L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[I'm A Banana]

that roles are essential to good classes and good class design.

I don't believe this to be the case. The fighter's mark isn't what makes the fighter class in 4e a fun class to play (it is what makes it a defender, though!).

Roles are about giving classes identity. They are about niche protection. They are about making each character a part of a whole, rather than either the whole itself or an unnecessary tag-along. Put simply, they are about building the game around cooperation and encouraging it to the point of necessity. D&D is, supposedly at least, a cooperative game. Roles encourage and support cooperative play. Editions prior to 4E quite frankly didn't, and a large part of that is their failure to embrace the idea of roles. Advice completely devoid of mechanics and rules is just empty verbiage that has no bearing on reality. It is little different than a lie. It can't support cooperation, good class design, balance, and fun gameplay the way that a role system can.

Classes have a pretty clear identity without roles as 4e defines them (even when that identity was just "fighter" and "magic-user" and "cleric"). And Niche Protection figures into what I said about balance: it's only good when it's in the service of something other than itself.

Your claim about "editions prior to 4e" doesn't jive with what others are saying about "roles always being present, but sometimes more flexible" and I'm going to have to go with the others on this. Any race-to-zero numerical resolution system is going to have two main ways to affect it (moar damage to them, and less damage to you), and at least two supporting ways to affect how you affect it (improve your defenses/weaken their damage, or improve your damage/weaken their defense), just by the nature of that system. And outside of that context, there's been an adventure-level division of roles based on what a character is best at (fighters at fightin', rogues at sneakin', wizards at whatever, but only for a few minutes, and then they suck worse than everyone at everything). Cooperation also existed long before 2008, so it doesn't seem to jive with your statement, either.

4e's addition to the table was the enforced role mechanics. Which solved the problem of making sure nobody accidentally sucked pretty nicely, but introduced many problems of its own (homogeniety, straitjacketing classes, kludge multiclass mechanics, etc.)

Roles, of course, aren't the only way to solve the Accidental Suck problem. It's entirely possible for 5e to solve that problem without using marking or <Splat> Word or Striker Dice -- namely by baking the basics for the roles into every character, or by making it clear (via the advice) what the class is good and bad at, so that a player who takes it in a different direction has no expectation of being a badass.

Lets try not to exaggerate the effects of 4e's role mechanics -- or the effects on the game of dropping them -- to panacea and catastrophe levels. Fun times at the game table do not depend on one character dealing more damage, one character marking, one character healing, and one character using persistent or area-effect powers.

And, if for some reason, for you, they do, I'm fairly certain you'll be able to play a 5e that has all those features. Ditching role mechanics for the core doesn't mean they won't be a module.

I, however, won't have to play that way, because role mechanics won't be an assumed feature of the game, as if it's something that everyone needs in order to have fun with D&D.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't believe this to be the case. The fighter's mark isn't what makes the fighter class in 4e a fun class to play (it is what makes it a defender, though!).

Are you kidding? Marking is fun! Half the enjoyment I get in combat with my Warden is when I get to abuse the marking rules in order to protect allies, hurt foes, and control the situation. They are a blast to use in play.

Also, it is kinda nice to actually have rules to make the Fighter good at what it was supposed to have been good at in every previous edition. The idea that the Fighter was supposed to be a good tank has been around forever. It's just that is was miserably bad at it before.

Which gets to my main point... "Play whatever you want however you want" is an impossibility. You don't need a "one mechanic for every class that shares a role" kind of thing, but you certainly need something to help a class be able to carry out its given concept and place in the party!

As for the rest of your reply to me, it feels rather like you're trying to drag me into a conversation I wasn't having. It is utterly unimportant to me whether 5E uses universal role mechanics like Word powers or marking. I don't care in the slightest if they completely revise the list of roles and change the relationship between roles and classes significantly. I certainly would be quite happy if 5E classes are less homogenous than 4E's classes. It does bother me, however, when people like Mr. Mearls start talking about roles as suggestions that can be ignored by veteran players. That implies a complete abandonment of the entire role concept's impact on class design, which is unacceptable to me.

 

[Kynn]

When we talk about 4e's innovations, like "role" (tied to class), we need to not just talk about -- as some people in this thread have suggested -- only the concepts found in the first Player's Handbook, but also those which developed as the game evolved.

One of the most important post-launch innovations, that came about in Essentials, was to explicitly de-couple the strict relationship between a class and a role. It used to be that a fighter was always a defender, and a druid always a controller, and ranger always a striker -- but they changed that.

The fighter (Slayer vs. Knight) example is the most obvious of this, with one variety of fighter being a striker, while the other a defender. There are rangers who are strikers and rangers who are controllers. Warlocks who are strikers and warlocks who are controllers (okay, well, they kind of suck but the idea was good). Druids who are controllers and druids who are leaders.

This is a good innovation for class design and one which needs to be expanded up on 5e, not discarded as an unnecessary 4e-ism. Roles need to continue to exist and continue to be separated from class as this will give the best diversity of characters to play.

