D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Hussar]

Then answer my question ... which type are their superiority dice? They don't operate mechanically on any of those paradigms... But yeah keep telling yourself it's presentation..

EDIT: Even Action Surge replenishes on a long or short rest... so is it daily? No... because it will replenish on a short rest... is it an encounter? No... because it can recharge on a long rest... is it at-will? Nope... so you tell me how again is this AEDU?

Umm, you do realise that Encounter Power do recharge on both a short and long rest in 4e too right?

Wait what... your complaint is that in 5e he's versatile enough that mid-attack the fighter can switch from doing an AoE attack to focused damage if he chooses... He's supposed to be a master of combat why is that a bad thing again? I don't even know what to say here... that's been our point all along, the versatility and flexibility inherent in 5e... I don't have power that forces me to act in an exact way with an exact outcome... instead it's based on how I choose to use it in play and in the moment...

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?408712-What-are-the-Roles-now/page44#ixzz3PzM7PoSZ

No, my complaint is that he's not a CONTROLLER. Stop moving the goalposts. Controllers cannot do what a fighter can do. Thus, a fighter is not a controller. Also note, that the fighter STILL can only do this burst attack, against 4, maybe 5 targets, ONCE per short rest. Regardless of whether he has a reach weapon or not.

Now you've made a very weak controller - a reach of ten feet that, regardless of how many enemies he can actually reach, can only attack a limited number of them. Again, not a controller.

 

[Hussar]

not in the fighter... the warlock I could get behind way more. I might make a case for paladin... but in general, I have to say no... In that way your right...

To me, it's a minor thing. Yup, no Utility powers, but, that's fine, it's the structure I'm looking at. You have powers that refresh after set time periods. That's pretty much an AEDU structure base right there. Compare a 5e fighter to an Essentials fighter and there isn't a huge gap here.

 

[Imaro]

Seems that way, no? After all, we have powers that recharge after a long rest, a short rest, and some can be used at will (basic attacks).

Some people really don't want anything overtly from 4e in their game, including nomenclature, so the words used to describe these same otherwise same effects were changed. Helpfully, it means that those desperate not to see 4e in their 5e game don't have to, and those who played and enjoyed 4e can see some of its better ideas incorporated into the current system.

Everybody wins...you'd think.

AEDU was a specific structure that 4e used to construct classes... it's not just having some abilities that recharge on a long rest and some that are at-will... and some that recharge on a short rest... those types of abilities have been in D&D since at least 3.x and I'd say 2e as well though I will admit I could be wrong there...

 

[Imaro]

To me, it's a minor thing. Yup, no Utility powers, but, that's fine, it's the structure I'm looking at. You have powers that refresh after set time periods. That's pretty much an AEDU structure base right there. Compare a 5e fighter to an Essentials fighter and there isn't a huge gap here.

Abilities that refreshed after set time periods have been in D&D since at least 3.x...

EDIT: You do realize Essentials got rid of the AEDU structure, right?

 

[Imaro]

Umm, you do realise that Encounter Power do recharge on both a short and long rest in 4e too right?

Yep relalized my mistake when @GMforPowergamers corrected me...

No, my complaint is that he's not a CONTROLLER. Stop moving the goalposts. Controllers cannot do what a fighter can do. Thus, a fighter is not a controller.

This makes no sense and I'm not moving goalposts... a controller doesn't need to do what a fighter does in order for a fighter to be a controller... a fighter only needs to be able to do what a controller can do... and I've shown how he can do that...


What's the definition of a controller in 4e?

From HotFL
Controller: Controllers deal with large numbers of enemies at the same time. They favor offense over defense, using powers that deal damage to multiple foes at once , as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse or delay their foes..."

So the main characteristic of a controller is dealing damage to multiple foes at once... the Battlemaster fighter I built does that (along with maneuvers that inflict other conditons on their enemies), so how is he not a controller?

Also note, that the fighter STILL can only do this burst attack, against 4, maybe 5 targets, ONCE per short rest. Regardless of whether he has a reach weapon or not.

That is wrong. Again... see the battlemaster he can use sweeping attack multiple times in a combat... as long as he has superiority dice to spend...

Now you've made a very weak controller - a reach of ten feet that, regardless of how many enemies he can actually reach, can only attack a limited number of them. Again, not a controller.

So which is it... have I not made a controller or made a weak controller and what are we measuring weak or strong against, since the number of attacks he gains (and effects he can impose) continues to go up (both from Action Surge and increased number of superiority dice) as the fighter progresses? I've also shown how to increase his range through weapons and feats... so what are we basing these measurements against in 5e?

 

[Hussar]

So if you made a controller in 5e, doesn't that mean roles are alive and kicking?

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

So if you made a controller in 5e, doesn't that mean roles are alive and kicking?

No. It just means you successfully used Animate Dead and now have to keep it from chewing on your teammates

 

[PaulO.]

I'm confused.

Are you guys disagreeing about the definitions of words used to describe how to contribute significantly to a party?

If that isn't right, can someone sum up the point of contention for me?

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I'm confused.

Are you guys disagreeing about the definitions of words used to describe how to contribute significantly to a party?

If that isn't right, can someone sum up the point of contention for me?

There's probably anywhere from two to four conversations on any given page. Some people are simply answering the OP's questions. Some are talking about roles as assigned to classes. Some are arguing over the definitions of roles and how they apply. Some are agreeing on the definitions of roles, but arguing on how they apply. And then there's the other conversations beyond that.

I think I hit maybe a third of the highlights. I don't think a simple summary is possible.

 

[Hussar]

I'm confused.

Are you guys disagreeing about the definitions of words used to describe how to contribute significantly to a party?

If that isn't right, can someone sum up the point of contention for me?

No, no, that's pretty much the long and the short of it.

This all started after GM4PG made the mistake of bringing up 4e in the conversation and half a dozen people felt the need to monkey pile on him to preserve the purity of D&D from the taint of 4e. Everything that has followed from that point forward, you can pretty much chalk up to that.