D&D 5E (2014) What are the Roles now?

[Hussar]

Sorry but what is a 0/1 knapsack?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sorry but what is a 0/1 knapsack?

A famous problem in computer science. The regular knapsack problem is this: imagine you have a knapsack and you're planning a bank heist. You'll be able to carry out a certain amount of stuff from the bank, whatever you can fit in your knapsack. Each thing in the bank has a certain value and also a cost in space. Which things do you pick? The solution is trivial: choose the item with the best value-per-cubic-inch and put it in your knapsack. Then choose the next-best and take that too. Continue until you run out of space in your knapsack, and then take the thing that didn't quite fit in your knapsack and cut off bits of it until you fit as much as you can in that knapsack. Voila! You have the optimal value in your knapsack.

In the 0/1 knapsack, you can't cut things in two, you have to either take it or leave it. (Hence, "0/1".) You could make the problem even more complicated than 0/1, you could make it multidimensional such that there's not just a linear amount of abstract "space" in your knapsack, there's different dimensions and shapes that you need to worry about, and now you need to worry about the possibility that the "best" item may take up enough space that you can't take the third- and fifth-best items, which together add up to more value than the best item. The more constraints you add (length/width/weight), the more difficult the problem becomes, and the more you have to backtrack and try different things on your way to a solution--you can't just zoom straight to the optimal solution.

I see class constraints in this same light. Every class in 5E has some things in it that aren't mechanically all that great, but are part of the package. For the sake of example, I'll pick on the Shadow Monk's "turn invisible in darkness" ability that he gets at 11th level. You may ask, "what good is it to be invisible if it's already dark?" (I know, I know. Darkvision, etc.) In a point-build system, if you had the chance to drop that ability in exchange for an extra feat, you would probably do that. The extra feat is clearly better. But if you're going to be a high-level Shadow Monk, you're going to have that ability anyway even though it's really only the 11th or 12th-best thing you'd like to see on your "abilities I gain this level" chart, so you make use of it, and maybe it becomes something cool. For example, maybe it occurs to you that Shadow Monk invisibility isn't a spell and so doesn't take concentration, which means that you can cast Pass Without Trace and then turn invisible, therefore becoming the stealthiest dungeon scout in the whole game except for maybe a high-level rogue/druid multiclass. It may not be better than a feat, but since the opportunity cost isn't a feat--since there is no opportunity cost at all--it's pretty nifty.

Hopefully you can see the analogy to 0/1 knapsack, where "X levels of classes" is your knapsack and you have to fill it with contiguous levels of various classes instead of freely selecting levels/powers. Just like 0/1 knapsack, the more constraints you add, the less easily you can zoom in on a trivially-optimized single solution.

 

[pemerton]

classes spark character ideas and/or emulate stock characters or archetypes from the genre and/or make character building easier by presenting a complete/functional/contributing package of abilities without requiring undue system mastery.

The basic roles that speak to a well rounded party are still one warrior, one rogue, one priest, and one wizard.

If you run games that primarily focus on combat, that's true.

I don't agree with pickin_grinnin that the classic 4-class party is "well rounded" only in a combat-focused game. It also has certain strengths in a classic dungeon-exploration game.

But I do agree that it is "well rounded" only from the point of view of a certain sort of, fairly narrow, game play. Tony Vargas mentions archetypes and genre, and the classic 4-class party does not relate to archetype or genre in any serious way. The classic D&D wizard has its origins not in literary genre but in wargame mechanics, namely, artillery and related anti-personnel effects (eg Cloudkill is a fantasy equivalent to gas shells; Transmute Rock to Mud and Dig are fantasy equivalents to sapping and mining; etc).

The thief in D&D is not especially genre-based either, as it makes trap detection and lock-picking far more prominent than in most fantasy literature - these are skills that matter to a certain sort of dungeon exploration, but aren't a big part of the fantasy literary tradition. The weakness of classic thieves in combat is also not really genre-appropriate.

This clash between classes and literary genre is not an inherent RPG thing. It is a particular feature of the design origins of the D&D classes.

The Conan comics - particularly the long-running "Savage Sword of Conan" - do a much better job of reflecting the Conan from Howard's stories than the movies. Even so, the fact that Conan comes from a "barbaric tribe" and is physically imposing only represents a fraction of the traits of the character (as you obviously know). The only way you could really model him in D&D (from a technical standpoint) is with some careful multi-classing and some really good stats.

I think Conan is comparatively hard to model in classic D&D, because a fighter won't give him the requisite skills.

In 4e, I think a STR/DEX fighter specialising in melee AoE attacks and with either thief, ranger or warlord multi-class (depending on whether you're going for the early, middle or late-period Conan), plus some skill-training feats (for Stealth, Nature, Perception and Acrobatics adding to base Athletics, Intimidation and Streetwise) and the Unarmoured Defence feat, would do a pretty good job. He would be tough, fierce, and effective in a range of armours. An alternative pathway, which gets the full range of skills more quickly (4th level rather than 8th) but produces a less robust character who can't wear heavy armour effectively, would be a STR/DEX ranger.

