D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Imaro]

skill powers from phb3 started down that road... mixed with backgrounds I was hopeing 5e would expand on it...


I have players that had played the same way for 20+ years regardless of edition, the idea that people "Forgot" how to role play because of the edition confuses me...

I don't know dungeon world, but I was hopeing for more like that in 5e....

Lol, I'm starting to see a pattern here... You seem to have wanted 5e to be a continuation of 4e (which is weird because half the 4e fans in this thread are basically claiming it is, but it's hidden)... well IMO,it's not...and I for one am glad it's not and don't think it would be better served in morphing towards that direction. Ultimately though the market will decide.

 

[Imaro]

the second part is what we are looking for, a supernatural non spellcaster would be great, and again 3.5 had Bo9S and 4e did it in the core...

Bo9S was a supplement that came out years after the corebooks... 5e was just released. I'm confused... what class in 4e was supernatural and didn't use spells in the PHB 1?

 

[Ratskinner]

I may not be the world's greatest expert on 4e, but I don't see anything in 4e's class design that facilitates plot-level deception, preparation, and trickery like the cited Odysseus regularly engaged in.

skill powers from phb3 started down that road... mixed with backgrounds I was hopeing 5e would expand on it...

Maybe one could argue that the skill challenge mechanic do, but I've seen more of that kind of behavior in older edition (AD&D) play than in either 3e or 4e and skill challenges aren't part of 4e class design. (I consider the question of why such behavior is, IME, abandoned for those editions to be open and personally confusing.)

I have players that had played the same way for 20+ years regardless of edition, the idea that people "Forgot" how to role play because of the edition confuses me...

Err...I didn't say forgot how to roleplay so that confuses me, too. What I did[/] observere is that players playing older editions tend to engage in Odysseusian behavior like plugging your ears with wax and the like more often than while playing newer editions, and I've even observed players reverting.

I suspect that it has something to do with the array of mechanized options presented to the player, but that's sorta wild speculation on my part. I haven't played enough 5e to claim knowledge of how it works there.

I do think that 4e's system supported a much more "gonzo" style of fantasy "X's and O's" tactical play (which, I think is hardly controversial). However, I don't see that any class in 4e would have in its class design a Divert River power for playing Hercules. Whereas in a Dungeon World (or similar narrative-centered) game, such a thing would be trivial, and likely wouldn't even risk unbalancing the game.

I don't know dungeon world, but I was hopeing for more like that in 5e....

You might want to give DW a try. It can really change the way one approaches D&D and similar games. Plus, its a good game in its own right. Personally, it's one of a few games that convinced me that D&D really isn't a good starting place for that kind of narrative/story focused play. YMMV for that, obviously.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Lol, I'm starting to see a pattern here... You seem to have wanted 5e to be a continuation of 4e (which is weird because half the 4e fans in this thread are basically claiming it is, but it's hidden)...

atlleast in part yes... I wanted the advances of 4e to be front and center in 5e, only better and improved based on everything they learned in the last 10 years....

well IMO,it's not...and I for one am glad it's not

trust me you have made that clear

Ultimately though the market will decide.

yes and as part of that market I intend to make my voice heard... just like you.

Bo9S was a supplement that came out years after the corebooks... 5e was just released. I'm confused... what class in 4e was supernatural and didn't use spells in the PHB 1?

yes Bo9S was later, I was hopeing for sooner in 5e. As for supernatural with out spells... Warden, Swordmage, and Warlord all had supernatural but still not magic powers (swordmage is the biggest stretch) and Barbarian most of all with it' Rages... man I wish they had a subclass in 5e that had 'assume spirit' rages...

 

[Imaro]

yes Bo9S was later, I was hopeing for sooner in 5e. As for supernatural with out spells... Warden, Swordmage, and Warlord all had supernatural but still not magic powers (swordmage is the biggest stretch) and Barbarian most of all with it' Rages... man I wish they had a subclass in 5e that had 'assume spirit' rages...

Again... PHB1... Swordmage was a supplemental campaign book and Warden was in a later PHB... Again 5e is still core. Now your example of the Warlord is interesting why are you classifying him as "supernatural"... I mean if anyone mentions him hollering people's limbs back on 4e fans get mad claiming all he's doing is inspiring and leading... so what makes him supernatural. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I've just seen this swing the other way when the discussion comes up with other fans of 4e (as in they are trying to argue that there is nothing supernatural about his abilities... at least no more so than the norm for martial classes throughout the editions of D&D.

