D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Sacrosanct]

So...controlling an NPC's mind, either to remove them from the battle entirely or to add them to your forces, is not "controlling." Okay. That's not really the definition I'd use, and it's not really consistent with 4e (where the Wizard, a Controller, eventually got an entire subclass built around "puppeting" enemies and making them attack their allies...)

yeah, if you could do that in most encounters. But charm person doesn't do that. After you charmed your target, you are doing absolutely zero control over any enemies you happen to run into from that point on. You're not changing the environment to affect their movement, you're not forcing or coercing them to do anything---nada. So if you aren't doing anything to control the environment or the enemies, I'm hard pressed to call that a controller. The only thing you're doing is throwing another body at them.

A controller does things like grease, hold person, wall of X, sleep, evard tentacles, stone to mud, etc. Charming a henchmen in town and using that henchmen as a meat shield and protector for you during later encounters isn't controlling those later encounters at all.

Literary characters rarely, if ever, correspond nicely to D&D classes. Conan, for example, had to have ungodly stats and, IIRC, a mishmash of class features. Aragorn is a "Ranger," yet he fights with a two-handed sword and is clearly a leader of men (implying high Str and Cha) and, to the best of my knowledge, never once uses a bow nor has an animal companion. Gandalf is a powerful wizard, yet we rarely see him do much magic...other than casting out Saruman's influence from Theoden and bringing blinding light, dawn, etc. While he has a lot of the iconic trappings of a D&D Wizard, he doesn't much have the mechanics to back it up (he almost never uses any spells, wields a magical longsword in combat, fights in melee frequently and comes out unscathed, etc.)

Merlin is a bit better, but not much. Both Gandalf and Merlin come from a much more ancient conception of magic, the Wisdom/Great Work type thing, which to modern audiences has been almost wholly absorbed by alchemy and such. Neither of them performed magic from spellbooks, typically, though Merlin at least tended to have a library.

That isn't the point. The point was that if you wanted to play a wizard from a book, myth, folklore, or TV show or movie, you were encouraged to play a magic user. Because the magic user was the one who cast spells from wands, spellbooks, etc, and didn't have to pray to a god for divine magic. There are mounds of evidence in the history of D&D that supports this.

 

[BryonD]

The design was a common class structure - different from every edition before - and the design philosophy included the classes being balanced as a high priority (likewise).

The idea that the classes would each contribute something different to the success of the party - roles - was nothing new, it was just more clearly and formally stated, more refined, more focused on combat performance, and better implemented.

But, 4e roles were /certainly/ mechanically supported - mostly by class features. They just weren't straightjackets, since classes tended to have a secondary role, and builds might be customized to emphasize an alternate role.

They were not straight jackets.
But they were a very much pushed a new play experience to those who were not already inserting that specific style by choice.

It is not about right/wrong/good/bad. It is about different and how that works to the taste of groups.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

yeah, if you could do that in most encounters. But charm person doesn't do that. After you charmed your target, you are doing absolutely zero control over any enemies you happen to run into from that point on. You're not changing the environment to affect their movement, you're not forcing or coercing them to do anything---nada. So if you aren't doing anything to control the environment or the enemies, I'm hard pressed to call that a controller. The only thing you're doing is throwing another body at them.

A controller does things like grease, hold person, wall of X, sleep, evard tentacles, stone to mud, etc. Charming a henchmen in town and using that henchmen as a meat shield and protector for you during later encounters isn't controlling those later encounters at all.

It's still Controlling. You're controlling an enemy. How is "controlling an enemy's mind" not controlling? Sure, you're not doing the "reshape the battlefield" kind of control, but that doesn't mean you aren't exerting control over enemy forces. Fielding extra troops--whether by summons or mind control--has been part of the Wizard's thing for a long, long time. Both of those things qualify as "control," at least as I've always understood the term.

They were not straight jackets.
But they were a very much pushed a new play experience to those who were not already inserting that specific style by choice.

It is not about right/wrong/good/bad. It is about different and how that works to the taste of groups.

It might be a new experience for some, to know (by being directly and honestly told) that a given class has tools for doing X in combat. I couldn't say, not having really had that experience myself. I'm just not really sure how being aware that you have tools, specifically designed for certain functions, so radically changes the nature of play that the game becomes truly alien to you (as many have asserted). Is that what happened for you? I'd love to hear more.

