D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Herschel]

I'm confused, I thought the debate with BryonD (in the middle of which I interjected) was about the confessed satisfaction of some people to avoid having 4E-label roles mechanized in 5E.

The thing is, they're really not, they're just somewhat watered-down and the terminology curtain has been restored. Barbarians are striker-light, the Sentinel is defender-light, the Warlock is striker-light, etc. In other words, they don't do their thing as well as they did, not that they don't do them.

The OP was asking what the roles were now, and he got jumped on by a bunch of yahoos saying "there are no roles, your game sucks!".

 

[Imaro]

The thing is, they're really not, they're just somewhat watered-down and the terminology curtain has been restored. Barbarians are striker-light, the Sentinel is defender-light, the Warlock is striker-light, etc. In other words, they don't do their thing as well as they did, not that they don't do them.

This is just straight up wrong... what a class is "good at" in 5e is moreso determined by a players particular choices as opposed to the game pre-building it for you... and what's a "Sentinel"? Are you talking about the feat named Sentinel? The one any character can take for some defender-like abilities?

The OP was asking what the roles were now, and he got jumped on by a bunch of yahoos saying "there are no roles, your game sucks!".

Not what happened at all... the disagreement actually started because a different poster claimed they were the same as 4e... and other posters disagreed... you know how a discussion forum usually works...

 

[Rejuvenator]

The thing is, they're really not, they're just somewhat watered-down and the terminology curtain has been restored. Barbarians are striker-light, the Sentinel is defender-light, the Warlock is striker-light, etc. In other words, they don't do their thing as well as they did, not that they don't do them.

The OP was asking what the roles were now, and he got jumped on by a bunch of yahoos saying "there are no roles, your game sucks!".

Calling them "a bunch of yahoos" sounds like a personal insult. The "your game sucks" sounds like unnecessary exaggeration to me, but otherwise yes, a lot of people deny there are "roles" in 5E, in which "roles" refers to an overt 4E-style mechanical chassis for character design as well as describing expected patterns of tactical behavior for PCs in combat.

If a 5E player rejects that, then yes, maybe it's because they think 4E "sucks" for having it, but why should the 4E player care? How does that opinion infringe on your game play?

If the argument is articulated more reasonably (and concisely!) that watered-down fragments of 4E roles are perceived to exist in 5E, then that's a different discussion. It's hard to dispute people's perceptions (if that's what you see, then you see it). But I'd suspect it's incidental to incorporating certain game design elements from 4E, and not an intentional function of embracing the 4E role philosophy as such.

 

[Herschel]

Perception is a funny thing. A lot of the 4E mechanical design is still there if someone takes the time to actually look, Wizards just obfuscates it through terminology and lessened efficiency rather than clear, concise communication.

Why would they not intentionally incorporate 4E design? In 4E the Fighter was in the running for the most popular class, no longer over-shadowed by the Wizard (and Clerics/Druids in 3E). The mistake many are making is that this edition was to "purge the infidel 4E and its unwashed fans" from the game. The goal was to try and gain sales from all those folks who play WotC's IP while never giving them a dime while also trying to keep as much of their existing customer base as well. One of the biggest complaints about 5E is that it's made to be inoffensive and does a number of things okay, but doesn't have any big, new or innovative draw.

 

[Herschel]

This is just straight up wrong... what a class is "good at" in 5e is moreso determined by a players particular choices as opposed to the game pre-building it for you... and what's a "Sentinel"? Are you talking about the feat named Sentinel? The one any character can take for some defender-like abilities?

It's really not. The choices are the same, just with a different label on the tin. "Fighter w/ Champion" is the Slayer (or Weaponmaster Fighter w/ certain builds) slightly watered-down, "Fighter w/ Sharpshooter" is the watered down Ranger, "Fighter w/ Sentinel" is just the watered down Weaponmaster Fighter, The Ranger is a watered-down 4E Ranger w/ nature utilities/feats and a Druid MC built in. The roles are the same and in there, just not spelled out the same or as clearly, especially with the horrible 3E multiclass system in 5E.

Not what happened at all... the disagreement actually started because a different poster claimed they were the same as 4e... and other posters disagreed... you know how a discussion forum usually works...

It was a discussion, though the tone was already getting questionable, until ....

Monday, 19th January, 2015, 09:49 PM#9
Eirikrautha
Registered User
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

(quote) Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

I think the roles as the same they always were, just harder and more hidden...

so defender/striker/leader/controler (quote)

Uhhh...no. Just no.

Those "roles" didn't exist before 4e in rules or in play. Period.

 

[Rejuvenator]

Perception is a funny thing. A lot of the 4E mechanical design is still there if someone takes the time to actually look, Wizards just obfuscates it through terminology and lessened efficiency rather than clear, concise communication.

I believe Mearls indicated that they were drawing upon all editions of D&D (including 4E) to create 5E. I don't think it's in dispute that 5E is influenced by "traditional" D&D as well as elements of "4E mechanical design". The dispute is if (and how much) the 4E Role Philosophy exists in 5E. As you say, perception is a funny thing (and nobody, myself and yourself included, is exempt from that) so, um, you know, good luck!

 

[Herschel]

How long have people used the term "Meat Shield" for the Fighter? "Healer" for the CLeric? "Skirmisher" for the Rogue?

Probably since Day 1 as it's always been used since I started playing in around 1982 and by a guy who had been playing since the pamphlets.

 

[Rejuvenator]

How long have people used the term "Meat Shield" for the Fighter? "Healer" for the CLeric? "Skirmisher" for the Rogue?

In my experience, those labels were applied to the PC as roleplayed by the player, not applied to the class itself. Bob the Fighter was a "Meat Shield", but Jane the Fighter was a "Skirmisher". Nobody tried to tell me that Fighters are Meat Shields and Jane was going against the grain. However, both shared the role of Fighter, which also implied a role to me in the fiction too.

 

[Herschel]

So Jane had the Thief stand in the doorway to hold off the orcs?

 

[Imaro]

It's really not. The choices are the same, just with a different label on the tin. "Fighter w/ Champion" is the Slayer (or Weaponmaster Fighter w/ certain builds) slightly watered-down, "Fighter w/ Sharpshooter" is the watered down Ranger, "Fighter w/ Sentinel" is just the watered down Weaponmaster Fighter, The Ranger is a watered-down 4E Ranger w/ nature utilities/feats and a Druid MC built in. The roles are the same and in there, just not spelled out the same or as clearly, especially with the horrible 3E multiclass system in 5E.

All this seems like is a really big stretch to attach 4e labels to things that really don't fit into said labels.

IIt was a discussion, though the tone was already getting questionable, until ....

Monday, 19th January, 2015, 09:49 PM#9
Eirikrautha
Registered User
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

(quote) Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

I think the roles as the same they always were, just harder and more hidden...

so defender/striker/leader/controler (quote)

Uhhh...no. Just no.

Those "roles" didn't exist before 4e in rules or in play. Period.

He disagreed with him, I don't see anything wrong with that.... He doesn't believe those roles were in other editions of D&D... whether I agree or not, he has the right to state his opinion on the matter.