D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Because combats in 5e tend to be fairly short, do you think that there would be too much of a risk of the "round one prep, round two deliver" approach to end up being "round one prep, round two it's already over"?

Combats in 5E are only short when they're straightforward. Long-range archery duels with cover, on the other hand, tend to be very long.

 

[pemerton]

They're more mobile, yes, but that doesn't mean they do better at offense than the defenders. The defenders are the heavy infantry, and the strikers are light infantry, or light skirmishers.

Just picking up on the point about offence:

In D&D offence (what I have called, upthread, "degrading the enemy") has two components: ablating hit points, and imposing other conditions.

In 4e, the striker role (in its purist form) is all about ablating hit points. The offence of a defender includes not only ablating hit points, but also imposing conditions - in particular, various sorts of movement-limiting conditions and debuffs on attacks that don't target the defender.

Within the fiction, both are engaged in offence, but mechanically there is a difference in the way that offence is handled. But the difference between hit point ablation and condition-imposition is not a difference found in "nature", as it were - it exists only as an artefact of certain D&D mechanics. This is why, when thinking about roles, both fiction and mechanics are relevant.

Strikers have similarities to light infantry but do more raw damage than defenders

Again, "raw damage" is an artefact of D&D's mechanical systems. From the point of view of the fiction, both strikers and defenders are engaging and degrading the enemy.

That's not intended as a point of disagreement, but more a gloss on what you said with an eye to the mechanical elements of the game that underpin it.

 

[Hussar]

This is patently absurd. You never fail to go back to the well of "winning an argument by telling other people that you know what they think and prefer better than they do themselves".

You start out ordaining your self the divine orator of what is an acceptable definition of "several" in the fictional trope being described and then hinge your entire claim of explicit contradiction. All Hail Hussar.

We have, at length, (didn't YOU just say something about a dead horse) discussed the trope of heroes in a hospital bed at the end of one episode and running around as if it never happen for next week's show. And I have specified on numerous occasions that lacking aid, 4 days rest is an acceptable number for the heroic characters portrayed in D&D. So you need to find some other people to follow your cult of personal declarations.

3E does not remotely contradict my standards.
Would you like for me to start telling you why you are so miserable in your 4E games now? Or shall we agree that I'm not qualified to make this kind of claim?

And, of course, ti is also amusing that you perpetually defend the idea that all HP loss is just bumps and bruises easily repaired with kind words of encouragement, and yet when some degree of recovery is added into the mix suddenly you have these arbitrary standards. The logic gap in your duplicity could pass a herd of elephants without one of them noticing the sides.

So, you're saying that you have no problem believing that Rocky fights Apollo Creed on Monday wins that fight, goes to bed, without any medical attention, and fights Clubber Lang on Friday, wins that fight, goes to bed, again with no medical attention, and fights Ivan Drago on Tuesday, and wins that fight too. And that's perfectly acceptable to you?

Funny thing is, you insist on playing silly buggers with you examples. The 10th level wizard can only EVER take 2 days to heal, 1 with assistance. The 10th level rogue is lkely in the same boat as well. But, again, there's no believability issues here.

Of COURSE you find 4 days acceptable. It fits nicely with 3e and contradicts 4e. Convenient that.

Then again, since "3 or 4" is apparently how you define "several", I think I've shown quite nicely where you are arguing from.

 

[Hussar]

For me, quite honestly, if we specify that "fundamentally better" means "I find it to yield a more satisfying roleplaying experience" and we further specify that we are comparing magic to mundane on the topic of quickly healing injuries then I accept his description. I do not make any remote claim that this is a truism for gaming. To the contrary, I go to great lengths to constantly point out that I don't have the slightest qualm with other people's preference. If someone else sees a good nights rest as all-healing (as per RAW 5E even) then cool. And if someone else wants fighters to yell character's arms back on, the good for them.

The funny thing is, that the debate always seems to come down to people who are offended that I don't do it their way.

