-users.

1) Magic is dangerous to the caster and other people.
2) Magic often has a price. (haste ages you a year and a system shock roll)
3) Spell casting is easily disrupted.
4) Spellbooks are easily destroyed (well most items are).
5) Spells can be hard to learn depending on your casting stat.
6) Takes effort and dedication (and luck) to earn the power.
7) Some of the spell information is in the DMG.
8) To me the game gives off a vibe that other casters are loath to let other casters 'copy' spells.

Definitely the best way the core D&D has done it. AD&D was pretty good about that stuff too.

 

[Hussar]

I like the 1e approach to magic-users.

1) Magic is dangerous to the caster and other people.

Sort of. Certain spells were, but, they weren't the only spells out there.

2) Magic often has a price. (haste ages you a year and a system shock roll)

Very much an exception and not a rule. What cost does Sleep or Charm Person have? Hold Person?

3) Spell casting is easily disrupted.

The only way you could disrupt spell casting is if you were in melee combat with the wizard. How stupid were your players that they were allowing this on a regular basis?

4) Spellbooks are easily destroyed (well most items are).

Hrm, to destroy a spell book, I would have to fail my initial saving throw, my container would have to fail it's saving throw, and then my spell book (presuming I had no additional protections) would then have to fail its saving throw. Yeah, not so easily destroyed.

5) Spells can be hard to learn depending on your casting stat.

You generally had a 75% or so chance per level of picking up a given spell. That's not really a definition of "hard" that I would use. You might not get it this level, but, a level or two down the road, you likely will.

6) Takes effort and dedication (and luck) to earn the power.

Ahh, the old standard "Things were so much more difficult in my day" schtick. Never gets tired does it?

7) Some of the spell information is in the DMG.

Yes, because playing "Hide the Rule" was such an effective means of controlling the game. Never mind that many DM's are also players. And, that "surprise" only happens once.

8) To me the game gives off a vibe that other casters are loath to let other casters 'copy' spells.

Whereas to me, it was SOP. You automatically traded spells with other PC's because to not do so was about as stupid as you could possibly get.

 

[Lanefan]

Sort of. Certain spells were, but, they weren't the only spells out there.

True, but some of them were commonly cast despite the risk e.g. expanding fireball, bouncing lightning, etc.

The only way you could disrupt spell casting is if you were in melee combat with the wizard.

Or if you shot the wizard in mid-cast, or hit her with a damaging spell in mid-cast, etc.; and the front line can't always prevent those sort of things.

Hrm, to destroy a spell book, I would have to fail my initial saving throw, my container would have to fail it's saving throw, and then my spell book (presuming I had no additional protections) would then have to fail its saving throw. Yeah, not so easily destroyed.

Still, it's a vulnerability. And if someone steals your spellbook it's not that easy (or cheap!) to replace.

You generally had a 75% or so chance per level of picking up a given spell. That's not really a definition of "hard" that I would use. You might not get it this level, but, a level or two down the road, you likely will.

This one's entirely dependent on the DM and how readily available she makes spells, even before rolling your d% to learn any given one.

Yes, because playing "Hide the Rule" was such an effective means of controlling the game. Never mind that many DM's are also players. And, that "surprise" only happens once.

I find the 1e DMG spell write-ups are mostly to deal with the "what if" questions and as such really need to be a lot longer.

Whereas to me, it was SOP. You automatically traded spells with other PC's because to not do so was about as stupid as you could possibly get.

This one is entirely dependent on the players and-or the characters they play in any given party.

Lanefan

 

[Neonchameleon]

Functions were always there. But that's not the same thing as explicit roles.

A Fighter was a fighter. He could serve as a defender, he could serve as a striker. In 3e he could even serve as a controller. Spec how you please. He also had the classic "Fighter's lockpick."

4e? Defender. With carefully defined power ranges to avoid him stepping on the Rogue or Wizards toes.

The 4e fighter is a lot better at stepping on the wizard's toes than the 3e fighter is. As for the rogue's toes, it's much easier to create a 4e fighter with skillmonkey tendencies than it is a 3e fighter/skillmonkey due to the terrible skill points the 3e one gets. 2+int mod skill points/level out of about 36 skills with no easy way to get more doesn't go half as far as 3 skills out of seventeen, all skills levelling automatically, and feats and multiclass feats gaining you an entire extra skill. Fighters are also near-strikers as it is - and with two multiclass feats they can gain sneak attack 1/fight and the ability 1/encounter to hide in places only a specialist rogue can.

