D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[yakuba]

[/B]

I think perhaps now I'm not communicating clearly because I feel like the bolded part is exactly what I and others have been saying about 5e. When you tell me that the 4e roles are in 5e... I am assuming that you are saying the classes are mostly defined by and map to particular roles as in 4e... that is why early on in this discussion people asked those who thought this to define what they meant by roles... if you mean subjectively I can categorize certain builds into 4e roles... well duh, you can do that for any number of roles one could make up... what exactly is your point unless when you say 4e roles you mean the implementation specifically? If all we're saying is that I can come up with a way to classify certain character builds... then yeah, I would agree but IMO, that's so obvious as to be a no-brainer... with the caveat being... if that's how it had been expressed.

Then we only disagree semantically because saying there are no roles in 5e is not trivially equal to saying that 5e classes do not serve a particular role. Only a game like checkers where all pieces are the same can be said to have no roles.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But we weren't talking about inspiration, the claim was made that the roles were in 5e... same as 4e.

I stand by my assessment, the inspiration was the comic book thing. 5e still has basic roles... but we have long sense moved past any argument, and moved to talking past each other. Because the roles are not the exact same word for word AND hard coded, doesn't mean you can't see those role or being labled such would not be a benfit.

My assertion was that 5e has so much customization within a class that the roles as defined in 4e don't really exist anymore.

some of us disagree...

My Fighter's main purpose doesn't have to be a defender...

the fact that you don't HAVE to be a defender is not in question.

my Wizard isn't necessarily best at being a controller and my rogue can be built outside the boundaries of being mainly a striker.

same as above.

see this is the disconnect. If you aren't forced into a role, that doesn't mean that role is all of a sudden not there.

can I take feats and options that make my fighter a defender? Sure but I can also take stuff that makes him more similar to a Warlord/Leader or a more damage focused character...

but you see those roles still exists, and you can pick between them.

or a myriad of roles that I could make up that aren't in 4e but could be expressed with 5e choices as illustrated previously by other posters.

and this falls into my statement from last week... "the 4e roles were only a good start, we can improve them by creating new ones, including non combat roles"

I even had hoped during the playtest that we could mix and match much better then we can. 5e should not mirror 4e, it should take what 4e did and build apon it, make it better.

 

[Imaro]

I stand by my assessment, the inspiration was the comic book thing. 5e still has basic roles... but we have long sense moved past any argument, and moved to talking past each other. Because the roles are not the exact same word for word AND hard coded, doesn't mean you can't see those role or being labled such would not be a benfit.

I'm unclear by what you mean when you say label the roles... How do we determine what these roles are since everyone can categorize any way they want? And what, in the game exactly are we labeling? And once we start labeling things aren't we in effect hard-coding at least to a certain extent and definitely in the mind of a more casual player? I enjoy the freedom to discover and build these things myself, it's what I view as a strength of 5e.

As an aside, one of the effects 4e had on some of my players (and admittedly myself as well) in labeling the roles was that many were automatically turned off by the classes "job" even though they may have liked the thematic trappings of the class. As an example contrary to the prevailing attitude that Warlords opened up the leader space... I had very few if any leader characters throughout my time playing/running 4e because the role didn't appeal to my players, even though they had and now will happily play a Cleric in 3.x and in 5e. There was an off-putting effect in telling them that there whole purpose was to make others better... This is one of the downsides i see to labeling with roles... you do in effect start to limit the way many people may view a class. Personally I wouldn't touch a class labeled controller in 4e though I'll play a wizard in 5e... I like that 5e, for the most part gives me thematic trappings for classes but allows me to define my own role... how does setting down a finite list and labeling enhance that?

 

[PaulO.]

This is one of the downsides i see to labeling with roles... you do in effect start to limit the way many people may view a class. Personally I wouldn't touch a class labeled controller in 4e though I'll play a wizard in 5e... I like that 5e, for the most part gives me thematic trappings for classes but allows me to define my own role... how does setting down a finite list and labeling enhance that?

