D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[SirAntoine]

Long-range archery duals can be quite common, but I think the melees, too, have enough time for cooperative tactics initiated with the help of a strategic advisor which take at least one round to set up. The typical combat lasts at least five rounds, no?

 

[Evenglare]

No. The thread has addressed the first post and topic title over and over again, in multitudinous directions. Several wonderful debates have been had, sharing alternate viewpoints and ironing out areas where everyone can agree or agree to disagree. Many of the contributors have been nothing short of great.

I never said the thread didn't do that. I said 80 pages in and the posts on the 80th page had nothing to do with roles and addressing the topic question. It clearly doesn't at all lol. It may be from another discussion but I assure you for a person coming into the topic for the first time 80 pages later it doesn't look like anything related to the classes and roles hahaha. There are posts about trig, NATO forces and ranging.

 

[SirAntoine]

I never said the thread didn't do that. I said 80 pages in and the posts on the 80th page had nothing to do with roles and addressing the topic question. It clearly doesn't at all lol. It may be from another discussion but I assure you for a person coming into the topic for the first time 80 pages later it doesn't look like anything related to the classes and roles hahaha. There are posts about trig, NATO forces and ranging.

Yeah, people just go off onto tangents that stem from the discussions. I would come back after being away for a day or two and find dozens or even more than 100 new posts and many of these posts are really long and detailed. I believe we actually made something like progress, though, and it was hard earned.

 

[Evenglare]

Well that's good. I'm not saying tangents are bad at all. I just thing it's hilarious when I see a thread this big then I read the first post and then the last page of posts. What is really funny is when you get these monolithic posts where people argue, then they quote the person and deconstruct their post, then it ping pongs back and forth repeating until you get a great pyramid of posting nonsense.

 

[Iosue]

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).

I wouldn't quite classify it as an option. The DMG says that they exist, but it's the DM's job to set the parameters of what's required to obtain them. They fall under that murky 1e purview of not being standard items available in the equipment list, but neither are they magic items.

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.

But that again puts us in the frame of valuing specialization above all else. If we, for the moment, stipulate that the fighter's ranged ability is significantly inferior to their melee ability (I'm going to disagree later, but for the moment we can stipulate it), but that ranged ability is still better than anyone else's ranged ability (and often as good or better than anyone else's melee ability), then it has value and meaning. Particularly if we accept 1e's aesthetic of merging sword-and-sorcery tropes with historical battle tactics simulation. In that aesthetic, one fighter firing arrows at me from dozens of yards away is less dangerous than that fighter in melee range. The true effectiveness of bows is en masse. That doesn't mean the single fighter with his bow is mediocre. Especially if no one else can match except for a high DEX assassin.

But even if we compare only fighter melee to fighter missiles, I don't think it's that much of a step down. Damage is pretty much a wash, thanks to the increased rate of fire. The fighter gets, at best, a +2 to-hit adjustment from his STR. I don't think that's a huge difference by itself, prima facie. Then consider that if you miss with melee, that's it for that turn, but if you miss with a missile, you're going to get another chance. Also, the AC (read: armor type) adjustments for bows are quite favorable if you use them. Long bow is better than longsword, IIRC. AD&D combat's rather deep that way. It was designed more for "selecting the right tool for the right job" rather than "one size fits all", and so there are times when missile fire is better and times when melee is better. On the whole, melee does slight more damage than, say, arrows. By the same token, there's a greater chance of receiving damage as well!

Edit: At home with my books, here's a selection of Weapon vs. AC adjustments-
[TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Weapon/AC
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]4
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]5
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]6
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]7
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]8
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]9
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]10
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Composite Longbow
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Composite Shortbow
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Longbow
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Shortbow
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-5[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-4
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Broadsword
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Longsword
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Bastard sword
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Two-handed sword
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Battle-Axe
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-3
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-2
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+2
[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Footman's Mace
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]+1
[/TD] [TD="align: center"]-1
[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
This is of course all highly situational. (Also, it can be a pain in the rear, so certainly not everyone will want to use it!) But it shows that there some cases, some quite common, where bows can be more effective than melee. Goblins and Orcs, for example, wear armor that gives them AC 6, so the AC adjustment here can make up for even high STR bonuses.

I don't really agree with your comparisons of fighters to thieves, though.