You are simply wrong in your claim.

Explicit roles limit PC options, player creativity and game design options.

Except that as I have shown it's easier to step on the toes of the rogue with a 4e fighter than a 3e one. I can easily make a 4e human skillmonkey fighter who at first level wears light armour (hide), carries a rapier and shortsword, and has the skills Stealth, Thievery, Perception, Streetwise, Intimidate, and Athletics trained. Oh, and sneak attack 1/fight. (I can do something similar by 4th level with any race).

Translating those skills into 3e you'd need Hide, Move Silently, Open Locks, Sleight of Hand, Disable Device, Spot, Listen, Search, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local), Intimidate, Climb, Jump, and Swim all trained at effectively maximum ranks. Find me the fighter who can do that in 3.X. Hell, it's pushing towards the limits of what a dedicated rogue can do in 3.X

Explicit roles lower the theoretical limits of PC options (so do explicit classes). But a class as crippled as the 3.X fighter with its 2+int skill points/level is nowhere near those theoretical limits.

Lets suppose for example you want to make a character who (to borrow an MMO term) does debuffs.

In 3e you might make a Duskblade, or a Binder or talk your GM into allowing Bard who applies his bard buffs as malus to the badguys instead of bonus to the good guys. Or pick a spell caster and gun for debillitating spells. Necromancer would work well.

In 4e? You are outside the accepted design space. Possibly you could shoehorn that into the controller role. Maybe they even did that later on, I don't know.

This, again, is simply not true. If you want to straight debuff single targets, the feylock springs to mind - and the wizard does a fine job too. Surprisingly so does a well built charisma-paladin. For area debuffs the wizard works extremely well. A bard built for debuffing also works well.

Look at 7th sea. Dungeon crawls were solidly supported by the worlds design. The 4 roles of D&D? Almost completely absent. (I say almost because you could go for an arnoured fighter and try to tank. Still no healers to back you up though.)

And 7th sea is a different game from Dungeons and Dragons.

Frex, one of my favorite late 3e classes was the Dragon Shaman. With hindsight it shows clear signs of being an early dabbleing with 4e design philosophies. He's got some heal, some buffing, minor area damge. A leader/controller then.

Sounds like a 4e cleric. Or a 4e bard built with area attacks.

You know what I did with them? 1 level as a Knight or Fighter to get heavy armour and martial weapons and turn them into frontline Defender types.

Easy in 3e with no explict roles, but the same functions. In 4e? Not doable, because of the rigidity of the design specifications.

In 4e as I have mentioned the Cleric is a leader with a minor in control. Use the class options to swap healer's lore for battle cleric's lore and we have our cleric in heavy armour. Then we take either the multiclass paladin or multiclass cavalier feat and we get either a mark or a defender aura. Weapon attack powers - the cleric gets them. And now we have our front line leader/controller who is able to defend.

So much for your claim of "Not doable". Once more your claims about 4e are simply not true.

Our experiences with the two sysyems are very different then

Yes.

 

[Andor]

Frex, one of my favorite late 3e classes was the Dragon Shaman. With hindsight it shows clear signs of being an early dabbleing with 4e design philosophies. He's got some heal, some buffing, minor area damge. A leader/controller then.

Sounds like a 4e cleric. Or a 4e bard built with area attacks.

You know what I did with them? 1 level as a Knight or Fighter to get heavy armour and martial weapons and turn them into frontline Defender types.

Easy in 3e with no explict roles, but the same functions. In 4e? Not doable, because of the rigidity of the design specifications.

In 4e as I have mentioned the Cleric is a leader with a minor in control. Use the class options to swap healer's lore for battle cleric's lore and we have our cleric in heavy armour. Then we take either the multiclass paladin or multiclass cavalier feat and we get either a mark or a defender aura. Weapon attack powers - the cleric gets them. And now we have our front line leader/controller who is able to defend.

So much for your claim of "Not doable". Once more your claims about 4e are simply not true.

I think you misunderstood my point. It was not that any given combination of existing roles could not be combined into a single character given enough splatbooks.

It was that in 3e, with the more powerful and flexible multiclassing rules I could take a class or powerset that I like and easily recast it into another 'role' by adding in the class feature I wanted.

