D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[SirAntoine]

If I may ask: Which editions have you played? The whole "fifth wheel" thing is largely (though not totally exclusively) a symptom of 3e, so if you skipped out on that edition or never played beyond level 6 or so, the issue may not have been apparent, but it definitely was to the community at large and to WotC.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the serious flaws in 3e's design dictated a good 25-50% of the design decisions in 4e: every class is good at something (no more Monks with grab-bags of features that don't mesh at all), no class can ever be good at everything (no more CoDzillas or Batman Wizards), healing is relatively easy but sharply limited (no more "Wand of CLW replaces Cleric"), "support" classes that do much more than just healing/cleansing (trying to make "the party Cleric" fun, rather than rewarding people for accepting an onerous task), all classes get non-combat resources, etc. The emphasis on a flexible, transparent combat system--and a non-combat system with a very light touch so every group could handle non-combat the way they chose to--is one of the only things I can think of, at least at 1:30 am, which can't be easily tied to a 3e "problem" that WotC wanted to solve.

Edit: In fact, if you're interested (and I wouldn't blame you if you weren't), there's a great interview on the Wizards website, where Rob Heinsoo talks specifically about all the various design things that went into 4e. He makes specific note of how 3e casters became the most important members of the party, mechanically speaking (e.g. a missing Fighter would still lead to a cancelled session if their participation were important to the story, but not simply because that character couldn't play). And he also notes that the 3e Fighter, Monk, and Bard all ended up a little lackluster over time, but that the game didn't really say that.

Mostly pre-3e, and interestingly my one campaign experience with 3e went up to 6th level before it ended in a TPK. But I have read that fighters were sensational in 3e, even at maximum level. It varies table to table. 4th Edition is like a board game. The characters are all re-configured for that. The "roles" were a barrier to entry for my players. Without them, we would have played a lot more.

 

[BryonD]

I agree entirely with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post 1029 upthread.

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION], I have never used the term "h4ter" in this thread, nor - to the best of my recollection - in any thread ever.

I make no claim that you personally have done so.

This is not in dispute.

But it is not relevant to the question of whether or not other editions had roles.

Again, this gets back to people talking past each other.
As I said many many pages back, the term "roles" gained a different implication in 4E and became a more codified part of the vernacular.
When you talk about roles in the specific context of 4e mechanics, you are talking about something that many many people did not experience in any way shape or form when they were playing older versions of the game.

You could go back an retroactively draw an evolution from natural tendencies in prior games. But it is not even shades of grey. You are on the same rainbow, but you've moved from redish-orange to solid indigo.

So when people who don't like 4E say that THEY didn't have "roles" (meaning specifically as encountered in 4E), they are telling the truth. When 4E fans say that "roles" (meaning a vague concept) existed in AD&D, they are telling the truth. When 4E fans then say that both are the same then they are either being dishonest or simply completely failing to grasp the distinction.

I think it is the latter.
Which comes back to the point about opening minds and agreeing that other perspectives are ok.

I note that agreement with my request for recognition of differing opinions did not not materialize despite the prior claims that this recognition was availble.

Manifestly, no fighter in AD&D could be a healer or a buffer on a par with a cleric. (And this is one respect in which AD&D and 4e resemble one another pretty closely.) That is the sort of distinction in areas of competence that roles are made of.

Fighters in AD&D and in 4e are both very sticky. But the mechanical devices whereby these are achieved are very different - I've outlined them earlier upthread, and again just above. I've got not doubt that some people don't care about generically sticky melee but dislike stickiness achieved by deploying a class ability (imposing the marked condition, or forced movement, or the slowed condition, etc). But that doesn't tell us anything about whether or not their are roles - fighters in both AD&D and 4e stand out as the characters best able to stand in the middle of a sea of enemies who can't easily retreat. (Which is not to say that both are "defenders" because, for reasons I have also explained upthread, in AD&D there is no very interesting distinction between "defender" and "melee striker".)

A lot of those who don't like 4e don't like the feel of warlord healing. But that does not have any bearing on whether or not the warlord has functionality similar to that of a cleric: of course s/he does. It's precisely because of that overlapping functionality (ie both fulfil the healer or "leader" role) that people object!

yep. True.

But still missing the point.

And the point has been covered a hundred times now. So be it.

