D&D 5E (2014) What are the Roles now?

[Herschel]

Double post.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I feel like "allows optimization, still generalist-friendly" isn't too far off from describing 4e though. Everyone gets a half-level bonus to everything, which means "at-level" challenges hover around the same odds of success. The world is not keyed to specific level, however, so challenges that could not be overcome before (such as bluffing an angel or whatever) become possible, even (potentially) trivial. In fact, as I understand it, 5e's Proficiency bonus essentially acts as a slightly-flatter version of 4e's half-level bonus--it scales up at roughly the right levels for a half-as-fast growth with a slightly higher starting point (+2 instead of +0). Since this only applies to some things, rather than everything, one might even make the argument that 5e isn't quite as "generalist-friendly" as 4e, though the obvious rejoinder there is just that the numbers aren't supposed to get so high that an untrained rube couldn't at least possibly succeed. (The actual implementation of that, unfortunately, appears to vary.)

I was discussing general design principles, and my 4E experience is limited to three sessions (because of DM issues), so I don't have much to say about 4E. About 5E: one implication of the flat curve you mention is that 5E is also friendly to parties with heterogenous levels. You could have a 20th level Gandalf, a 14th level Aragorn, an 11th level Boromir, and a couple of 1st through 3rd level Hobbits in the party, and they'd all be able to contribute meaningfully. If proficiency bonuses were massive (+1 per level) then Gandalf would dominate the whole party in every field of endeavor from social intercourse to engineering to mountain climbing. Systems with a "god stat" that allow super-generalists like this tend not to be very fun in my opinion, unless you are explicitly going for over-the-top James Bond-ism (GURPS: Black Ops).

Anyway, that's why I think it's an important feature of 5E that they consciously made the variance so high, and the d20 roll such an important component of any skill challenge. And from there it follows that even a Shadow Monk with a total bonus of -1 to Intelligence (Nature) can still look for poisonous herbs for his herbalism kit in the wilderness with some hope of success, if he thinks to do so. It may or may not be realistic, but it's definitely a distinctive feature of 5E play.

 

[Zalabim]

I've often remarked that there's two parts to each of 4E's roles (maybe more). Defending is being tough enough to take hits and discouraging enemies from hitting others. Striking is strong attacks and avoiding enemies attacks. Leading is aiding the attacks of others and restoring their condition or health. Controlling is attacking multiple enemies and preventing enemies from attacking effectively. So that'd be Tough, Threatening, Strong, Evasive, Supportive/Enhancing, Recuperative/Healing, Area/Wide, and Weakening.

To do something similar for exploration and social shouldn't be too hard. I'm not sure it's practical to separate exploration and social as different things while social skills are mainly related to two or three stats and exploration skills are mainly related to five. I'd combine them. So they'd be Scout, Expert, Sage, Athlete, Friend, Liar, Foe, Listener, Investigator. Probably more I'm missing. Does it make sense to separate the social and exploration abilities in classes? Does it make sense to balance them between classes?

 

[Aenghus]

I've often remarked that there's two parts to each of 4E's roles (maybe more). Defending is being tough enough to take hits and discouraging enemies from hitting others. Striking is strong attacks and avoiding enemies attacks. Leading is aiding the attacks of others and restoring their condition or health. Controlling is attacking multiple enemies and preventing enemies from attacking effectively. So that'd be Tough, Threatening, Strong, Evasive, Supportive/Enhancing, Recuperative/Healing, Area/Wide, and Weakening.

I would disagree slightly with the description of strikers above - for me it's strong attacks, and being able to pick and choose targets in some way, whether its ranged attacks, improved mobility, stealth, teleportation etc. Strikers tend to be relatively squishy with medium to low defenses, hit points and healing surges, so they make excellent targets for monsters, and benefit a lot from support from defenders, leaders and controllers. Strikers may have a few defensive powers, but by their own they tend to depend on a huge alpha strike to overwhelm the enemy, and their squishiness makes them vulnerable to counterattacks and they can shatter like glass cannons if taken by surprise. Which is the glaring weakness of all-striker parties i.e. they need the initiative and probably lose if they ever lose it.