I can see the benefit of power sources and roles in 4E. It made it easier to conceptualize the slew of classes available, and understand the general mechanics and themes of each.

But keep in mind, this did not limit them anymore than calling the armored bloke with a sword a "Fighter" limits them, or calling the armored religious guy a "Cleric" limits them. You're really only limited by the options available that determine what you can do, not the labels given.

There were some places where I feel like it was forced--i.e. shouldn't the Ranger be a Primal style of character? In these cases, I agree the restriction from the labeling system unnecessarily restricted how the class could be fleshed out mechanically. I prefer the way 5E gives each class ways of branching out and specializing within the class.

 

[Imaro]

But keep in mind, this did not limit them anymore than calling the armored bloke with a sword a "Fighter" limits them, or calling the armored religious guy a "Cleric" limits them. You're really only limited by the options available that determine what you can do, not the labels given.

I don't know if I agree with this... the primary roles informed the classes core competencies, and their secondary roles seemed to allow some variation that they could exhibit... but beyond that you usually had to look to a different class... so, IMO, they did limit them to a certain extent... As an example the Fighter in 4e could not really be primarily a controller, but there was a martial controller in Essentials, The Hunter (which was basically the model I followed for constructing the 5e martial controller I cited earlier (interesting how he wasn't deemed a controller by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] when he was basically doing the same things the Hunter Ranger that 4e labeled a controller could do)... this is a limitation centered around the matching of specific class to specific role(s)...

There were some places where I feel like it was forced--i.e. shouldn't the Ranger be a Primal style of character? In these cases, I agree the restriction from the labeling system unnecessarily restricted how the class could be fleshed out mechanically. I prefer the way 5E gives each class ways of branching out and specializing within the class.

Ranger as martial but also Monk as psionic felt forced to me but that, IMO is the drawback of codification and labeling, you're not going to hit everyone's mark for how they would categorize things and once you start people will expect everything to be done the same way.

 

[PaulO.]

I think we are talking about different things.

I don't know what exactly you think a "controller" is. You said you didn't play a wizard in 4E, because of that label. I have no clue what you're talking about. Apparently that word carries a meaning with you that it does not with me. I'm sorry, I just don't get it. I never played a Wizard, but I did play a Psion/Warlord some and enjoyed him quite a bit.

My issue was more to do with the idea that a Ranger, being martial striker, meant he didn't have access to a lot of traditional Ranger stuff. Is that what you mean? Do you feel like Fighter or Wizard were lacking a particular style, theme, or mechanic that was present in older editions or other traditional fantasy RPGs?

Do you want a pure Fighter to be a "controller"?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm unclear by what you mean when you say label the roles... How do we determine what these roles are since everyone can categorize any way they want? And what, in the game exactly are we labeling?

see this is "How do we use roles?" question... witch I would love insight and discussion of, but you are using that as an example why the roles aren't there...

And once we start labeling things aren't we in effect hard-coding at least to a certain extent and definitely in the mind of a more casual player?

You say hard coded I say education...

I enjoy the freedom to discover and build these things myself, it's what I view as a strength of 5e.

well, then would you be ok with a book or series of articles you could ignore that would label things for people who want it?

As an aside, one of the effects 4e had on some of my players (and admittedly myself as well) in labeling the roles was that many were automatically turned off by the classes "job" even though they may have liked the thematic trappings of the class.

I had the opposite response to it... duiling antodotes has been going on all thread though... but ok, one more time...

As an example contrary to the prevailing attitude that Warlords opened up the leader space... I had very few if any leader characters throughout my time playing/running 4e because the role didn't appeal to my players, even though they had and now will happily play a Cleric in 3.x and in 5e. There was an off-putting effect in telling them that there whole purpose was to make others better... This is one of the downsides i see to labeling with roles... you do in effect start to limit the way many people may view a class.

I can see the benefit of power sources and roles in 4E. It made it easier to conceptualize the slew of classes available, and understand the general mechanics and themes of each.