No, I have no problems with you doing it whatever way you want. You want 4 day healing? Fantastic. My beef is in the claims that 4e can't do what you want. Good grief, it takes all of one sentence to change 4e healing rates to 3e. "You gain no HP from a short rest but you regain X healing surges (where X is the rate of healing you want)". And the game works perfectly fine in doing so. You've claimed in this thread an others that 4e plays a great game of 4e but cannot do 3e. That's simply not true.

Combats in 5E are only short when they're straightforward. Long-range archery duels with cover, on the other hand, tend to be very long.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6515506#ixzz3QYsMkzyW

Possibly true, but, then again, that's a pretty narrow corner case. How often do you see long range archery duels with cover? I'd say that most adventures don't feature this - it's a pretty unique set up. You'd need humanoid opponents (which lets out a number of scenarios), armed with ranged weapons (again, limiting the scenario), in a situation where combat starts at, at least, 3 moves out (a situation that doesn't come up that much since you typically can't see that far - any indoor or dungeon setting lets this out) and neither party has any magic significant artillery style magic.

Yes, it can happen, but, this is a pretty corner case example.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Possibly true, but, then again, that's a pretty narrow corner case. How often do you see long range archery duels with cover? I'd say that most adventures don't feature this - it's a pretty unique set up. You'd need humanoid opponents (which lets out a number of scenarios), armed with ranged weapons (again, limiting the scenario), in a situation where combat starts at, at least, 3 moves out (a situation that doesn't come up that much since you typically can't see that far - any indoor or dungeon setting lets this out) and neither party has any magic significant artillery style magic.

Yes, it can happen, but, this is a pretty corner case example.

Standard outdoor visibility in 5E is 2 miles, 1 mile when it's raining. (DMG page 243.) It should be a rare campaign that doesn't have some long-range encounters. What are you going to do, spend all day underground? (Drow are great for such campaigns because the sunlight thing is no longer a drawback.)

Long-range archery duels happen when one side or the other makes it happen. This can be the adventurers, if they have someone scouting ahead, or it can be the monsters, if they set up a fortified guardpost. (Hobgoblins are smart enough to do this.) Of course, if one or more PCs takes Sharpshooter/Spell Sniper, those duels go back to being short archery duels.

Edit: BTW, artillery-style magic (except Meteor Swarm) is useless at long-range, which is one of the best reasons to fight at long-range. Dragonfire, fear auras, vampire charm, etc., are all useless at 100 meters.

A standard tactic would be to scout ahead with a Shadow Monk, who breaks contact when an enemy is spotted (unless it's a lone enemy he can take by himself, from surprise) and then doubles back to where the party is waiting in a long corridor or large room behind piled furniture. Anyone who follows the monk back will run right into a face full of arrows. If they're smart they will take it slow and probe for an alternate, uncovered route. Voila! Long encounter. If it's just a dumb ooze or something this obviously won't happen, but I like Donald Vadderung's perspective: I have never found having too many advantages to be any particular burden. (Note: my players don't fight this smart, and so far they have survived anyway, but that's partly because they haven't fought anything intelligent recently. They've faced intelligent monsters, but have avoided confrontation instead of fighting them.)

TLDR; if you're waiting for the enemy to magically appear at your ideal engagement range, you're doing it wrong. And if all your fights are short, your enemies are too weak.

 

[Iosue]

The AD&D fighter was almost always mediocre when combats go ranged: no STR bonus to attack or damage (unless using optional rules to add STR to thrown weapon attacks); d6 damage (from bow) or d4+1 (from sling or crossbow) compared to the standard d8 or d10 from a sword; and if UA is in play and you are specialised in a melee weapon, no increased rate of attacks and no attack and damage bonus.

And if you built a high DEX fighter to get attack bonuses with missile attacks, that meant sacrificing either STR or CON, thereby reducing melee capability.