To do something similar for exploration and social shouldn't be too hard. I'm not sure it's practical to separate exploration and social as different things while social skills are mainly related to two or three stats and exploration skills are mainly related to five. I'd combine them. So they'd be Scout, Expert, Sage, Athlete, Friend, Liar, Foe, Listener, Investigator. Probably more I'm missing. Does it make sense to separate the social and exploration abilities in classes? Does it make sense to balance them between classes?

The main issues to avoid are being good at too may things(e.g. Codzilla), or being good at too few things (the fighter trap). Different games vary hugely in adventure activities, so balancing across all pillars is going to be inexact at best. For instance, bards tend to be super good across the editions in very low combat, very high social campaigns, but in conventional adventuring vary hugely in effectiveness between the editions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was discussing general design principles, and my 4E experience is limited to three sessions (because of DM issues), so I don't have much to say about 4E. About 5E: one implication of the flat curve you mention is that 5E is also friendly to parties with heterogenous levels. You could have a 20th level Gandalf, a 14th level Aragorn, an 11th level Boromir, and a couple of 1st through 3rd level Hobbits in the party, and they'd all be able to contribute meaningfully. If proficiency bonuses were massive (+1 per level) then Gandalf would dominate the whole party in every field of endeavor from social intercourse to engineering to mountain climbing. Systems with a "god stat" that allow super-generalists like this tend not to be very fun in my opinion, unless you are explicitly going for over-the-top James Bond-ism (GURPS: Black Ops).

I think your example is...more than a little far-fetched. Even if we make all of the characters involved "normal" characters (that is, ones which follow the rules of character creation even if it means not doing everything Gandalf etc. could do), the level-1 Hobbits are going to have net bonuses to their best stuff (max stat+proficiency) of roughly +6, while Gandalf and Aragorn rock roughly +11. If he's an Evoker (reasonable, he makes fireworks) Gandalf can do more damage with a low-rolling cantrip than those Hobbits can do on a crit. And that has nothing on the Hobbits being at risk of immediate death if fighting anything above level 6 or so.

In certain narrowly specific ways, yes, this party "works" more than it would have. Most, but not all, foes can be hit by the hobbits with non-crit attacks, but many of them will still be in the 10-15% range. Most, but not all, enemies will not be guaranteed to hit the hobbits, but their odds of success will be in the 70%-or-higher range. Skill checks that Aragorn finds challenging (say, 40% odds of success) will be nearly impossible for the hobbits (roughly 10-20% with proficiency and a +3 stat; impossible, or nearly so, if lacking both). So...yeah, I don't think your example is especially great.

I can accept, however, that characters within ~5 levels of each other, as long as none of them are below level 3, are close to equivalent in strength; the HD make the biggest difference, and the higher level you are, the smaller that relative difference becomes. The first three levels have such tiny HP values and such enormous risk of death (a typical orc can drop many 1st-level characters with a single crit; two hard hits can outright kill a fragile class) that it is...unwise, IMO, to mix "higher than level 4" characters with characters at level 1 or 2.

TL;DR: No, I really don't think Level 20 Gandalf (or even level 14 Aragorn) can adventure confidently alongside level 1 Samwise and level 2 Frodo. But I do think level 6 Subotai, level 7 Conan, and level 4 Valeria can adventure together more or less alright.

Anyway, that's why I think it's an important feature of 5E that they consciously made the variance so high, and the d20 roll such an important component of any skill challenge. And from there it follows that even a Shadow Monk with a total bonus of -1 to Intelligence (Nature) can still look for poisonous herbs for his herbalism kit in the wilderness with some hope of success, if he thinks to do so. It may or may not be realistic, but it's definitely a distinctive feature of 5E play.