My perception of 4es multiclassing set-up is that it is constrained by the explicit function of roles and so prevents that ready mixing of flavors.

You might argue that instead 3es frontloaded multiclassing rules were the problem and 4e improved upon that, but I don't think you can deny that 3e let me mix and match class powers and features more easily to create a character with the abilities or flavor I wanted.

As I've said elsewhere, it may well be that I'm overemphasizing the importance of roles in my dislike of 4es design aesthic. It may well be the implementation of the role system, rather than the concept itself which I find so repugnant. But since it would be quite easy to retain roles behind the screen while eliminating them from explicit apperances in the books, I think WotC would be well served to pulll them away from the cameras focus.

 

[Minigiant]

I believe one of the reasons why the whole role thing came to the front in 4e was for the answer of this question:

Why the heck are we bringing you with us for this quest and not someone else?

I've been in games where the PCs kicked out another PC. In my AD&D game, it became a running gag with a friend who ALWAYS played a jerk thief. Once my fighter died and I defiled a thief, his Panther Guild thieves were not only jerks but now redundant. In 3.5, the PCs conspired and replaced all of his rogue's functions between our class features and spells. It went form them not liking him to them notneeding him. The PCs' emotional ties were severed long ago and with the edition jump, his reason for being there was gone too.


To me D&D is about adventurers. If a character plans on being in an adventurer group, he or she should bring something to the group. They have to provide a host of functions so their purpose for even being an adventurer is justified.

Maybe this is because I see characters as loving beings. Beings that talk to each other. Beings that, between dodging axe traps, ask each other why they even bring Bob with them if he can't fight, doesnt wear armor, can't heal, smells bad, and Mary is a better talker than him. Beings that ask why they can't get another wizard as "Wizards are superior. And we have enough of you pointed stick wavers" in a haughty elven tone or say "Go back to the monastery you useless lawful jerk!" in a loud halforc shout.

 

[Hassassin]

I believe one of the reasons why the whole tole thing came to the front in 4e was for the answer of this question:

Why the heck are we beginning you with us for this quest and not someone else?

Roles are only a part of it. Why would a LG paladin accept an assassin in his party? Why would an orc-hating dwarf work with a half-orc barbarian? Why would anyone want to be near a kender?

Trying to fix those problems with mechanics doesn't work.

Beings that, between dodging axe traps, ask each other why they even bring Bob with them if he can't fight, doesnt wear armor, can't heal, smells bad, and Mary is a better talker than him.

Maybe because they like Bob? Maybe because there's no one else? Maybe because they like to feel superior to someone? Maybe because Bob's the best cook?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I believe one of the reasons why the whole tole thing came to the front in 4e was for the answer of this question:

Why the heck are we beginning you with us for this quest and not someone else?

Iut.

I think party make up has all kinds of possible explanatons and it cant jusg be reduced to rounding out the group. But on that aspect of it, it isnt all about combat contributions per encounter (nor is it strictly about the four roles laid out in 4E). Other things like the ability to make money during travel, social skills, knowledge about the world, political connecions, etc all factor in as all.

 

[Minigiant]

I think party make up has all kinds of possible explanatons and it cant jusg be reduced to rounding out the group. But on that aspect of it, it isnt all about combat contributions per encounter (nor is it strictly about the four roles laid out in 4E). Other things like the ability to make money during travel, social skills, knowledge about the world, political connecions, etc all factor in as all.

4e did roles weird as it replayed combat roles and made noncombat roles freeform through skills.

But the point still stands. Combat or noncombat, if a character doesn't provide a few functions for the party, why would they bring along this person into situations where they (the other party members) can die?

I wouldn't bring a basketweaver/baker with me on my quest to stop an archmage intent on conquering the world.

Roles are only a part of it. Why would a LG paladin accept an assassin in his party? Why would an orc-hating dwarf work with a half-orc barbarian? Why would anyone want to be near a kender?

Trying to fix those problems with mechanics doesn't work.



Maybe because they like Bob? Maybe because there's no one else? Maybe because they like to feel superior to someone? Maybe because Bob's the best cook?

Because the kobolds keep sniping us and Bob can't help us with that problem.

Because we need a favor of the local lord and Bob talks like an idiot.

Because we need to get through this forest and Bob doesnt know his ankles from his elbows.

All Bob can do is backflips and get hurt. And that only helped us once.