I disagree with a number of points here. The first being, bows and hurled missiles could be made to use STR bonus for damage (basically accounting for the "bow that only a Strong Hero can string and draw" type of trope), but issues of cost and availability are left to the DM, so let's set that aside for now, and look at our simple fighter with a DEX 10. As I noted above, his raw to-hit numbers quickly outstrip a Thief or Assassin's DEX-enhanced to-hit. More importantly, the only ranged weapons allowed to other classes are the dart (everybody), the sling (druids and thieves), crossbows (monks), and thrown daggers (everybody but clerics) and hand-axes (monks again). Only the Fighter and the Assassin have access to bows, and the fighter's to-hit rapidly outpaces even a DEX 18 assassin's. Nor does a Fighter especially miss out by not pumping DEX, since the fighter's getting at best a mere +2 to-hit bonus with high-end Exceptional Strength. And while a bow does only 1d6 damage with no damage bonus (not even for the DEX 18 Assassin, since in AD&D Dex didn't provide a damage bonus), it has a fire rate of 2 per round. So ranged combat is not really a step down from fighters' melee shenanigans.

Basically, in AD&D the only class that conceivably beats the fighter at ranged combat is the magic-user. But that's only because magic-users are artillery, immobile glass cannons with a slow ROF and limited ammo.

 

[SirAntoine]

I disagree with a number of points here. The first being, bows and hurled missiles could be made to use STR bonus for damage (basically accounting for the "bow that only a Strong Hero can string and draw" type of trope), but issues of cost and availability are left to the DM, so let's set that aside for now, and look at our simple fighter with a DEX 10. As I noted above, his raw to-hit numbers quickly outstrip a Thief or Assassin's DEX-enhanced to-hit. More importantly, the only ranged weapons allowed to other classes are the dart (everybody), the sling (druids and thieves), crossbows (monks), and thrown daggers (everybody but clerics) and hand-axes (monks again). Only the Fighter and the Assassin have access to bows, and the fighter's to-hit rapidly outpaces even a DEX 18 assassin's. Nor does a Fighter especially miss out by not pumping DEX, since the fighter's getting at best a mere +2 melee damage bonus with high-end Exceptional Strength. And while a bow does only 1d6 damage with no damage bonus (not even for the DEX 18 Assassin, since in AD&D Dex didn't provide a damage bonus), it has a fire rate of 2 per round. So ranged combat is not really a step down from fighters' melee shenanigans.

Basically, in AD&D the only class that conceivably beats the fighter at ranged combat is the magic-user. But that's only because magic-users are artillery, immobile glass cannons with a slow ROF and limited ammo.

I have seen some fantastic archers and other missile-specialized characters in AD&D. Darts are so powerful, with rate of fire 3 and a high strength bonus, I had to change that.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree with a number of points here. The first being, bows and hurled missiles could be made to use STR bonus for damage (basically accounting for the "bow that only a Strong Hero can string and draw" type of trope), but issues of cost and availability are left to the DM, so let's set that aside for now, and look at our simple fighter with a DEX 10.

My recollection is that, in Gygax's DMG, the option of "STR bows" and the like is presented as just that - an option. And I don't remember seeing any instantiation of it in any module (eg in NPC damage numbers).

his raw to-hit numbers quickly outstrip a Thief or Assassin's DEX-enhanced to-hit. More importantly, the only ranged weapons allowed to other classes are the dart (everybody), the sling (druids and thieves), crossbows (monks), and thrown daggers (everybody but clerics) and hand-axes (monks again). Only the Fighter and the Assassin have access to bows, and the fighter's to-hit rapidly outpaces even a DEX 18 assassin's. Nor does a Fighter especially miss out by not pumping DEX, since the fighter's getting at best a mere +2 to-hit bonus with high-end Exceptional Strength. And while a bow does only 1d6 damage with no damage bonus (not even for the DEX 18 Assassin, since in AD&D Dex didn't provide a damage bonus), it has a fire rate of 2 per round. So ranged combat is not really a step down from fighters' melee shenanigans.

The question was not whether the fighter is a better ranged combatant than the cleric - which is true in 4e also - the fighter is proficient in bows and heavier thrown weapons while the cleric is not). The comparison is of fighter ranged attacks to fighter melee attacks.