 

[Bluenose]

I don't see the appeal of a warrior who is as complex and powerful as any caster. Don't you believe magic is more powerful than might?

Actually I think it's more a question of scope (as in what are the differences in what the two can accomplish) in the same way arcane magic and divine magic tend to have different scope (with some exceptions) in what they are capable of. If magic and mundane have the same scope then what is the point of the distinction?

Well, if it's a question of scope, how about a few lists. Things that can only be done with magic and not might, things that can't be done with magic but can through might, things which can be done by either but where magic is better, things which can be done by either where might is better, and things which can be done either way equally capably. I have a feeling that some of those lists might be a bit shorter than some of the others.

And of course it doesn't even seem to fit with Sir Antoine's proposal that magic should be more powerful than might if they're equally powerful but have different scope. Perhaps you should take that argument up with him.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Again... PHB1... Swordmage was a supplemental campaign book and Warden was in a later PHB... Again 5e is still core.

even the fighter in core 4e was doing more then 5e core... but yes I was hopeing for more... and sword,age came out 1 month after the PHB... so we are how many month into 5e 7months I think...

Now your example of the Warlord is interesting why are you classifying him as "supernatural"...

I group him as supernatural the same way I would captain America, or Sherlock holmes, or conan... not magic but more then a normal person..

I mean if anyone mentions him hollering people's limbs back on 4e fans get mad claiming all he's doing is inspiring and leading... so what makes him supernatural.

I don't understand why we need to Inspire an arm back on to be a supernatural leader of men... like Aragorn, or Captian Kirk...

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I've just seen this swing the other way when the discussion comes up with other fans of 4e (as in they are trying to argue that there is nothing supernatural about his abilities... at least no more so than the norm for martial classes throughout the editions of D&D.

If you watched a movie where bruce willis got the tar beat out of him, then when he was down ad beaten, then anpther hero yelled "Fights not over, we need you." and bruce willis gets up and keeps fighting... that is the healing part of inspireing words...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, if it's a question of scope, how about a few lists. Things that can only be done with magic and not might, things that can't be done with magic but can through might, things which can be done by either but where magic is better, things which can be done by either where might is better, and things which can be done either way equally capably. I have a feeling that some of those lists might be a bit shorter than some of the others.

I dunno, the "mundane" list is pretty long. It includes necessary functions like "oxygenating your blood", "moving your limbs", "reading", and "talking." Just the little things that make life worth living.

Magic is for things that break the pattern. It's okay if magic has stuff like "turn into a cat", although different games will represent the difficulty of that feat differently (in some magic systems it's trivial, in others mind-blowingly difficult) because magic EXISTS to enable things that are real-world impossible but desired within the game.

It's not the only way to enable impossibilities of course: you can simply declare certain impossibilities to be possible in the game. Spelljammer did this, 5E does this with HP (falling from orbit, etc.), but it tends to make people uncomfortable and instead of embracing it, they look for house rules to make it go away. (Wound Points, vitality, lasting injuries, etc.) Magic doesn't turn D&D players off that way as long as it stays within the vaguely technological idiom of Vancian/Gygaxian spell casting which is defined by mechanical effects--although I bet you'd get pushback if you tried to incorporate Frank L. Baum-style Oz magical effects under the justification of the D&D magic system. And no Baba Yaga magic allowed! No ribbons turning into rivers out of love for the protagonist and combs turning into forests and other such nonsense.

TLDR; in D&D, everything which isn't plausibly physical is mostly required to be done by gods or arcane forces, because that is "realistic" in the D&D idiom.

 

[BryonD]

If you watched a movie where bruce willis got the tar beat out of him, then when he was down ad beaten, then anpther hero yelled "Fights not over, we need you." and bruce willis gets up and keeps fighting... that is the healing part of inspireing words...

And if it gave temp HP, it would be perfect. But since it permanently removes all mechanical effects of the injury, it changes the system in a very unsatisfying manner.

 

[LostSoul]

And if it gave temp HP, it would be perfect. But since it permanently removes all mechanical effects of the injury, it changes the system in a very unsatisfying manner.

What are the mechanical effects of the injury that are removed by Inspiring Word? (I'm assuming that you're talking about Inspiring Word or whatever that Warlord power is called.)