Edit: Oops, forgot to write this part! Actually, you're right here and it was my mistake. I was at work and I misremembered Expert D&D's fighter improvement over the thief's DEX bonus as being part of AD&D. As you note, in AD&D the DEX 18 advantage is mitigated at many levels, but not clearly surpassed.

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).

Yeah, but pemerton, you're stacking the deck here. You're saying that if a fighter specializes in melee, he's much better at melee than ranged. Well, yes, sure. But if we're throwing in UA options here, then surely we can go ahead and give a fighter a STR longbow and specialization in that, as well. And/or have him throw that second highest stat into DEX rather than CON. Specialization hath its benefits. Melee-specialized fighters will be better than the baseline for missiles. Ranged-specialized fighters can be equal or better than baseline melee. The more interesting question, IMO, is if I want a fighter who's good at both melee and ranged, can I get it? And I think the answer is yes. If I don't specialize, there's no big gap between melee and ranged, and both can be highly effective when used in the appropriate situations. If I do specialize in melee, then there's a big gap. I could also specialize in missile weapons and be awesome there. And even baseline missile attacks by a fighter are superior to just about any other class's.

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%.

7.5 vs 7 doesn't strike me as a much of a gap at all. 9.5 vs 7 is certainly a gap, but again we're moving into ultra-specialization if we're going to jack STR so high but keep DEX at 10. I agree with you that there's a gap, and melee is better in that situation, but I don't agree that a) the 7 is mediocre, even compared to the 9.5, since it's roughly equivalent to the 16 STR melee fighter nor b) that an 18(01) fighter should be the baseline for comparison.

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.

It is indeed a core rule in 2nd ed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I GREATLY beg to differ.
I have repeatedly stated that 4E is the holy grail of a certain game style that many clearly prefer.

I have gone out of my way on numerous occasions to clearly acknowledge this.

I was thinking of someone else and you're right. My sincere apologies.

We have discussed, at length, the differences in your tastes vs. mine.
We have discussed the nature of the players as limited to the roles of their characters vs the players have the powers of an author. I find it rather ironic that you would take issue with my preference for roleplayign as "being the character" and not being able to change the environment in any way that the character would not be able to, and then turn around now and claim, on no evidence whatsoever, (no attempt even) to suggest that my game is somehow not immersive.

And we've also talked in the past about having to ask the DM whether there is a rock on the ground or how your character knows a given organisation and what contacts they have, as opposed to them knowing and being able to call the people they actually know is anti-immersive. And to give the characters you are immersed in the knowledge of the gameworld they should have, outside games which whisk the PC out of their element, you absolutely need the player to be able to write what the character would know in the otherwise undefined spaces of the game world.

Games without player authorship of setting details are to me vastly less immersive than good games with player authorship. No GM I have ever played with has the ability to fully represent the rich tapestry of a world. It's just too vast. And none can anticipate enough to define all NPC relationships. And playing 20 questions to find a relevant object where you'd expect to find one is even more of an immersion killer than stopping to spend ten minutes to argue a rule.

I think it makes some sense to say BECMI provided more immersion, as Neonchameleon said, but it was always about immersion.

To say always is a retcon. D&D was intended to be a game. Immersion was a largely unexpected consequence.

 

[Sadras]

Games without player authorship of setting details are to me vastly less immersive than good games with player authorship.

What about bad games with player authorship or good games without player authorship of setting details?

No GM I have ever played with has the ability to fully represent the rich tapestry of a world. It's just too vast.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that player input has to be completely ignored either.

And playing 20 questions to find a relevant object where you'd expect to find one is even more of an immersion killer than stopping to spend ten minutes to argue a rule.

20 questions can be simplified down to 1 or 2 instead, but those numbers I bet do not accentuate your point enough.

PC "Is there a rock or a loose pebble nearby? I'm wanting to use it to cause a distraction."
DM (nods head) "Sure, as you would expect some of the stones in the cobbled street have become loose over time from both the weather and overuse from the constant merchant traffic, you easily find one barely intact anymore and pry it loose from the road."

My point is, in all my experience, I have never seen a DM that does not consider player input. Certainly a DM may have some hard setting limits, but never one that completely ignores any player advice or comment.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What about bad games with player authorship or good games without player authorship of setting details?

