D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Aribar]

The Disadvantage stuff works relatively well at any level since it's more or less equal to a -5 to that roll. It's pretty good at low levels and tapers out to good at high ones in my opinion; no problem there. So the fighting style Protection is awesome there.

Anything that relies on attacks of opportunity gets a kick in the gut at 5th and 11th level. Extra Attacks keep a fighter competitive with damage during their turn, but effectively a level 20 Fighter is 1/3 as dangerous during a reaction as a level 1 Fighter is if you catch my drift. Likewise, maneuvers that only affect "Large or smaller creates" aren't as effective as time goes on because more monsters are in larger size categories.

Maneuvers like Goading Attack (Wis save or disadvantage attacking others), Menacing Attack (Wis save or frightened) depend on superiority dice. Maybe it's my own experience, but 4-6 dice (excluding feats) per short rest seems restrictive, especially since an hour-long short rest really dissuades my group from taking them compared to 4E's 5-minute short rest.

Feats like Sentinel or other things that work with attacks of opportunity are really limited by only having one reaction per round. It kinda makes having multiple abilities that do similar things on reactions a waste and becomes useless if even two enemies try to charge past you.

I'm not experienced enough with 5E to know how to fix these problems (and I dislike that I have to put time into fixing things I perceive as problems in a new system with a $50-150 entry free), but as general ideas I'd like to go back to the one playtest packet where fighters restored superiority dice upon rolling initiative or beginning battle, or possibly change how long short rests are. I'd like if there was a way (whether feats, class feature, etc.) to gain more Reaction actions or maybe have like 1 free attack of opportunity per round. I'd also like it if everything that applied to an Attack option (like certain feats or extra attacks) applied to attacks of opportunity.

Edit: Also for a past post, I just realized that in 4E my group houseruled choosing X skills you wanted instead being forced into "Skill 1, Skill 2 + 3 others" with your class because we found the way the book had it dumb. I apologize, that really skews my view of skills in 4E.

 

[SirAntoine]

You didn't 'hear of all the classes, yet you continually bash in the ENWorld-standard passive-aggressive with extreme ignorance.

Pure hypocrisy. You are not the bastion of D&D purity and your comments show that directly.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Both with what you feel about me, and about ENWorld. I don't think anyone here is ignorant, and I would never call someone ignorant. I am not guilty of any hypocrisy, not in the slightest. I may not be able to protect D&D, but I have tried to diligently. I do not say this to give myself any kind of unique status. With you, I can't even say I speak up for tradition, or for AD&D, or for anything I guess. Pemerton, whom I was talking to, can call himself a defender of 4th Edition. Why can't I try to relate to that and say I am a defender of D&D as a whole? Others have taken similar positions, such as GMforPowerGamers. And others have said they are defenders of 4th Edition. There are even clubs online dedicated to defending 4th Edition, and I am a member of one.

And I ask which edition the other poster is talking about, and he says 4th Edition with 27 classes. You dare to call me extremely ignorant when I haven't counted those classes? You are being more than discourteous and disrespectful to me.

I was going to answer your previous post, but now I see you only want to try to insult me. Go away.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First, thanks for correcting my mistake concerning the broadsword (It's been awhile since I played 4e so I don't remember every detail)... Now as to your other question...I, as well as quite a few other posters have asked you to cut down the length of your posts to make them more manageable... You've apparently decided not to and I've decided to skip said posts... especially seeing as how they always center around 4e and this is the 5e forums. And yes when a post looks like an essay it tends to give the impression it's leading into an in-depth discussion... as well as increasing the amount of time necessary to answer it.

A TL;DR summary:
The "4e roles are prescriptive" claim comes from others, not from 4e fans. Especially SirAntoine, who may not have played 4e at all, not sure, he didn't mention it.

For players, "role" concisely summarizes default function; equivalent to Gygax's longer-form advice.

For designers, "role" sets minimum design goals: each class has tools to do at least one important thing in some arena (e.g. combat). It shouldn't limit potential breadth after customization.

A class is a "Striker" if it has straight-out-of-the-box tools for hitting hard. Other classes may achieve the same effect via customization. Having damage features is sufficient to be a Striker, but not necessary--it can be done other ways.

"Melee damage means striker" =/= "striker means melee damage." Also: If Battle Clerics can do robust damage with some build, they can be Strikers. Neither he nor I has seen it, but it could easily happen.

Many martial weapons have +2 proficiency, so there need not always be an accuracy gap.

"What I'm good at" is a function of both initial ability (role and source) and player choice. (Personally, I'd argue tactics and teamwork are critically important too.)

(For reference: the content of the summary comes up, in Word, as 189 words, while your post requesting shorter posts comes up as 112; an increase of approximately 69%. I hope that this is sufficiently short to meet your requirements for not completely ignoring the things I, and Pemerton, have said.)

 

[Imaro]

Because...they don't? Level essentially doesn't factor into them. The dice get bigger (d8 becomes d10 becomes d12), but that is equivalent to getting a +1 at level 10 and a (total) +2 at level 18. So they basically don't scale with level.