Edit:
Also, while it may not be a matter of right or wrong or good or bad for you, there's been plenty of mudslinging in this conversation and much (not all, of course) of it has been targeted at that style, bordering on calling it either not-D&D or not an RPG (which is, IMO, what calling 4e a boardgame means, no different than calling it an MMO of some kind--they're both dismissive, pejorative labels.)

 

[BryonD]

It might be a new experience for some, to know (by being directly and honestly told) that a given class has tools for doing X in combat. I couldn't say, not having really had that experience myself. I'm just not really sure how being aware that you have tools, specifically designed for certain functions, so radically changes the nature of play that the game becomes truly alien to you (as many have asserted). Is that what happened for you? I'd love to hear more.

Love to hear more? You ask this in post #1405 following years and years of conversations about why 4E was unpopular with a lot of people.

Also, you inject words like "alien" in where "not nearly as good as other games on the market" is a much better fit.

Edit:
Also, while it may not be a matter of right or wrong or good or bad for you, there's been plenty of mudslinging in this conversation and much (not all, of course) of it has been targeted at that style, bordering on calling it either not-D&D or not an RPG (which is, IMO, what calling 4e a boardgame means, no different than calling it an MMO of some kind--they're both dismissive, pejorative labels.)

What would motivate people to say such pejorative things?
I'm not defending it. But you really can't have it both ways to suggest there is no basis for being unhappy about a game and then complain about the fact that people emotionally express their unhappiness. There is a source. Or, there are a lot of sources, "4e roles" (IMO) is much more symptom of the whole "gamist" approach than a direct issue itself. But whatever.

I've been told that it isn't fair for me to talk about people saying h4ter, so I suppose I should expect your side to refrain from complaining about "MMO" references.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's still Controlling. You're controlling an enemy. How is "controlling an enemy's mind" not controlling?

Because you're not controlling anything beyond that first guy. If you go from encounter 2-X without controlling anything that is in those particular encounters, you're not controlling. It's really that simple. It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to consider a MU who cast one charm person spell on one person on the first encounter but doesn't do anything else for all the other encounters a controller, as it's typically defined and understood.

Also, while it may not be a matter of right or wrong or good or bad for you, there's been plenty of mudslinging in this conversation and much (not all, of course) of it has been targeted at that style, bordering on calling it either not-D&D or not an RPG (which is, IMO, what calling 4e a boardgame means, no different than calling it an MMO of some kind--they're both dismissive, pejorative labels.)

Seeing as how 4e was designed specifically to bring in those elements as part of it's core design much more than any other edition....get over it, I guess?

 

[Hussar]

yeah, if you could do that in most encounters. But charm person doesn't do that. After you charmed your target, you are doing absolutely zero control over any enemies you happen to run into from that point on. You're not changing the environment to affect their movement, you're not forcing or coercing them to do anything---nada. So if you aren't doing anything to control the environment or the enemies, I'm hard pressed to call that a controller. The only thing you're doing is throwing another body at them.

A controller does things like grease, hold person, wall of X, sleep, evard tentacles, stone to mud, etc. Charming a henchmen in town and using that henchmen as a meat shield and protector for you during later encounters isn't controlling those later encounters at all.

That isn't the point. The point was that if you wanted to play a wizard from a book, myth, folklore, or TV show or movie, you were encouraged to play a magic user. Because the magic user was the one who cast spells from wands, spellbooks, etc, and didn't have to pray to a god for divine magic. There are mounds of evidence in the history of D&D that supports this.

You keep repeating the idea that you cannot repeat charms. Why not? Is there a particular reason I can't cast Charm Person twice? Is there a rule that says once I've charmed a target, I may never cast another charm until my first charmed target is dead or released in some manner? By 5th level, a MU has 4 1st level spells, so, why can't I have multiple charms?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Love to hear more? You ask this in post #1405 following years and years of conversations about why 4E was unpopular with a lot of people.

Also, you inject words like "alien" in where "not nearly as good as other games on the market" is a much better fit.

I'm trying to have a polite conversation, not get a lecture about how I've not been paying enough attention. If you want to share, share. If you want to repeat how terrible 4e is, I'm not particularly interested. Particularly when you overtly state "4e is a bad game."

What would motivate people to say such pejorative things?

I don't know. What motivates you to say 4e is a low-quality game? That's pretty damn pejorative.

I've been told that it isn't fair for me to talk about people saying h4ter, so I suppose I should expect your side to refrain from complaining about "MMO" references.