Not all classes are going to be suitable for all roles, but the various "builds"/specializations of each class should support different roles. Thus you can play whatever concept you want, but you can also get guidance as to how that concept can excel in a fight along specific directions.

 

[Sunseeker]

One of the most important post-launch innovations, that came about in Essentials, was to explicitly de-couple the strict relationship between a class and a role. It used to be that a fighter was always a defender, and a druid always a controller, and ranger always a striker -- but they changed that.

This happened as more material was added, WAY before essentials. While Fighter "powers" were always verging on defendery, it was not difficult at all to make a striker fighter. Most classes, could by half-way through 4e's life, reasonably cover two roles.

 

[Kynn]

This happened as more material was added, WAY before essentials. While Fighter "powers" were always verging on defendery, it was not difficult at all to make a striker fighter. Most classes, could by half-way through 4e's life, reasonably cover two roles.

Except that the Fighter couldn't ever divorce herself from the Defender role entirely until the Slayer.

Sure, you could just not use your marking abilities, but it's not like you got anything cool in return for giving up using Combat Challenge.

I had several players who wanted to play fighters just because they wanted to be the Guy With A Big Sword Who Hits People, not the Guy With Heavy Armor Who Defends His Friends. They were out of luck until the Slayer.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have. And check out your own standards there, and apply them. A hill giant is the same CR as a level 7 barbarian. So 1 hill giant in an encounter is equivalent to 1 level 7 barbarian.

That's... utterly absurd. A hill giant does massive damage and has 102 hp, far more than a level 7 barbarian (assuming the level 7 barbarian rolls 6 12s for HP, he'd still need at 16 in con or so to equal that. With more reasonable rolls he'd need about a 26).

Yet the CR rules clearly state that 2 Hill Giants is just as challenging as 2 level 7 barbarians.

Nowadays we'd have the vernacular to properly express what is going on. The Barbarian is a standard level 7. The Hill Giant is an elite level 7.

Yet they both have the same CR. And that's why XP Budgets are much saner than CR - CR allows no differentiation between higher level monsters and more challenging monsters of a lower level, and that's not even getting into what it does to solos.

what exactly are you fighting for?

of course the 4e xp budgets are better. 4e is better balanced overall. It is newer and the designers had more experience. 3.5 CR were better overall than 3.0 CR´s

So CR and xp budged stand in a similar relation as thacß and bab. Overall the same, but one is more confortable to use. But both work reasonably well. And i imagne, that no matter how it is called in the end, it is as balanced as the xp budget is now.

Actually an xp budget would be my system of choice, but I rather had CR than level, as with level, i expect a certain attack bonus, a certain AC and a certain number of hp. I however could imagine monsters that are balanced differently and thus may have a higer CR than "level"
And I rather had those values independant from each other. You could even have magic items increasing or lowering the challenge rating by some points. So CR seems appropriate here.

 

[Tallifer]

The negative energy cleric is having fun playin a role in his head and the system is letting him, that is awesome. Another player could play a Paladin and we could roleplay the tension that might occur with that. Or the party can purchase some healing potions, or seek out some wands of healing, or they can choose to seek lower level challenges. Or the DM can modify encounters, or supply the appropriate magic items to help alleviate the problem, or an NPC could pop in now and then. Maybe the next adventure the party encounters a troubled magical creature in the woods and if they save them, a druid in the woods offers free healing every time they visit the grove (but perhaps not to the one who radiates negative energy).

There are plenty of solutions to this "problem" (which really isn't a problem because playing your character the way you want is the very nature of the game). The least acceptable solution to me would be forcing classes into specific roles.

I can think of three more solutions. 1. When the adventurers first encounter each other in the tavern, the others say, "Hmm. Thanks Mr. Evil, but we will leave the spot open for another cleric." 2. The Paladin leaves an opening for some gnolls to slip past and eat Mr. Evil. "Too bad I did not have Divine Challenge." 3. Another player chooses to play a class in a weird role to complement the cleric: "Hi. I am a Wizard who uses his staff in melee. This should be fun."

 

[JeffB]

Good for Mr. Mearls.

There are many things i loved about it, but the mechanical combat roles, and the naming of such are defintely high on the list of puke-worthy elements of 4e, afaic. I certainly hope this decision to cut out the roles spills over into the monster area too.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I have. And check out your own standards there, and apply them. A hill giant is the same CR as a level 7 barbarian. So 1 hill giant in an encounter is equivalent to 1 level 7 barbarian.

That's... utterly absurd.