 

[BryonD]

It was the example to which you replied, saying that 4e and AD&D approach it differently. What is the difference?

I did not.

The topic at hand was about how the mechanics make things feel. Into that conversation YOU injected a Gygax quote about how cowering was bad play for a fighter. I replied that comments about "bad play" are not relevant to conversation about how the game works mechanically. Thus your quote from Gygax offered nothing to the conversation.

The "difference" I noted was between general comments on playstyle expectations vs. general comments on impacts of mechanics.

 

[Aenghus]

Mostly pre-3e, and interestingly my one campaign experience with 3e went up to 6th level before it ended in a TPK. But I have read that fighters were sensational in 3e, even at maximum level. It varies table to table. e.

Re fighters, almost exactly the opposite AFAIK.In the 3e min max forums the conventional wisdom was no more than two levels of fighter in a melee PC build, four at the outside. The other options from multiclassing and prestige classes were considered better than the few bonus feats that were all the fighter class provided extra.

Due to inflated monster hp and other factors, fighters in 3e were considered weaker than they were in practically any other D&D edition, the relative disparity increasing at higher levels.

Whereas the 4e fighter was and is considered one of the strongest 4e classes full stop.

 

[Herschel]

Very restrictive, especially if you create abilities to focus on these artificial priorities.

So giving them better tools to do the things they've always tried to do while having flexibility to do other things is "very restrictive"?

 

[Bluenose]

Very restrictive, especially if you create abilities to focus on these artificial priorities.

If you don't want your character to have hard-coded limits on the things they do well, don't play a game where classes impose hard-coded limits on things a character can do well.

 

[Herschel]

Re fighters, almost exactly the opposite AFAIK.In the 3e min max forums the conventional wisdom was no more than two levels of fighter in a melee PC build, four at the outside. The other options from multiclassing and prestige classes were considered better than the few bonus feats that were all the fighter class provided extra.

Due to inflated monster hp and other factors, fighters in 3e were considered weaker than they were in practically any other D&D edition, the relative disparity increasing at higher levels.

Whereas the 4e fighter was and is considered one of the strongest 4e classes full stop.

Yeah, in 3E fighters sucked, unless someone else could immobilize monsters next to you in order to get off full attack sequences, and even then itterative attacks weren't all that great in many cases.

 

[pemerton]

When you talk about roles in the specific context of 4e mechanics, you are talking about something that many many people did not experience in any way shape or form when they were playing older versions of the game.

Who does "you" refer to in this passage.

When I talk about roles, in 4e or in any other RPG, I am talking about those mechanical aspects of PC build that yield, for a given character, a significant degree of functionality in respect of some activity which - due to the interface between mechanics and fiction - is a meaningful element of typical play.

A necessary condition of their being roles in an RPG is that their be a significant mechanical complexity in PC build and action resolution (where mechanics touch fiction). No edition of D&D fails to meet this condition.

 

[pemerton]

Are you serious?

Yes. The passages that I've quoted all appear in Gygax's PHB, on the pages I indicate. And the thoughts are really my thoughts.

I infer from your comment that you don't agree that (for instance) the 4e STR cleric functionally closely resembles the AD&D Cleric; or that the AD&D MU can be seen in the 4e wizard, although with weaker artillery capabilities.

If I'm correct, I'd be interested to hear why you think this.

4th Edition is like a board game.

In a board game there is no shared fiction that affects the framing of challenges and the resolution of action declarations. Given that 4e features both these things, it is not a boardgame. Unsurprisingly - given what it says on the box - it is a fantasy RPG.

 

[SirAntoine]

So giving them better tools to do the things they've always tried to do while having flexibility to do other things is "very restrictive"?

First, you make two assumptions when you say "...giving them better tools to do 'the things they've always tried to do' while having flexibility to do other things...". The first assumption is these things they've always tried to do are in fact their focus. The entire question is whether such a focus, as articulated with a role, is a part of any character. You clearly think it is, and you are putting it like it is a higher priority to the character. The second assumption is that the player, once given tools to do the things you want, will not want similar tools to be fleshed out in similar numbers for other things they want to do with their characters.

I deny that the tasks assigned by the combat roles have as much priority as is being established, and I am saying if more abilities are given to support those tasks the player will feel like other tasks aren't supported so well.

For some players, they will think their options are only the written options. It just happens.