D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[SirAntoine]

So lets get rid of classes for a moment. If Im playing 5E, and I have a Human Soldier, Elven Acolyte, Dwarven Sage and Halfling Folk Hero with no classes assigned, what are their roles??

No one should be assigned a role. Everyone should be able to play their own role. That is role-playing.

 

[Sadras]

IMO. Roles have always existed in D&D, but the intention of one’s role , at least prior 4e, was not to limit them to combat only. We all knew where the strengths and weaknesses of each class were and those were intermingled with how the character was role-played which determined that individual’s role was within the party. In combat, everyone’s role changed dependant on what tactics were required or deemed to be required to ensure success.

Most of the above never really changed in 4e, except that the party role / class role took a major backseat to a defined combat role which the mechanics by design fully supported. So in 4e combat role bled into the mechanics, whereas in prior editions the mechanics bled into a role.

The difference in the above being

When you define a combat role first. For instance, Leader – the powers designed ensure that you are able to assist your party during combat conditions (healing, saves, movement, additional attacks, morale ...etc) and protect yourself (armour proficiency, weapon proficiency, turn undead…etc). You select Leader-designed powers. Your role is forever defined as a Leader and you have the mechanics to back that up.

When you design mechanics first. Mechanics for a Cleric include Divine Spells, Armour Proficiency, Weapon Proficiency, Turn Undead…etc. The mechanics, as you can see are the same, but how you use them will determine your role in the party.
Your combat role is whatever it needs to be for a given combat – in some combats you may only heal, in others you might only fight and in others you may impose fear on your enemies and make them scatter. You may do the same in 4e, however there is no mechanical umbrella of Leader, that concept does not exist in the game.

5e, being an all-inclusive edition, attempts to emulate and cater for all playstyles.
Simple vs Customization, Roles vs Combat Roles, Alignment vs Non-Alignment…etc

The basic version seems to cater to a BECMI audience.

The full version attempts to cater to the rest of us:
(a) including the 4e crowd which define their characters with combat roles and more than often, selects mechanics which cater to such roles, strengthening their abilities in those combat roles; as well as those who (b) do not define their characters via 4e combat roles, and prefer to select mechanics based on what they wish their character to do rather than to a specific designated combat role.

It is rather ridiculous to have us arguing over a game which appears to cater to both our styles or view points. This thread is actually testament that the 5e designers have actually succeeded in unifying the player base.

Instead of us arguing which is the better game, we are now arguing over which game the 5e resembles most. From a strange perspective, instead of a D&D game not being inclusive enough, it is too inclusive

 

[Imaro]

Rangers don't have much over fighters at archery. Yes, colossus slayer will add 4.5 points of damage per round, or horde breaker will add a third attack, but the ranger loses action surge and eventual 3rd and 4th attacks and two ASIs.

In fact, if not for the access to Pass Without Trace and Conjure Animals, I'd say the fighter was hands-down better. But YMMV, both classes are fun.

Edit: the idea that thrown weapons work at "most encounter ranges" is risible however. Maybe you mean "most encounter ranges at my table," but that says more about your table than about the melee fighter's viability. Most thrown weapons have a range of only 20/60 IIRC, so they're virtually indistinguishable from melee-only. Even sometime firing at you from a balcony 20 feet up gives you disadvantage to hit him back. And good luck fighting mobile opponents like wizards and dragons. Melee fighters in 5E have gaping vulnerabilities just begging to be exploited as soon as you exit the little 20' by 20' log cabin where you spend your days. ;-)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] ... has basically created continuously at play, artificial stipulations that nerf the archery fighter and then claims it's ineffective in combat. Well duh, so's the Rogue if I continually create situations where sneak attack doesn't work... or the melee fighter if he's in combat majority of the time with competent fliers and so on.