Well first you get more superiority dice at 7th and 15th level... and the dice themselves increase at level 10 and level 18... Now my question is taking into consideration the fact that they all replenish on a short rest, the nature of bounded accuracy and the power of the maneuvers... what should they be scaling too? let's say you get a short rest every 2-3 encounters... that means you can on average activate maneuvers anywhere from 1-4 times per combat during levels 1-7 then 1-5 times after that (discarding the higher levels)... This is also disregarding the fighter's action surge which refreshes on a short rest and your extra attack at 5th level.

As far as I can tell, Parry and Rally (generally considered among the best maneuvers) are the only ones which actually use your stats at all (Dex and Cha, respectively), so they scale slightly as well if you improve your stats. Beyond that, maneuvers literally never change in their effectiveness. Since I've had it drilled into my head that most campaigns never reach the highest 5 levels or so, we can even safely ignore the d12 superiority dice part--so most players will never see more than an (average) increase of +1 to their maneuver effects, other than Rally and Parry for the specified stat bonus.

Uhm this is wrong... All maneuvers that require a save are based on your Str or Dex modifier (your choice) for DC... so they do scale by abilities... and by Proficiency bonus.

 

[Morrus]

You didn't 'hear of all the classes, yet you continually bash in the ENWorld-standard passive-aggressive with extreme ignorance.

Pure hypocrisy. You are not the bastion of D&D purity and your comments show that directly.

This isn't even vaguely appropriate. If you feel we're all passive aggressive with extreme ignorance (and I probably am, but I don't need people coming to my house and shouting it at me), please post somewhere else which meets your standards.

As for the hypocrisy accusations and name calling - please do not post in this thread again. If you have any questions, feel free to email a moderator.

 

[SirAntoine]

Except this isn't a discussion of roles in 4e. THAT'S why we have 1000+ posts on this thread, because fans of a particular edition have decided to "educate" the rest of us about how they played an old edition of the game!

This thread is (or was supposed to be) about the roles in 5e. The only even slightly tangential part that interfaces with the older, dead, editions of the game might be if you wanted to use the same terms as an older edition to describe them. But, as has been evidenced by the testimony of many of us on this thread, the terminology of recent editions doesnt fit how WE play. So, no matter how much you tell us that it does, IT DOESN'T. Just because someone wants to tell us what the terminology "really" meant in an older edition doesn't change the fact that 5e characters AREN'T built as "strikers". They're built as "rogues" or as "fighters" or as "warlocks" in 5e. Everything else is a situational tactical choice, more than in any other edition.

I understand that you might like some other edition. Have fun with it. But those editions are dead to me. They are less than irrelevant. So, can you address the original question without mentioning the dead editions?

The discussion can naturally lead to what the roles were before, why they were what they were before, and why those roles are again in 5th Edition. That makes the 4e roles more than relevant.

In the interests of correcting misunderstandings, the thread has become so long. It is very important to continue it in my opinion.

For more of the discussion I think you are looking for, about hands-on experience with 5e roles, we need to experiment with them and share our experiences. There will again naturally be discussions of alternatives.

 

[Imaro]

(For reference: the content of the summary comes up, in Word, as 189 words, while your post requesting shorter posts comes up as 112; an increase of approximately 69%. I hope that this is sufficiently short to meet your requirements for not completely ignoring the things I, and Pemerton, have said.)

Eh, I still think I'll pass... I think 4e has taken up enough time and word count in a 5e thread and I've decided I'm not to keen to continue discussing it... like I said earlier you want to talk 5e that's cool...hope you can respect that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Eh, I still think I'll pass... I think 4e has taken up enough time and word count in a 5e thread and I've decided I'm not to keen to continue discussing it... like I said earlier you want to talk 5e that's cool...hope you can respect that.

When you specifically ask questions about 4e things, and then get upset when people talk about 4e as a result, I can agree that there's a problem with the discussion--I just don't feel it's on the end of the person responding to questions about 4e things. Particularly in a thread where discussion of 4e has been present since the very first post.

Edit: To be clear, I respect your desire to talk about 5e. I don't respect your lack of respect for someone answering direct questions specifically about 4e. If the point was relevant 2-3 pages ago, ignoring it because it isn't what you want to talk about right now is not very respectful.

 

[Imaro]

When you specifically ask questions about 4e things, and then get upset when people talk about 4e as a result, I can agree that there's a problem with the discussion--I just don't feel it's on the end of the person responding to questions about 4e things. Particularly in a thread where discussion of 4e has been present since the very first post.

I'm not upset, sorry if I gave that impression... and I'm not placing blame on anyone... even though you seem to be trying to push the convo in that direction. I made a conscious choice not to discuss something right now... either you respect that or you don't. If I want to talk more 4e I'll go in the 4e forums and pst there.

 

[Imaro]

Edit: To be clear, I respect your desire to talk about 5e. I don't respect your lack of respect for someone answering direct questions specifically about 4e. If the point was relevant 2-3 pages ago, ignoring it because it isn't what you want to talk about right now is not very respectful.

Woah there buddy I have the right to decide I don't want to talk about something at any point I choose to. Especially if I wasn't directly addressing the person in the first place... Now telling me I'm disrespectful because I am choosing to bow out of a conversation I've grown tired of is overstepping on your part just a tad bit....