I don't really agree with your comparisons of fighters to thieves, though. A 5th level fighter has a THACO of 16. A thief with the same number of XP is 6th level, and has a THACO of 19. With a DEX of 17 the thief hits as well in missile combat as the fighter does; the fighter has not outstripped the thief.

A 9th level thief needs slightly fewer XP than an 8th level fighter, and at that point the gap closes a little - the fighter has a THACO of 14 (8th level THACO is the same as 7th unless an optional rule is being used), and the thief a THACO of 16. So a 16 DEX will close the gap. (DEX 17 if the optional rule for fighter to-hit is being used.)

An assassin needs more XP than a thief, but even then the gap doesn't quickly open up beyond 4: a 9th level assassin needs slightly fewer XP than a 9th level fighter, and the THACO is 16 compared to 12; and a 13th level assassin, with the same XP as an 11th level fighter, has a THACO of 14 compared to 10.

And in UA a thief can use a shortbow.

Comparing a fighter's damage with a bow to melee damage: 2d6 averages 7, compared to (at 1st level) 3/2 * 7.5 (for 1d8+3 from 16 STR and specialisation), which is greater than 11, or more than 50% better damage. If the fighter has 18/01 STR, the melee damage is 3/2*9.5 (for 1d8+5), or greater than 14, which is more than double the bow damage. And that's before allowing for the +2 to hit (+1 STR, +1 specialisation).

Even without UA, the longsword does more damage with 16 STR (7.5 vs 7) and noticeably more with 18/01 STR (9.5 vs 7). And that's before we get to size L creatures do, where the longsword steps up to 1d12. And the +1 to hit also increases damage, especially at lower levels where base chances to hit are often less than 50%.

Once magic items come into play the gap opens up, as magic bows in the DMG don't go above +1, and magic arrows tend not to be reusable.

I think that missile combat is a step down for the fighter, especially in UA (assuming melee weapon specialisation).

I have seen some fantastic archers and other missile-specialized characters in AD&D. Darts are so powerful, with rate of fire 3 and a high strength bonus, I had to change that.

The STR bonus may be a core rule in AD&D 2nd ed (I don't know), but is not in AD&D 1st ed.

As for bow specialists, yes they are strong. But my comparison was of a melee-oriented fighter's melee attacks compared to his/her missile attacks.

EDIT: My thief DEX numbers are out by one - so DEX 16 should be 17, and DEX 17 should read 18. And once the assassin gap opens by 4, the fighter has a +1 to hit advantage over the 18 DEX assassin.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So, you're saying that you have no problem believing that Rocky fights Apollo Creed on Monday wins that fight, goes to bed, without any medical attention, and fights Clubber Lang on Friday, wins that fight, goes to bed, again with no medical attention, and fights Ivan Drago on Tuesday, and wins that fight too. And that's perfectly acceptable to you?

You know, I haven't been reading this thread (because, seriously, happy-face that), but I could actually totally see this in a Rocky movie. I can watch a movie like Warrior and accept the outcome (I'm not giving anything away), despite its ridiculous fighting schedule, then I could certainly accept Rocky pulling a feat like what you've outlined off. He's frickin' Rocky.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Looking at genre fiction, I wonder which came first - novels where magic trumps non-magic, or D&D?

Magic trumps non-magic is ancient. What changed was that magic trumps non-magic wasn't mixed much with protagonists being wizards. The protagonist in such stories prior to D&D used to be the plucky fighter or tricksy rogue.

Three is a definition of several that I was unaware of. Thank you. 10th level fighter in 3e heals 40 HP/day with a DC 15 heal check (at 10th level, pretty much automatic). So, two days of bedrest and one day of light activity and he's completely healed.

Sounds like a hangover to me. Certainly doesn't sound like I've taken serious wounds. Heck, even with just bedrest, I'm still healed in under a week. Bad bout of the flu. Minor sprain maybe?

I guess those are serious, narrative valuable wounds in your game.