Bad games are bad games. There are hundreds of ways of making them terrible. Good games without player authorship are IMO less immersive than good games with player authorship.

20 questions can be simplified down to 1 or 2 instead, but those numbers I bet do not accentuate your point enough.

PC "Is there a rock or a loose pebble nearby? I'm wanting to use it to cause a distraction."
DM (nods head) "Sure, as you would expect some of the stones in the cobbled street have become loose over time from both the weather and overuse from the constant merchant traffic, you easily find one barely intact anymore and pry it loose from the road."

My point is, in all my experience, I have never seen a DM that does not consider player input. Certainly a DM may have some hard setting limits, but never one that completely ignores any player advice or comment.

Even your example slows things down, adds nothing to the setting that was not already there, and acts like grit between the wheels for a really really obvious answer. I have seen a DM that considers player input as little as possible - but I'm not using them for an example. I've seldom seen a player who when granted authorship rights used them to undermine the game rather than enhance it.

 

[Sadras]

I've seldom seen a player who when granted authorship rights used them to undermine the game rather than enhance it.

Okay, just for my own clarity what can the player author?

Introduce a keyhole on a door?
Introduce a crack on a locked iron box?
Introduce a stray dog?
Introduce a tear in a piece of clothing worn by an NPC?
Introduce a beard on a NPC?
Introduce a feminine voice by a male NPC?
Introduce an entire town guard patrol drunk/asleep on duty?
Introduce a type of building/guild in a settlement?
Introduce a river running through a town?
Introduce a cloudy day?
Introduce a typhoon?

Or are we only talking about Hussar's example about the paladin calling for his mount from a thread some time ago - which is really just a class feature?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Okay, just for my own clarity what can the player author?

Context matters. Also the question is not "Could they" but "would they"? Could the GM introduce 58 dragons into the bottom level of a dungeon? Yes. Would they? Not under normal circumstances if they are behaving like adults.

The fundamental principle is simple. The GM's notes are not authoritative. All that's authoritative is that which has been established at the table. You are not allowed to change any details that have been established either explicitly or implicitly. You are however allowed to build on them with things you think would fit rather than subvert.

Introduce a keyhole on a door?

What's the fundamental question. You can't change the nature of the door - if it's a bank vault probably not. If it's an inn and you think it has a keyhole and nothing's been established (such as a deadbolt on the inside) then yes. It doesn't change the nature of the door.

Introduce a crack on a locked iron box?

And this would really change the nature of the iron box, subverting its purpose. The only game I've seen where PCs would do this is Leverage - and they'd do that via flashback scenes so there was a causal mechanism for the crack both having been there all along and no one spotted it. (Leverage is a game about a team of con artists).

Introduce a stray dog?

In a street scene? Probably. In the middle of a clean room? Certainly not - it changes the nature of the room.

Introduce a tear in a piece of clothing worn by an NPC?

Describe the NPC. Not on one who took pride in their appearance. Someone wearing old rags? Probably.

Introduce a beard on a NPC?

What has been established about that NPC? If the GM has not already mentioned whether they are bearded or clean shaven (or implied it through other cues such as gender or membership in an organisation) then it's something not established. So you're adding consistent detail with that which has gone before. A ridiculously long beard on the other hand would have been one of the first things noticed so is implicitly not there if the NPC has been physically described.

Introduce a feminine voice by a male NPC?

Unlikely. If the voice doesn't get remarked on it is assumed to be unremarkable.

Introduce an entire town guard patrol drunk/asleep on duty?

Unlikely. That would be remarkable. (Exception made for Leverage and a flashback scene with the Grifter buying them a few rounds until they fall asleep).

Introduce a type of building/guild in a settlement?

What sort of building/guild? A seamstress' guild or a tannery? Almost certainly. A wizards' guild? Probably not as it would be remarkable.

Introduce a river running through a town?

All else being equal, yes. Many towns are built on rivers and if it hasn't been established (for instance by a map) that it isn't then you can assume it is.

Introduce a cloudy day?

Why not? Unless it's established otherwise.

Introduce a typhoon?

Utterly remarkable. No.

Or are we only talking about Hussar's example about the paladin calling for his mount from a thread some time ago - which is really just a class feature?

No. It's a change about where the authoritative map of the setting is - whether it's strictly in the GM's hands or whether the GM is director but the map is the one on the centre of the table.