Yeah, again, this depends on the difficulty of the check. With a total bonus of -1, if you're trying to do something Hard (DC 20) you cannot possibly succeed. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a DM said that trying to scrounge up poisonous herbs in a forest was a Hard task. Even if it were only Medium (DC 15), you'd still only have a 20% chance of success. So there's still skill things you cannot attempt, and the numbers aren't far off for things you can attempt with slim chance of success (compare to 4e: for a 10th-level challenge, a Hard task is DC 26, Medium is DC 18; even for -1 from stat, a 10th-level character has +5 from half-level for a total of +4, so while you cannot succeed at the Hard task, you have a 30% chance with the Medium task. These diverge a bit more as you advance, but at the same time, nobody has negative modifiers after level 21, and everything gets the half-level bonus.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would disagree slightly with the description of strikers above - for me it's strong attacks, and being able to pick and choose targets in some way, whether its ranged attacks, improved mobility, stealth, teleportation etc. Strikers tend to be relatively squishy with medium to low defenses, hit points and healing surges, so they make excellent targets for monsters, and benefit a lot from support from defenders, leaders and controllers. Strikers may have a few defensive powers, but by their own they tend to depend on a huge alpha strike to overwhelm the enemy, and their squishiness makes them vulnerable to counterattacks and they can shatter like glass cannons if taken by surprise. Which is the glaring weakness of all-striker parties i.e. they need the initiative and probably lose if they ever lose it.

Sorta depends on class and/or build. Barbarians get away with it by having decent defenses and good HP (or ablative THP or whatever), and Avengers generally have stellar AC. Sorcerers, for example, usually get their attack stat to AC (Dex as normal, Str from a feature for Dragon and Cosmic Sorcerers). So there are some Strikers that fall into the "tanky bruiser" category, to appropriate a League of Legends term. In general, I'd say (most) Strikers are less fragile than (most) Controllers, but more fragile than (most) Leaders, and all of them are much more fragile than even a low-HP Defender.

The main issues to avoid are being good at too may things(e.g. Codzilla), or being good at too few things (the fighter trap). Different games vary hugely in adventure activities, so balancing across all pillars is going to be inexact at best. For instance, bards tend to be super good across the editions in very low combat, very high social campaigns, but in conventional adventuring vary hugely in effectiveness between the editions.

Generally agreed. IMO, Bard, Fighter, and Monk are sort of the "barometer" for an edition. Do they, statistically speaking, fall noticeably behind other classes? Do they have access to a similar (NOT THE SAME) breadth of mechanical impact? In 3e, in general, they do fall behind and do not have the same breadth of mechanical impact. In 4e, they're all strong classes (Monk is the weakest of the three, and that really isn't saying *that* much) and they have access to a pretty impressive array of things, both solely within their own resources, and through things like Ritual Casting, Martial Practices, and Skill Utilities. In 5e, I personally feel that the Bard is great, the Monk is acceptable, and the Fighter falls behind--other classes can easily match its damage output (e.g. Paladin) while having both excellent passive benefits and/or additional active/selective-use effects that provide far greater breadth.

And that--again, IMO--is the problem of designing classes without deciding on a foundation (role) first. Let the player build whatever they like on top of it--and do whatever they want inside that building. That's the player's business. The designer's business should be just as you've said: Avoid "good at all/most things" and "good at few/no things," which means seeking "good at some things." Deciding which things in particular is deciding what role, even if you don't formally call it anything whatsoever.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think your example is...more than a little far-fetched. Even if we make all of the characters involved "normal" characters (that is, ones which follow the rules of character creation even if it means not doing everything Gandalf etc. could do), the level-1 Hobbits are going to have net bonuses to their best stuff (max stat+proficiency) of roughly +6, while Gandalf and Aragorn rock roughly +11. If he's an Evoker (reasonable, he makes fireworks) Gandalf can do more damage with a low-rolling cantrip than those Hobbits can do on a crit. And that has nothing on the Hobbits being at risk of immediate death if fighting anything above level 6 or so.

In certain narrowly specific ways, yes, this party "works" more than it would have. Most, but not all, foes can be hit by the hobbits with non-crit attacks, but many of them will still be in the 10-15% range. Most, but not all, enemies will not be guaranteed to hit the hobbits, but their odds of success will be in the 70%-or-higher range. Skill checks that Aragorn finds challenging (say, 40% odds of success) will be nearly impossible for the hobbits (roughly 10-20% with proficiency and a +3 stat; impossible, or nearly so, if lacking both). So...yeah, I don't think your example is especially great.

It's quite telling that your analysis focuses entirely on combat. In the fiction referenced there, combat is handled by the fighters and at times by Gandalf--that's not the area where the hobbits make their contribution.