 

[Imaro]

Two points. First, because he needs the feats to counter the -2 for cover (shooting into melee draws that lots of times) which negates the +2 he has for Fighting Style. And, because he needs feats, he doesn't get stat bonuses, so, where is this maxed Dex coming from? He's going to have a 15 Dex at 1st level (presuming he gets Sharpshooter) while my fighter has a 16. Stat boost at 3rd for 16 while I get 17 and 18 at 6th. So, basically, you've got +1 to hit and I've got +1 to damage most of the time. And that's assuming Human. Of course, now we're limiting what kind of archery fighter we can have, so, we shouldn't do that should we?

Okay, he doesn't need to counter the -2 in melee since he's getting a +2 from the start and if he sticks to first strike attacks, sniping, etc. before melee is engaged he's not suffering a -5... his range without any feats is 150ft... why are the party members rushing into melee before he gets at least 2-3 shots off...with a +2 to hit? This also up's his damage output since he should be able to attack multiple times before opponents close for melee... And let's not even talk about if he has sharpshooter... 600ft and no disadvantage (anywhere from 2-10 attacks before most melee fighters can close)... most opponents won't even see him coming at this range, much less be able to attack him (thus minimizing the difference in AC). I'd say it's a pretty tough choice between the +2 to Dex or Sharpshooter but needed is definitely the wrong word.

Don't get me wrong sharpshooter is a nice "to have" but in no way have you shown how it's necessary... unless every combat you have is indoors and inside a pre-determined box. I run a sandbox game so my encounters aren't artificially limited like that.

Free action to drop the bow. Shield takes one action to put on, so you just lost a whole round while you switched from bow to shield. And you had to drop your bow. Hope you didn't want to shoot again in this combat.

I think you miss understand me, I was speaking to if the Dex fighter has to engage in melee... he is competent with the rapier and proficient with a shield making him comparable to a sword and board fighter and still maintaining the versatility of attacking at long range.

Well, the -2 to most of your ranged attacks are pretty prohibitive. Never minding of course that you don't actually threaten any squares around you while holding a bow, meaning no Opportunity Attacks.

Wait again, why is my archery based fighter using the tactics of a melee fighter? Why am I waiting untul the enemy is close enough to engage the rest of my party in melee? Why am I trying to threaten squares when I should be hiding and sniping (which by the way gives me advantage on my attack rolls, so no need to worry about the -2).

Not necessarily weaker. Just less versatile.

I disagree... I'm able to use my maneuvers from 150/600 ft away... can the melee fighter?

Only while giving up a round of attacks mind you, but sure.

So Dex fighter looses and action to switch out but after that is totally competent against a melee opponent...While the melee fighter does what exactly against most fliers?

Attack as many times? Yes, actually. At least until 10th level. There's no difference in number of attacks between a ranger and a fighter until 10th

Action Surge???

... and at 11th, the ranger gets volley. Potentially 16x2 attacks (although that would be EXTREMELY rare).

Let me get this straight... we're now basing damage output on a very circumstantial power, where the ranger has to attack with the same -2 you placed on the fighter (but for some reason it's not as bad for the ranger, go figure) and has to have all of the opponents in a perfect cube (but if they are all in scattered melee combat with his party how is this possible??)? But attacking from distance is unrealistic... riiiight.

Note, again, you're now forcing me to take a battle master fighter to be a ranged fighter. I thought the point here was that any fighter could be a ranged fighter. Isn't that what you meant? Or was it simply that you could write a kind of fighter on the top of the sheet, so long as it's any kind of fighter?

I'm not forcing you to do anything... a champion can make a viable archery fighter and I'd argue a spellsword will as well. But our discussion was rather the fighter (not a specific subclass) in the 5e PHB was a more viable and effective ranged combatant than his counterpart in the 4e PHB. I don't have the time to sit up and create every possible combination of ranged fighter possible... I just need to show one is possible to prove my case.

Because, let's not forget, there's nothing your archer battle master can do that my melee battle master can't. But, which are you comparing? Fighter or Ranger? You kind of switched things mid stream.

Really... because you're melee battle master is ineffective at range... that right there tells me there are plenty of things he can't do that a dex-based battlemaster can. As to ranger or fighter... you brought the ranger into the discussion.

Anyway, my point is, your "demonstration" might convince you. Fair enough. I'd expect that. But it's hardly a done thing. It's very questionable.

