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

[Minigiant]

It depends. The captain may not excel at combat but might know how to swing a sword adn every bit can help. He might also wait outside the entrance to the dragons lair. It is very dependent on context. I have certainly had bards in the party who weren't much in combat or even much out of it but participated in combat and wrote epics about the combats. More often though such haracters have something to contribute.

But old school d&d actually doesn't make that many assumptions about party composition. You used to roll your attributes and stick with your results. So it was entirely possible to have some feeble characters in the party. Usually this sort of situation is where the player got clever and found an angle like cook.

My point isn't that players should play boat captains or zero level characters, but that I dont want the designers making too many assumptions about how
People play D&D. They did that with 4E, in my opinion a bit arrogantly, and the results were not fun for about half of the gaming population.

My point is that the character needs some reason to be in the party. After a certain point, a PC has to fill an important role of the party or the other PCs wont have a reason to keep them around outside of personal feelings. Companies laid off, retire, and fire employees without purposes.


Ineffective characters don't match my idea of a D&D character. I prefer the designers make sure that every class and race have a point of existing as an adventurer.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My point is that the character needs some reason to be in the party. After a certain point, a PC has to fill an important role of the party or the other PCs wont have a reason to keep them around outside of personal feelings. Companies laid off, retire, and fire employees without purposes.

Sure, like I said they need a reason to be there, but it need not fit into the three categories. A party isnt always going to boot a top notch cook, bard or merchant. They contribute.

Ineffective characters don't match my idea of a D&D character. I prefer the designers make sure that every class and race have a point of existing as an adventurer.

Again that may be your preference, and I am sure lots of people agree. Bt prior to 3E, this really wasnt an assumption about the game. The classes and races all potentially had something useful to contribute (though this wasn't centered around combat) but you rolled your character and took the results you got, so parties of weaker and stronger characters were assumed. Personally I feel it created a better gaming experience. The challenge of playing a low stat character itself was fun for me (and rolling a great character was good too).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I dont see that we need roles in the game. Characters just need cool stuff to do in the game. But we should be able to put together any kind of party we like, and characters shouldn't all be balanced around combat encounters. I want characters who are bad in combat but great in an investigation, good in combat but awful at dipomacy and detecting traps.

Good in combat but awful at diplomacy and detecting traps is dead easy. Any edition can do that. And for all people complain about the theoretical nature of roles, I wonder if they have ever played 4e. Because you certainly can create a character who though competent at combat isn't at all great. You can also create a bard who runs round hurling insults or screaming, or a warlord who donates his actions to other party members. Both useful in combat while not looking like combat characters. (Or even a Shaman who is in fact a kid with a guardian angel).

 

[Bedrockgames]

. And for all people complain about the theoretical nature of roles, I wonder if they have ever played 4e.

this is getting very, very old.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I definitely want them to keep the combat roles in 5E, but they don't target one role per class like in 4E pre-essentials.

One role is too little.

Well, all the pre-E classes had secondary roles, sometimes more than one depending on build. And, post-E subclasses can have any role. So it sounds like we're well on our way - if they keep roles at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Well, it's constrained by an excessive feat tax. 5e would do well to keep the 4e idea of power-swapps as used in multi-classing and themes, but not keep the per-swap feat cost of 4e multi-classing. Themes make a better model.

The later 'hybrid' system, though, certainly lets you mix classes without any role-based constraint.

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.

A character, yes. A viable character, that took a lot more work. Tier 1, you were down to a few classes and the PrCs that let them keep full caster level. 3e's modular multi-classing was an elegant idea, but its balance problems meant that a lot of that potential wasn't really realized.

If 5e could find a similarly elegant and flexible aproach, but balance it, so all that flexibility actually led somewhere, that'd be awesome.

 

[Neonchameleon]

this is getting very, very old.

Almost as old as criticisms about 4e that don't appear to match up to what happens in play. When I point out three times in one comment (on different issues) that someone taking almost exactly the same line you are to 4e is simply factually incorrect are you surprised I wonder things like that. Especially as I went on to demonstrate how to do what you wanted to do.

Bad in combat, great at investigation? Sounds like my current bard. Great in combat but awful at diplomacy and traps? The dwarf in the same party. What you want is not only possible, it's easy. Easy to the point that my current party has done exactly that without that being specifically what we were setting out to do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Almost as old as criticisms about 4e that don't appear to match up to what happens in play. When I point out three times in one comment (on different issues) that someone taking almost exactly the same line you are to 4e is simply factually incorrect are you surprised I wonder things like that. Especially as I went on to demonstrate how to do what you wanted to do.

Bad in combat, great at investigation? Sounds like my current bard. Great in combat but awful at diplomacy and traps? The dwarf in the same party. What you want is not only possible, it's easy. Easy to the point that my current party has done exactly that without that being specifically what we were setting out to do.

But you are disproving strawmen.

Charactes in 4e are designed to all shine in combat. This is something most wouldn't argue with. In fact, fans consider that a strength. The balance in 4e is designed around the combat encounter. This is also something peolle pretty widely accept. My statement was essentoally that this is the wrong way to design classes, and why the 4e roles dont work for me. I am sure it is possible to gimp a character in 4e, i never said it wasn't

 

[Andor]

Ineffective characters don't match my idea of a D&D character. I prefer the designers make sure that every class and race have a point of existing as an adventurer.

Why is it you feel comfortable stating that it's desireable for the game to exclude character options that don't match your prefered playstyle? 4e did that. It didn't work out well for WotC.

Here's the thing. If WotC took a poll and allowed everyone to pick a character type, concept, approach, role or function to exclude, then 5e would consist of a logo followed by a period.

5e should be inclusive, not exclusive. If that means I can make a character you don't like, that's a problem only if we sit at the same table, and neither of us are capable of acting like adults. And if that's the case, it wasn't going to work out well no matter what edition we played.

Game design based on the exclusion of badwrongfun is not going to be the way to unite the playerbase.

 

[Minigiant]

Why is it you feel comfortable stating that it's desireable for the game to exclude character options that don't match your prefered playstyle? 4e did that. It didn't work out well for WotC.

Here's the thing. If WotC took a poll and allowed everyone to pick a character type, concept, approach, role or function to exclude, then 5e would consist of a logo followed by a period.

5e should be inclusive, not exclusive. If that means I can make a character you don't like, that's a problem only if we sit at the same table, and neither of us are capable of acting like adults. And if that's the case, it wasn't going to work out well no matter what edition we played.

Game design based on the exclusion of badwrongfun is not going to be the way to unite the playerbase.

I understand that 5e's game design should be inclusive.

I just prefer that the default characters, classes, and raceto have a point and for the designers to give the default characters an adventuring function. I'd prefer not to see an acrobat or baker class whose skillset is something other PCs can appreciate. Players can tweak their characters into whatever specific character they want. But system mastery and minmaxing shouldn't be needed to make an effective character.