Let's say the hobbits have proficiency in Sleight of Hand and Deception, with Cha 14 and DX 16. They'll have +5 to picking someone's pocket where Aragorn might have +2 (he seems like a melee type to me), and they'll have +4 to attempts to talk themselves out of trouble when they're caught. The fact that Aragorn has +8 or +9 to his own best skills (Athletics, Stealth, Nature) is beside the point--the hobbits are contributing. If proficiency bonuses were a massive +1 per level or something, this would cease to be true, and heterogenous levels wouldn't work.

This being D&D, of course, the hobbits will not stay level 2 for long. By the time they get through Helm's Deep they're probably level 6, and able to survive, contribute, and even thrive in combat. 2 6th level fighter hobbits slinging stones have, in D&D, a combat profile similar to a 14th level fighter. More DPR, less HP. In the fiction it doesn't work that way of course.

BTW your combat math on the hobbits is off. Even at level 1, for them to be in the "10 to 15% range" requires AC 23, which is vanishingly rare in the MM, not exactly "many" foes.

 

[Herschel]

Except the hobbits wouldn't live through combat long enough to actually gain levels if you're challenging Aragorn and Gandalf. One good AOE attack from a big opponent, for example, and you have hobbit jerky. Reducing your opponent's numbers is often a great tactic, even if most of what you're eliminating is fodder, especially with bounded accuracy making aggregate fodder pot shots a threat.


Trying to convert the Fellowship to a workable D&D party doesn't work within the framework of D&D, at least in a "fun" way for most people. "There's an enemy, go hide!" not only takes them out of part of the game, but awarding them XP for actively not participating is also kind of the antithesis. That's also why many people have championed giving fighters a more robust skill set over the years so it's not just "Social time, fighter order the pizza."

 

[Sadras]

That sounds like a bad experience!

First time in my life, I didn't actually want to roleplay D&D and I'm a pretty easy player to satisfy. I was bored.

What sorts of changes did your GM make?

First off the two DMs (brothers) had their own characters which they roleplayed.
Second they gave each other magical items which on the whole were greater than the items given to rest of the players (all of them being newbies, I was the only experienced roleplayer) and given that magical items were necessary for a character's build (if you werent playing the inherent system) it affected my success in combat (to hit, damage and otherwise).
Third the Avenger (DM/player) received a designed reactive power which was insane in damage output.
Fourth they gave themselves additional inherent damage-dealing affects when hitting (through the fiction ofcourse) which stacked with everything.
Fifth they unhinged a few limitations with regards to gaining powers from other classes in terms of feat costs.
There was more, but i have since forgotten. The Avenger did 3-5 times more damage than I did in a single round of combat.

Even without mechanical changes, if the GM was running a lot of combat encounters with only a very small number of opponents, that would reduce the effectiveness of a fighter (who is good at controlling large crowds, marking them, etc) while enhancing the rogue and avenger (both single-target specialists).

Well minions/large crowds were generally wiped clean with the Swordmage Hybrid AoE powers. Something about he hurt himself and damage dealt was increased. I didnt audit the power, but he had the power whether ligitimately from the books or augmented/designed by the DMs.

Also, if the GM took a punitive approach to non-combat resolution (I think there is a bit of a D&D tradition along these lines, running through 2nd ed and 3E) that could have hurt your fighter too, who will tend to be better in non-combat with imaginative play and adjudication.

Spot on. They only had a 3.x background and their playstyles conflicted heavily with mine, as they were more "munckins/power-gamers" whereas I am the complete opposite. I did manage to DM once for them during a DM rotation for a story arc and I think I did get to open their eyes a little to something different. The newbie players certainly enjoyed it. I think the DM brothers suffered from having a closed RPG experience growing up, lack of exposure.

 

[Herschel]

There was more, but i have since forgotten. The Avenger did 3-5 times more damage than I did in a single round of combat.

Ugh, yeah sounds like a DM issue. Avengers don't do "more damage" per hit than other strikers, or even a number of well-built defenders and leaders, depending, unless something really weird happens. Their thing is they *never miss.

Well minions/large crowds were generally wiped clean with the Swordmage Hybrid AoE powers. Something about he hurt himself and damage dealt was increased. I didnt audit the power, but he had the power whether ligitimately from the books or augmented/designed by the DMs.

Probably the Blood Mage Wizard Paragon Path or pre-errata Blood Iron Weapon shenanigans. It was one of the few ways to get a good damage boost out of a single-classed Swordmage with a Wizard MC.