Exactly what have I listed that's questionable, against the rules, etc? How is my fighter ineffective? You're the one whose failing to offer anything to support his assertions except specially constructed scenarios designed specifically to limit the archery fighter, and sorry but that doesn't cut it. If my fighter can attack from 600 ft away and he doesn't that's not a failure in his effectiveness, that's a failure in my tactics while playing him.

/edit to add.

Let's not forget that the melee guys are hardly inconvenienced at range. Throwing axes use Str and work at most encounter ranges. I'd say that my melee fighter is every bit as versatile as your ranged fighter. I don't have to lose actions switching schticks. I can move, chuck axes, at the same rate that you shoot the bow, and for similar damage (slightly less, 1 point on average) and still don't have to worry about not being armed.

Are you joking? What exactly is he hitting at that range... especially seeing as without those supposedly "needed" feats he's suffering disadvantage beyond 20ft. I think the javelin is the thrown weapon with the largest range and it only increases this by another 10ft. Forget fliers most combatants can walk far enough from you to force disadvantage.

 

[BryonD]

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."

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

When did I say "4e is a bad game"? When did I say "4e is a low quality game"? I have repeated over and over that 4E is an AWESOME game at delivering a specific playing style and experience. I have stated that it does not do a good job of delivering the experience a lot of other people want, and that a lot of other people experienced in older editions. But I love Pathfinder, and I would have no argument against someone who said Pathfinder fails at delivering a fun game for them. It is not pejorative when someone else says they don't like Pathfinder. It is not pejorative when someone says they don't like 4E. (For the record, I've said that 4E is ok, but would be lower than 10th on my preferred list. There are just much better options on the market. Since I don't play 5 different games, the real difference is insignificant.)

Bottom line, you are completely misrepresenting what I have said. In common 4e fan tradition, you take anything that is critical and translate it in your mind to personal attacks and being mean.

I would suggest that if you are going to complain about being asked to pay attention, you not immediately follow the complaint with misstatements that demonstrate a lack of paying attention.

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.

OK, except for the realities of what you and I actually said.

 

[Aenghus]

In class based RPGs I prefer a larger number of specialised classes to a smaller number of broad classes with lots of options. The former allows the class name itself to be more descriptive of the desired style of play of the character - it's "role" within the party if you like, and narrower classes are easier to balance IMO. The latter is arguably more flexible.

Broad classes can produce communication problems rather than preventing them. For instance the fighter archer is a case in point. In the setup for a typical D&D game I have seen players agree to "play the fighter" by which the other players understood melee fighter, someone to hold the line, and then subsequently find out the fighter was primarily an archer and didn't serve the role the others anticipated. While players are entitled to play whatever concept they want given the tacit acceptance of the group, trying to sneak in a concept by passive aggressive means is facilitated by messy incoherent mechanics that lack focus (as I see it, YMMV).

Broad classes are generalists typically, with some capability at everything under their umbrella of interest. Issues can arise when a more narrowly focused class exists that covers a small portion of the capabilities of a broader class. Should the specialist be better than the generalist in that specific area? How big should the difference in capabilties be if any?

And now you have two ways to implement the same character concept, one typically better than the other in capabilities. But what if someone prefers the disadvantaged class?

There are lots of question marks here because these are difficult design decisions where the answers are often a matter of taste and the class design philosophy you prefer.

 

[Imaro]

Broad classes can produce communication problems rather than preventing them. For instance the fighter archer is a case in point. In the setup for a typical D&D game I have seen players agree to "play the fighter" by which the other players understood melee fighter, someone to hold the line, and then subsequently find out the fighter was primarily an archer and didn't serve the role the others anticipated. While players are entitled to play whatever concept they want given the tacit acceptance of the group, trying to sneak in a concept by passive aggressive means is facilitated by messy incoherent mechanics that lack focus (as I see it, YMMV).