Stats would be 16 STR and DEX, 12 WIS and CON, 10 CHA, 8 INT (Conan knows relatively little of magic, religion or - at least initially - history, which are the three INT skills in 4e).

I'm not sure what the best 5e pathway is, but I think fighter would be the base chassis.

Gandalf. If you look at how he (and the other wizards) are depicted throughout Tolkien's writing, it becomes obvious that he's semi-divine and falls somewhere in the lower orders of the pantheon of that world

<snip>

Merlin is more of a prophet or seer.

Although Gandalf in LotR is a type of angel, this is not a big part of his day-to-day capabilities. (And is not part of the character at all in The Hobbit.)

I think the real issues for building either Gandalf or Merlin in D&D are (i) that D&D wizards have their origins in artillery-style builds, and (ii) that D&D doesn't have very effective prophet/seer mechanics, and tends to lack influence mechanics short of outright control (5e's Charm is something of an exception).

Various types of bard build are one way to approach these characters, I think, where the more common magical effects become augmenters to ordinary activity rather than the very frequent casting of overt spells.

The heroes in fiction can always hit and kill their enemies when the writer says, and this is typically instant or almost as quick.

The way that combat is resolved in D&D is an artefact of that particular system, not RPGs per se. 4e used minions to generate the literary trope of the quick kill, and it is possible to have combat systems that work on a single check (like skill checks in 3E or 5e), just as it is possible to have non-combat resolution that requires multiple checks (like skill challenges in 4e).

I don't think D&D is ideal for emulating literary-style fantasy combat, but I don't think it has to be hopeless.

 

[Zalabim]

5e has brought back the Animal Friendship spell, so, yes, if you want a Beastmaster Ranger, you just play a Ranger. A spellcasting ranger, but, then, you want a supernatural bond with an animal, so you shouldn't be that resistant to be being a nature-oriented caster, in the first place.

If you don't want the supernatural bond, just take the right proficiencies and train an animal.

The 5E animal friendship spell just charms one not-too-intelligent animal. It doesn't even make them friendly to you. Getting any effect other than "the animal does not attack the ranger" out of it is up to DM whim. I just wrote it off as another one of the ranger's abilities that's great for wandering off into the wilderness without the party, I.E. not playing D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The classic D&D wizard has its origins not in literary genre but in wargame mechanics, namely, artillery and related anti-personnel effects (eg Cloudkill is a fantasy equivalent to gas shells; Transmute Rock to Mud and Dig are fantasy equivalents to sapping and mining; etc).

Just because the classic D&D wizard fails to emulate genre doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt to do so. EGG described his thought process in choosing the 'Vancian' model as a way of keeping wizards involved in combat. The artillery analogy was also apt in Chainmail. But they're still supposed to be magic-wielding guys in robes and pointy hats, ala Merlin, Gandalf and the hermetic tradition.

The thief in D&D is not especially genre-based either, as it makes trap detection and lock-picking far more prominent than in most fantasy literature

Like the Vancian wizard, they're pulled from only a couple of sources, most obviously Lieber's Grey Mouser. But there are other precedents going back to the Thief of Baghdad, for instance. Again, it may not have done a good job of capturing those sources of inspiration, and ended up a dugneon-crawling trap-detector, but that failure doesn't mean no attempt was made.

I think the real issues for building either Gandalf or Merlin in D&D are (i) that D&D wizards have their origins in artillery-style builds, and (ii) that D&D doesn't have very effective prophet/seer mechanics, and tends to lack influence mechanics short of outright control (5e's Charm is something of an exception).

Another is that D&D PCs are meant to be protagonists, while Gandalf, Merlin, and most other pre-Harry-Potter wizard characters are more there as helpers, plot devices, and sources of exposition.

I don't think D&D is ideal for emulating literary-style fantasy combat, but I don't think it has to be hopeless.

Emulating the character archetypes of the genre, in the first place, would help.

 

[pemerton]

the role of the basic dnd elf might best be emulated by the bard.

Agreed.

This also works well for Tolkien-esque elves, who perform magic through song. Burning Wheel develops this approach to elves in detail.

 

[pemerton]

Just because the classic D&D wizard fails to emulate genre doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt to do so. EGG described his thought process in choosing the 'Vancian' model as a way of keeping wizards involved in combat. The artillery analogy was also apt in Chainmail. But they're still supposed to be magic-wielding guys in robes and pointy hats, ala Merlin, Gandalf and the hermetic tradition.

Like the Vancian wizard, they're pulled from only a couple of sources, most obviously Lieber's Grey Mouser. But there are other precedents going back to the Thief of Baghdad, for instance. Again, it may not have done a good job of capturing those sources of inspiration, and ended up a dugneon-crawling trap-detector, but that failure doesn't mean no attempt was made.

