D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Sacrosanct]

OK. I will take your word for it that 2E+S&P joins 3E in a class. This class remains completely unlike prior editions, including 2E lacking S&P.

I agree that 2e without PO doesn't look like 3e at all. So I guess we're on the same page

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

3.0 was a departure from D&D tradition

Sacrosanct got what I had for the rest, so I'm addressing this.

This is so very, very much true. 3.0 departed from DnD tradition in quite a few areas, to the point I was actually confused because I was transitioning from Baldur's Gate 2 to 3.0. It took me a bit to figure out I didn't need THAC0 and a positive armor value was a good thing. And I had to entirely relearn the proficiency system and how the sneaky-thief class works. And I remember the days when Grand Mastery was truly a thing for DnD, but only because I played the video game version of it.

That actually surprised the people who taught me how to play at the table. Up until they learned what attracted me to DnD and realized that, terminology-wise, I was on the level of their newest member when 2E ended, not the level of a completely new player.

I see 4E as the same way; it, too, was a departure from tradition. And it had massive amounts of potential! And what from 4E that made it into 5E are some of the items that I think make 5E a stronger edition. The definition of long rest, for example, potentially puts an end to some of the arguments that hampered 3E.

 

[SteveC]

Taking the thread's digression for a moment:
As someone who actually played a lot of 2E with the Skills and Powers rules (my main GM at the time also liked Hero) I can say that era of 2E was very similar to what 3E would be. From a character perspective you had options to use to put your character together in very specific ways, with far more customization than any other edition of the game. It was wonderful and terrible at the same time.

I would classify 3E as being the edition of the game that tried the most to be a "fantasy reality" simulator, as it had some very complex rules for building characters and monsters, and the two used the same rules--with the exception being that most PCs didn't get to use all of the monster rules. There was very much the expectation that a monster would be built "by the rules", and that sometimes led to some silly results where monsters had very high hit dice and then also had to have the skills and feats to go with it. As a fan of the Hero system myself, I can tell you that there were a lot of rules ideas that came out of Hero, which shouldn't surprise people because Monte was a former Hero designer (and a Rolemaster designer as well).

When people say that 4E returned to the "classic" or "old school" way of running a game (something that I agree with) they meant these ideas were tossed out. Monsters and characters didn't have to play by the same rules, and there wasn't a complicated structure to build creatures with. You had expectations for defenses, HP, damage and so forth, but you didn't have to actually construct them from the rules themselves, the creatures just had the stats you wanted them to have as the DM.

Similarly, characters were back to being able to try anything they wanted to thanks to page 42. I ran a lot of 3E and 4E games, and I had a player who knew all of the different feats that were out there. When someone wanted to try a stunt, he'd be all to quick to point out what they couldn't do because of not having feat X or class ability Y. I never once had that problem in 4E, nor would I expect it in 5E.

We now return you to your previous thread.

 

[BryonD]

And tennis is like baseball because they are both sports with round balls.

 

[dream66_]

Really 2e with skills and powers looks a lot like 3e, and 3e with Book of 9 swords looks a lot like 4e, And you can see 5e bleeding in in Essentials,

This stuff is all pretty iterative.

 

[I'm A Banana]

...part of that iterative process means that it's not hard to see that some people came to 4e being like "yeah, this makes sense, this is the next logical step" and other people came to 4e being like "WTF."

Happened with every other edition. It's happening with 5e. It'll happen with 6e. D&D is a diverse game. One can't presume that another person's game is played the same as yours was.

And one of those things that some folks recognized and some folks did not was combat roles.

Boop boop.

 

[BryonD]

Really 2e with skills and powers looks a lot like 3e, and 3e with Book of 9 swords looks a lot like 4e, And you can see 5e bleeding in in Essentials,

This stuff is all pretty iterative.

The irony is, Bo9s was really controversial (with strongly pro and con groups). In a lot of ways it foreshadowed the whole 4E divide.

 

[Neonchameleon]

May I ask a simple question?

4E does not remotely deliver the same experience *to me* as any other edition.

Do you accept this as a true statement?

I do. Indeed I'd say that 4e doesn't deliver remotely the same experience as any other edition to me either. What it delivers is the experience about half of D&D promised prior to 4e and failed to deliver.

What I consider one of the two most influential modules in D&D history, DL1: Dragons of Despair required ham-handed nonsense like the Obscure Death Rule to be viable at all, and 4e delivers the game promised there almost effortlessly. 4e also delivers on the game promised by that and the cover to the red box while being utterly miserable at the other one of the most influential modules in D&D history (Keep on the Borderlands - although it does that a whole lot better than it does Keep on the Shadowfell).

The irony is, Bo9s was really controversial (with strongly pro and con groups). In a lot of ways it foreshadowed the whole 4E divide.

Yup. Which given it was the usable remains from an otherwise thrown out draft of 4e is possibly unsurprising.

 

[Blue]

In short both are weapon users. In 4e both are martial characters. But the 2e fighter profession has only two areas of specialty. Wielding weapons and taking damage.

I direct you to the quote of yours which didn't get reproduced in your quote. You had put forth the argument that ROLE and OCCUPATION (as pre-3.0 classes) were the same, and I was giving an example that they are not. A cleric can be a weapon user. That's neither a role nor an occupation. ROLE is the niche of needs you fill for the party. OCCUPATION is how you fill your role.

No so, the point isn't that they are both weapon users. The point is that they do different things for the party even though they have the same occupation. If you changed it to two tanks or two archers the party dynamics in combat would shift dramatically (assuming that there aren't other PCs also covering those same roles).

Yes, pre-3.0 non-casters had limited roles they could fill compared to casters. True, but limited and "just one role" are not the same.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I direct you to the quote of yours which didn't get reproduced in your quote. You had put forth the argument that ROLE and OCCUPATION (as pre-3.0 classes) were the same, and I was giving an example that they are not. A cleric can be a weapon user. That's neither a role nor an occupation. ROLE is the niche of needs you fill for the party. OCCUPATION is how you fill your role.

No so, the point isn't that they are both weapon users. The point is that they do different things for the party even though they have the same occupation. If you changed it to two tanks or two archers the party dynamics in combat would shift dramatically (assuming that there aren't other PCs also covering those same roles).

Yes, pre-3.0 non-casters had limited roles they could fill compared to casters. True, but limited and "just one role" are not the same.

And you have just demonstrated you either haven't read anything or are choosing to ignore it. Can you build a wizard who does a ton of damage (striker) and doesn't screw with the enemy (therefore isn't actually a controller)? Yes.

The 4e role is a suggestion as to what that character is good at that has literally zero mechanical effect. Anyone who claims that 4e limits you to just a single role within the party is someone who does not understand how 4e works.