What about systems where one can specialize in say archery but still have a baseline capability in melee, prof in heavy armor,high hit points, etc? You might not be the best in melee and are probably much more effective in ranged combat but with bounded accuracy you can still hold your own effectively if you are called on to partake in melee combat? IMO those are the best broad classes in a class based game and that is how, at least at my table, 5e has played out so far.

 

[Aenghus]

What about systems where one can specialize in say archery but still have a baseline capability in melee, prof in heavy armor,high hit points, etc? You might not be the best in melee and are probably much more effective in ranged combat but with bounded accuracy you can still hold your own effectively if you are called on to partake in melee combat? IMO those are the best broad classes in a class based game and that is how, at least at my table, 5e has played out so far.

The devil is in the details. In earlier editions archery was viable at lower levels without huge investment, but paled in comparison to melee at higher levels if strengthbows weren't allowed (often the case) and/or archery specialisation, and there was the need for magic bows and arrows, and in some editions special metals. Archers who didn't specialise and equip themselves adequately were subpar as levels rose. Giving players the illusion that a particular option was viable when in practice it wasn't happened far too much in previous editions.

I personally am not a fan of archery specialisation for the fighter class, I admit, but that's in part because I would prefer something like an archer class where the player publically commits to that role. For instance I was content with the ranger as the archer class in 4e, as it could IMO be easily reskinned as a non woodsy archer for those who disliked some of the ranger flavour.

My nostalgia in relation to the fighter class is for the melee fighter, I admit.

The design decisions in areas like this are the ones that attract some players and repel others. Nethertheless, decisions have to be made.

 

[SirAntoine]

In class based RPGs I prefer a larger number of specialised classes to a smaller number of broad classes with lots of options. The former allows the class name itself to be more descriptive of the desired style of play of the character - it's "role" within the party if you like, and narrower classes are easier to balance IMO. The latter is arguably more flexible.

Broad classes can produce communication problems rather than preventing them. For instance the fighter archer is a case in point. In the setup for a typical D&D game I have seen players agree to "play the fighter" by which the other players understood melee fighter, someone to hold the line, and then subsequently find out the fighter was primarily an archer and didn't serve the role the others anticipated. While players are entitled to play whatever concept they want given the tacit acceptance of the group, trying to sneak in a concept by passive aggressive means is facilitated by messy incoherent mechanics that lack focus (as I see it, YMMV).

Broad classes are generalists typically, with some capability at everything under their umbrella of interest. Issues can arise when a more narrowly focused class exists that covers a small portion of the capabilities of a broader class. Should the specialist be better than the generalist in that specific area? How big should the difference in capabilties be if any?

And now you have two ways to implement the same character concept, one typically better than the other in capabilities. But what if someone prefers the disadvantaged class?

There are lots of question marks here because these are difficult design decisions where the answers are often a matter of taste and the class design philosophy you prefer.

Some great points.

 

[Imaro]

The devil is in the details. In earlier editions archery was viable at lower levels without huge investment, but paled in comparison to melee at higher levels if strengthbows weren't allowed (often the case) and/or archery specialisation, and there was the need for magic bows and arrows, and in some editions special metals. Archers who didn't specialise and equip themselves adequately were subpar as levels rose. Giving players the illusion that a particular option was viable when in practice it wasn't happened far too much in previous editions.

I personally am not a fan of archery specialisation for the fighter class, I admit, but that's in part because I would prefer something like an archer class where the player publically commits to that role. For instance I was content with the ranger as the archer class in 4e, as it could IMO be easily reskinned as a non woodsy archer for those who disliked some of the ranger flavour.

My nostalgia in relation to the fighter class is for the melee fighter, I admit.

The design decisions in areas like this are the ones that attract some players and repel others. Nethertheless, decisions have to be made.

Well I think the issue I have with the design of the ranger being "the" archery class was... why does the Ranger get to be effective at both melee and ranged combat (along with more skills) but the supposed master of combat is almost totally ineffective in a fight that went ranged... like really... you're the combat class and all it takes is climbing or flying to neutralize you? That seems absurd in a world with the creatures of D&D...


EDIT: I would also cite this as one of those differences between designing with a role in mind vs. designing with the class in mind