In both cases, I really think that the goal was to provide a certain sort of game play - artillery/anti-personnel for the wizard, dungeon exploration for the thief - and then layered on a few superficial tropes. The idea that genre faithfulness would be an end in itself I think hadn't really occurred.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The beastmaster ranger and the Essentials Druid were created to mirror the 3.x Druids and Rangers with Animal Companions. In turn, 3.x intended the Animal Companion feature to be a less broken alternative to the AD&D Animal Friendship spell.

5e has brought back the Animal Friendship spell, so, yes, if you want a Beastmaster Ranger, you just play a Ranger. A spellcasting ranger, but, then, you want a supernatural bond with an animal, so you shouldn't be that resistant to be being a nature-oriented caster, in the first place.

If you don't want the supernatural bond, just take the right proficiencies and train an animal.

Rangers of times past cast spells, too, that's how they got that happy non-combat effectiveness, for the most part. A non-spell-casting ranger with just some archery or TWFing and some woodsy skills is handled in 5e by Fighter with a Background. That non-casters in D&D have tended to lack out of combat, as well as lag at higher levels, notwithstanding. The concept is provided for. What's written on the sheet doesn't matter.

Well, I was mostly thinking of 4e when I said that, where the default ranger has no magical abilities at all, and even the "Martial/Primal" subclass only had Primal-keyword (aka "magic") utilities.

I also don't think "train an animal to fight" is, or even should be, a purely magical effect. Real-world cultures did it all the time--the forebears of the modern Rottweiler (probably) included the preferred breed of war dog in ancient Rome. In a setting where things that are physically impossible in our world are achievable by purely "mundane" characters like Fighters, I fail to see why Rangers HAVE to be magical in order to have a well-trained war animal. Or, in other words, I don't think it's a supernatural bond, and I think several of the class-specific "spells" the 5e ranger gets should just be abilities. This is almost surely a matter of taste.

Just to go off on a tangent as I sit here, coffee in hand while trying to wake up, I realise that after reading the Elves of Alfheim gazetteer (again) that the role of the basic dnd elf might best be emulated by the bard. As many know, the basic elf class archetype was a class that was skilled in combat and magic but who halted their magic studies at 10th level while still increasing their combat ability. Elves of Alfheim brought in the Tree keeper class that let an elf focus on the magical abilities instead.

Although the bard class has musical abilities which may not mesh well with the basic archetype, the subclasses of lore and skald fit well with a basic elf and their decision to focus more on their magical or combat skills.

I'd say the Elf sits somewhere between Bard and Eldritch Knight, most likely--if you break the EK school limitations, that is. (I'd use "archetype" rather than "role" to describe this, but that's semantics.) That is, the Bard is a full caster in 5e. Even if you go for the Skald, you're still going to eventually have 9th-level spells among other things. I guess it depends on where you think the Elf falls on the "wizard<->fighter" spectrum; your description reads more like "mostly fighter, dash of Wizard," which is very much the EK. But if you were meaning to keep the standard Elf always a notch below the Fighter, and willing to accept 9th-level spells despite the original elf "halt[ing] their magic studies at 10th level while still increasing their combat ability," then yeah, I could see it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, I was mostly thinking of 4e when I said that, where the default ranger has no magical abilities at all, and even the "Martial/Primal" subclass only had Primal-keyword (aka "magic") utilities.

I also don't think "train an animal to fight" is, or even should be, a purely magical effect. Real-world cultures did it all the time--the forebears of the modern Rottweiler (probably) included the preferred breed of war dog in ancient Rome. In a setting where things that are physically impossible in our world are achievable by purely "mundane" characters like Fighters, I fail to see why Rangers HAVE to be magical in order to have a well-trained war animal. Or, in other words, I don't think it's a supernatural bond, and I think several of the class-specific "spells" the 5e ranger gets should just be abilities. This is almost surely a matter of taste.

Training an animal from zero to hero in just twelve hours (per PHB) sounds pretty extra-normal to me. Don't know if you'd consider that "supernatural" (honestly, that word is meaningless IMO) but it's not normal animal training.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Training an animal from zero to hero in just twelve hours (per PHB) sounds pretty extra-normal to me. Don't know if you'd consider that "supernatural" (honestly, that word is meaningless IMO) but it's not normal animal training.

Technically the PHB says 8 hours, if you're talking about replacing your companion. Personally, I'd say that as long as the master lives, the pet lives, because killing a Beastmaster Ranger's animal companion is a BS move in a game that lets a character specialize in "has a combat pet."

That said, though? I don't necessarily know that I would call it "supernatural" (recognizing that, yes, such a term is quite squishy in D&D Land). When bears, wolves, etc. are as dangerous as they are, and capable of taking down clearly not-real-world-natural, capable-of-overt-magical-feats enemies, the issue is more about making one your friend, and all of that sort of thing is perfectly well-handled by the Nature skill. But then again, I was very pleased with 4e's move of making many things that used to be "spells" simply uses of skills (e.g. Detect Magic is just an Arcana check, Animal Friendship is just a Nature Check, etc.) so...yeah, I still don't think that task is so special and powerful that it outright requires overt, declarative, resource-consumptive spellcasting ability.