I hardly think tangentially referring to a once-common, and still-incorrect, statement about 4e is the same as saying most people who like 4e have insulted you as a person. One is using the personal attacks of people outside the thread as a way to dismiss conversation, the other is (briefly) mentioning a complaint, and saying that a different complaint is very similar.

Because you're not controlling anything beyond that first guy.

So it's only "control" if you "control" multiple things. Having a puppet who can do your bidding all day long, potentially for the rest of your life (or theirs, I suppose) isn't good enough.

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to consider a MU who cast one charm person spell on one person on the first encounter but doesn't do anything else for all the other encounters a controller, as it's typically defined and understood.

You keep stridently calling it "mental gymnastics," but it's really not. If you are controlling the mind of at least one enemy unit, you're being a controller--it's right there in the term "mind control." Especially if you can make them fight, and get a whole extra person's participation in combat. That's not a "one-use, never again" thing--that's a gift that keeps on giving, all day. To say nothing of the "you can charm more than once a day" response Hussar gave.

Seeing as how 4e was designed specifically to bring in those elements as part of it's core design much more than any other edition....get over it, I guess?

"Get over it"? No. I'm not going to "get over it" any more than OSR gamers will (or even should) "get over" being told that the only reason they like their games is nostalgia. (Just to be clear: I do NOT believe that nostalgia is the only reason to play older editions, or games which hearken to them and their style. I am saying that "new-school" sneering at older-style play is something fans of that style justifiably dislike, and that "oh, it's a boardgame" sneering at 4e is no different.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

So it's only "control" if you "control" multiple things. Having a puppet who can do your bidding all day long, potentially for the rest of your life (or theirs, I suppose) isn't good enough.

Painting one house doesn't make you a house painter. Throwing one flask of oil doesn't make you a grenadier. What I'm saying is that if you go through the majority of your encounters not doing anything to control the battlefield or the enemies you're encountering, you're not really a controller.

By your logic, being a heavily armored fighter triple specialized in your dual weapon fighting, making your persuasion check to convince a guy to be your friend and work for you (effectively the same thing charm person does) makes you a controller as your role?

Good to know.

 

[Hussar]

But this isn't what Andy Collins is commenting on...



Again this isn't what his comment is addressing... there is a difference between designing a class that is supposed to be a rogue in a D&D world vs. designing a striker that is supposed to be called a rogue in a D&D world... I'll agree they were more combat focused than any other editions, and more focused on the roles they created... As to whether they were "better" implemented I guess that would be determined by whether you thought the 4e roles were or were not always there. IMO the Defender fighter was much more restricted as well as generally worse than his less focused and more versatile brethren in 5e...



I've already demonstrated the straight jacket that this role enforcement placed on the fighter when it came to ranged combat so let's just say I remain unconvinced by your general assertion here

Speaking of unconvinced, I'm not sure about your 5e ranged fighter example. He's giving up AC (particularly since he won't meet strength requirements for heavier armor due to MAD and cannot use a shield), requires several feats (which means you cannot play him in the Basic game), and is still seriously sucking hind compared to a ranger. And, there are a quarter of the Battlemaster options that flat out don't work with ranged weapons. Additionally, he's dealing the least damage of any two handed weapon user.

Can you play a ranged fighter in 5e? Sure. I know you can. But, you are certainly going to lag heavily behind the melee fighters in terms of effectiveness in combat. The Protective fighter is much better at working with other PC's, the other fighting styles (other than defense) all deal significantly more damage than you do. Never mind that the ranger is a far, far better ranged combatant than you are. A Hunter ranger is dealing an extra d8 damage on his attacks, so until about 11th level when you gain a third attack, the hunter is almost always out damaging you. Of course, at 11th level, my Hunter has Volley, meaning my bow attacks hit everything within a 10 foot radius of the original target.

 

[Hussar]

Painting one house doesn't make you a house painter. Throwing one flask of oil doesn't make you a grenadier. What I'm saying is that if you go through the majority of your encounters not doing anything to control the battlefield or the enemies you're encountering, you're not really a controller.

By your logic, being a heavily armored fighter triple specialized in your dual weapon fighting, making your persuasion check to convince a guy to be your friend and work for you (effectively the same thing charm person does) makes you a controller as your role?

Good to know.

Again, could you point me in the direction of the rule that forbids me from casting more than one charm person?