But keep in mind, this did not limit them anymore than calling the armored bloke with a sword a "Fighter" limits them, or calling the armored religious guy a "Cleric" limits them. You're really only limited by the options available that determine what you can do, not the labels given.

I don't know if I agree with this... the primary roles informed the classes core competencies, and their secondary roles seemed to allow some variation that they could exhibit... but beyond that you usually had to look to a different class... so, IMO, they did limit them to a certain extent...

going with the cleric and the warlord... one of the issue my group has had with D&D for years (2e,3e,3.5 ect) was that very few players felt comfortable playing the religious role... so we had 3 types of games, ones with no healers (aka hard mode) or ones where we didn't role-play the cleric as anything other then a fighter/mage rp with different spells. the warlord, the spirit shaman, the Ardent, and the bard all got play, even the ruine priest... the same players that played cleric from time to time did play one or two, but we saw atleast 2 of each build of warlord.

by making a non religious healer it was a HUGE leap forward... for us.

Ranger as martial but also Monk as psionic felt forced to me but that, IMO is the drawback of codification and labeling, you're not going to hit everyone's mark for how they would categorize things and once you start people will expect everything to be done the same way.

I agree with the beginning of this...

here is what I would love to see:

Monks are martial warriors that use unarmed combat better then most, they are easiest and default to being primary strikers with secondary controlers. Depending on your sub class you can add a divine or psionic flair to them that would CHange X Y and J. There main combat class feature is A and was designed to be used as B.

The default background (if you use that optional rule) is X and makes you a Y, and other good options are A and B

Rangers are Martial warrirors and nature casters, that travel the wilderness and are expert woodsmen. They are easiest and default to being primary striker secondary controlers. Depending on your sub class you can add a divine.nature or more martial flair to them that would CHange X Y and J. There main combat class feature is A and was designed to be used as B.

The default background (if you use that optional rule) is X and makes you a Y, and other good options are A and B

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The proper role of a wizard, IMHO, is best expressed in AD&D and the Dresden Files. He's all about foresight and preparation. If you catch him by surprise, he's squishy; but if he knows he's going vampire hunting and has a month to research spells beforehand, he can squish that vampire like a bug. (Maybe some kind of spell to create sunlight or running water.)

You can't express that role in 4E terms, but TVTropes might have a name for it.

5E doesn't support that role very well, and mostly only at high levels when you finally start getting long-lasting spells like Simulacrum. I was really surprised that the DMG didn't have spell research rules as a downtime activity.

 

[Imaro]

I think we are talking about different things.

I don't know what exactly you think a "controller" is. You said you didn't play a wizard in 4E, because of that label. I have no clue what you're talking about. Apparently that word carries a meaning with you that it does not with me. I'm sorry, I just don't get it. I never played a Wizard, but I did play a Psion/Warlord some and enjoyed him quite a bit.

Its a role from 4e... I could explain it as I understand it but it probably wouldn't help much, and I'd be called out for any inaccuracies so I'll leave it be, especially since that's not what you're referring to.

My issue was more to do with the idea that a Ranger, being martial striker, meant he didn't have access to a lot of traditional Ranger stuff. Is that what you mean? Do you feel like Fighter or Wizard were lacking a particular style, theme, or mechanic that was present in older editions or other traditional fantasy RPGs?

Ah, I get what you are saying now... Yes I did at times feel this way, one example that stands out in my mind was the Spellsword... I wanted/expected a gish and got more of a warrior with wuxia stylings, which ultimately was kind of cool after I got used to it but didn't really scratch the itch for a warrior-mage I was looking for.

Do you want a pure Fighter to be a "controller"?

No, not at all, I want him to be able to adapt to the situation, which in my mind is accomplished by not tying a specific role to his class.

 

[SirAntoine]

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.

The 4e roles are simply not applicable. They only exist in 4e. By this, I mean they were only meant for 4e.