This point has been beaten to death BryonD. Accept it that you are mistaken here. 5e and 4e flat out contradict you explicitly. 3e contradicts you. AD&D had slower healing rates, true, but, we're almost twenty years after that.

It's worse than that. Real world marathon recovery times involve resting for about a month. D&D has always been larger than life cinematic. And hit points were designed specifically to be unrealistic.

If you just want a pure and balanced tactical combat system then 4E is that. But if you want a system that puts a simulation of individuals into challenges and says "it ain't balanced, find a solution" then 4E (for many) actually does a decidedly inferior job of that. Those same gamist bits that make it a balanced tactical game are constantly there reminding you that being a balanced tactical game is at the forefront of this engine's duty.

And what you fail to acknowledge is that for many others 4e does a vastly superior job of that. In 3.5 you can almost always say "It ain't balanced. Unload the wizard." (Or cleric, druid, or artificer). In 4e you can not say this. There is no class you just unload to deal with situations you shouldn't be able to tackle head on - the very imbalance of 3.5 meaning that supposedly imbalanced challenges are manageable. This is because 4e both has the best generalist out of combat D&D mechanics of any edition (an admittedly very low bar) and pays attention to balance so you can't just solve things by throwing spells at them.

Yes, you can roleplay on 4E. There is no slight challenge to that claim. But I can roleplay my character in Descent. And I can make a 100-point GURPS character and roleplay Superman on him. Nothing can ever stop anyone from roleplaying. But the mechanics on these systems do an inferior job of supporting that immersive part of roleplaying.

D&D, with its unrealistic damage system, its pretty high complexity, and all its quirks, and its design as a gamist system does a pretty bad job of supporting immersive roleplaying. I find the untiring robots that are non-4e fighters to wreck my immersion. But really, praising a version of D&D for being immersive is like praising a pickup truck for its speed.

The people at the table will be the same. And no matter how good you are at immersing yourself in ANY roleplaying opportunity, if that is what is important to you, then having a system that support that immersion is what you want, then why not have a system that puts that as a more important matter than balance?

Because balance is objective. Immersion comes with a number of factors:
1: What you are used to
2: How often you need to stop and look up the rules, shattering the flow of the game
3: How close it is to 'natural' free form.
4: Mechanics/fluff connection. Can you back up what you believe you should be able to do.

All versions of D&D fail 3 fairly spectacularly. 4e fails a lot of people on 1 - but not everyone. 2 is a spectacular fail for 3.X even after almost 15 years. And for 4 I find that 4e and BECMI are the two D&D winners (this is actually where 5e fails compared to other editions - bounded accuracy de-powers dragons et al).

But a couple key points are that I do, again, agree that there are even highly pro-3E groups who share the inequity concern. So obviously this is just one piece of the bigger puzzle of why different editions are popular or not. And second, it is amazing to me that I've run into so many 4E myrmidons who are incapable of accepting that the distinction I've described above can even exist.

Oh, it can exist. It's just straining at gnats while swallowing camels. What I have never once seen acknowledgement from you of is just how unintuitive and anti-immersive a wide swathe of D&D mechanics (especially in 3.X) are. Hit points are almost pure metagame outside 4e. Hit rolls are weird abstractions (and don't get me started on archery). The 4e and 5e skill systems in play stand head and shoulders above 3.X's fiddly detail and 2e's weirdness. Every version of D&D is swamped in math (even 5e isn't great). D&D is not and has never been about immersion.

As to 5E, I haven't played high enough level to truly judge yet. But it does seem to have split the difference. I don't really care though. If it works great as a character simulator and then balance is built onto that without negatively impacting that first priority, then excellent. I think 5E still needs some major gaps filled. But the core system gets the job done so far.

5e's main virtue so far as I can tell is to largely get out of the way while offering evocative choices and giving people familiar with AD&D and 3.X something close to what they were familiar with. This is useful. And I'd go so far as to say that 5e is right there with BECMI as having the least that gets in the way of immersion so far as I can tell.