It's not as bad as you might think. Let's compare a 25-point buy half-orc PC barbarian to a hill giant (HG=Hill Giant, for quick comparison):

Level 7 Half-Orc Barbarian (Raging, 9 rounds)
HP: 93 [HG: 102]
Initiative: +0 [HG: -1]
Speed: 20 feet in armor, 50 ft. on warhorse [HG: 30 feet in armor, no mount]
AC: 18 [HG: 20]
Melee Attack: Greataxe +16 (1d12+11), 20X3 [HG: Greatclub +16 (2d8+10), 20X2]
Full Attack: Greataxe +16/+11 (1d12+11), 20X3 [HG: Greatclub +16/+11 (2d8+10), 20X2]
Ranged Attack: Javelin +7 (1d6+7) [HG: Rock +8 (2d6+7)]
Fort: +12 [HG: +12]
Ref: +3 (+5vTraps) [HG: +3]
Will: +5 [HG: +4]
Skills: Climb +10, Listen +7, Ride +7 [HG: Climb +7, Jump +7, Listen +3, Spot +6]
Special Qualities: Damage Redction 1/-, Darkvision, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge [HG: Low-kight Vision, Rock Catching]

[sblock]Feats: Heavy Armor Proficiency, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greataxe)
Equipment: +1 Greataxe, +1 Full Plate, Ring of Protection +1, Javelin (4), Cloak of Resistance +1, Amulet of Health +2, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Heavy Warhorse (bit and bridle, military saddle, saddlebags), traveling supplies (backpack, tent, and etc.), 1,550 gold.

Stats: 25 point buy

Str 24 = 15 +2 (half-orc) + 1 (level 4 stat hop) + 2 (magic item) + 4 (raging)
Dex 11 = 11
Con 22 = 16 + 2 (magic item) + 4 (raging)
Int 8 = 10 -2 (half-orc)
Wis 10 = 10
Cha 6 = 8 -2 (half-orc)[/sblock]

A hill giant does massive damage and has 102 hp, far more than a level 7 barbarian (assuming the level 7 barbarian rolls 6 12s for HP, he'd still need at 16 in con or so to equal that. With more reasonable rolls he'd need about a 26).

Well, there's only a 9 point HP difference, thanks to the rage mechanic. The barbarian deals, on average, 17.5 damage per hit, compared to the HG's 19 (18 vs. the PC barbarian), which is not nearly as massive compared to the PC as you might have thought. The barbarian has the same or better saves and initiative (very slightly), slower speed on foot, but has a horse. His attack bonus is the same. His AC is two less, but he can't be flanked (negating 2 AC, as we'll see below). His ranged attack is 1 less on the attack, but 3.5 less damage on a hit (just over 1% of the HP pool of the barbarian party when they aren't raging). Their skills are comparable, with a noticeable edge on Spot going to the HG, though the barbarians do have darkvision to the HG's low-light vision.

If we assume that the HG is attacked by a party of 4 barbarians (as you implied might be the case with the quote: "Now a level 7 barbarian is an appropriate challenge for a party of 4 level 7 barbarians"):

Let's assume that a barbarian in the party of 4 is built similarly to our PC barbarian. If, in the first round, the 4 PCs surround and flank the HG (+2 to attacks), they'll be attacking at +18, against an AC of 20 (only missing on a 1), so we'll assume 4 hits for 70 damage (rolling average). The HG goes down in round 2 at the latest (round 1 if they wait for him, 5 ft. step, and full attack). If things play out badly for the PCs and the Hill Giant hit 3 times (1 attack in the first round, 2 attacks on a full attack... that's if they wait for him and negate his AoO for reach with 5 ft. steps), he'll deal 54 damage. That's 17.0% of the 4 barbarian's total non-raging HP pool.

Now, let's look at the same 4 barbarian's are attacking that PC barbarian (he's screwed):

The barbarians surround and attack the PC barbarian, flanking him (though for no effect). They'll be attacking at +16 against an AC of 18 (only missing on a 1), so we'll assume 4 hits for 66 damage (thanks to damage reduction). The PC barbarian goes down in round 2 (or round 1 if they wait, step, full attack). If things go badly and the barbarian hit 3 times (1 attack in the first round, 2 attacks on a full attack), he'll deal 49.5 damage. That's 15.6% of the 4 barbarian's total non-raging HP pool.

That's about a 1.4% difference. Yes, the HG is more effective, but it's not by a massive margin. Not even by a large margin. If both fights go well for the party of barbarians and they only get hit once (HG deals 18, barbarian deals 17.5), we're looking at a 0.15% difference in effectiveness (both deal about 5.5% of the party's non-raging HP pool). Still, it does show us something, as I'll note below.

Yet the CR rules clearly state that 2 Hill Giants is just as challenging as 2 level 7 barbarians.

I think they would be seen as about the same to most parties.

Nowadays we'd have the vernacular to properly express what is going on. The Barbarian is a standard level 7. The Hill Giant is an elite level 7.

I don't think this is the case, but that's the real takeaway lesson here: CR can be misleading. You glanced at the two, said "it's not the same" based on previous experience with the CR system, when in reality this matchup is pretty similar.

The CR system, while decent, could either be pretty on-target (like with this matchup), or it could be very misleading. We need a better system than what we had. As always, play what you like

 

[Kynn]

I don't think this is the case, but that's the real takeaway lesson here: CR can be misleading. You glanced at the two, said "it's not the same" based on previous experience with the CR system, when in reality this matchup is pretty similar.

The CR system, while decent, could either be pretty on-target (like with this matchup), or it could be very misleading. We need a better system than what we had. As always, play what you like

Yeah, if the example was instead "a level 7 monk" then we'd see more problems.