D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Aenghus]

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...

In my 4e experience effective rangers picked one of melee or ranged. The balanced option was potentially viable but meant boosting Str and Dex to stay viable and got increasingly expensive in maintaining a variety of magic weapons, and wouldn't be as good at either as a specialist.

As regards climbing and flying foes, javelins and other thrown weapons were the Str-friendly low investment alternative for some sort of missile ability in 3e and 4e.

But you get into a chicken and egg situation in this regard. IMO a DM should take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the PCs in his party and not exploit either unduly. My current group call themselves the Longshots as an ironic indication of their lack of missile ability. I don't give them a free pass on this, but neither do I slaughter them for daring to have a weakness with a procession of foes aimed directly at their weaknesses.

 

[Imaro]

In my 4e experience effective rangers picked one of melee or ranged. The balanced option was potentially viable but meant boosting Str and Dex to stay viable and got increasingly expensive in maintaining a variety of magic weapons, and wouldn't be as good at either as a specialist.

But in 4e the Ranger could use Str or Dex for many of his melee attk powers (Twin Strike, Careful Attk, Two-Fanged Strike, etc.) which meant as long as he went with Dex, that made him just as viable in melee as in ranged combat... the fighter not so much

As regards climbing and flying foes, javelins and other thrown weapons were the Str-friendly low investment alternative for some sort of missile ability in 3e and 4e.

Yeah 4e definitely made thrown weapons more viable than 5e does... of course you still aren't getting any enhancements from most/any of your powers as a PHB 1 fighter so you're still pretty ineffective and hobbled... while the Ranger isn't in either situation.

But you get into a chicken and egg situation in this regard. IMO a DM should take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the PCs in his party and not exploit either unduly. My current group call themselves the Longshots as an ironic indication of their lack of missile ability. I don't give them a free pass on this, but neither do I slaughter them for daring to have a weakness with a procession of foes aimed directly at their weaknesses.

I run a sandbox so maybe this is where we differ. Just as an example, I have random tables I roll on for wilderness encounters when they arise... I have populated these tables with the creatures found in particular environments, and while I am not going to purposefully hit them with a multitude of fliers or climbers I am also not going to safeguard against said possibility especially in an environment (say mountainous) where it makes sense... I think it boils down to different play styles since I don't really purposefully design status quo encounters for my players.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I run a sandbox so maybe this is where we differ. Just as an example, I have random tables I roll on for wilderness encounters when they arise... I have populated these tables with the creatures found in particular environments, and while I am not going to purposefully hit them with a multitude of fliers or climbers I am also not going to safeguard against said possibility especially in an environment (say mountainous) where it makes sense... I think it boils down to different play styles since I don't really purposefully design status quo encounters for my players.

I run a sandbox too.

Also, as a player, ranged attacks are compelling because with the changes to saving throws, range (and dispersal) is your only real defense against many attacks.

Q: What do a DC 15 Int save, a DC 22 Con save, a DC 18 Wis save, and a DC 20 Wis save have in common?
A: You have a 100% chance of passing if you never have to make the save in the first place.

In other words, the ability to disperse the party over a wide area without hampering your ability to provide mutual support is generally superior to proficiency in any or all saving throws. The fact that it allows you to engage fliers and to kite melee enemies to death are just gravy, but the reason I was originally drawn to ranged attacks in 5E is that my DM loves to use ridiculously high DCs (80 HP blast of necrotic energy in a 60' radius, save DC 20 Con for half! If you get hit, make a DC 22 saving throw or 10% of the damage is permanent!) and the best way to survive is to not be in the radius, not boost your saving throws.

 

[Imaro]

I run a sandbox too.

Also, as a player, ranged attacks are compelling because with the changes to saving throws, range (and dispersal) is your only real defense against many attacks.

Q: What do a DC 15 Int save, a DC 22 Con save, a DC 18 Wis save, and a DC 20 Wis save have in common?
A: You have a 100% chance of passing if you never have to make the save in the first place.

In other words, the ability to disperse the party over a wide area without hampering your ability to provide mutual support is generally superior to proficiency in any or all saving throws. The fact that it allows you to engage fliers and to kite melee enemies to death are just gravy, but the reason I was originally drawn to ranged attacks in 5E is that my DM loves to use ridiculously high DCs (80 HP blast of necrotic energy in a 60' radius, save DC 20 Con for half! If you get hit, make a DC 22 saving throw or 10% of the damage is permanent!) and the best way to survive is to not be in the radius, not boost your saving throws.

Yep agree... my players have become pretty adept at making sure battles favor them before entering them (of course there have been deaths and we are only now about to hit 5th level)... and the "not getting hit factor" was one of the things I kept trying to stress to @Hussar when he brought up the 2 point AC difference and AoO differences between a Str based vs. Dex based fighter.

 

[Aenghus]

But in 4e the Ranger could use Str or Dex for many of his melee attk powers (Twin Strike, Careful Attk, Two-Fanged Strike, etc.) which meant as long as he went with Dex, that made him just as viable in melee as in ranged combat... the fighter not so much

in 4e it was Str for Melee, Dex for ranged for the ranger from the PHB, even for the mixed attack powers, so the balanced ranger had to invest in both Str and Dex. Some later 4e classes like the essentials thief keyed all their attacks to Dex, but the 3e divisions for stats were retained in the original 4e material.

Yeah 4e definitely made thrown weapons more viable than 5e does... of course you still aren't getting any enhancements from most/any of your powers as a PHB 1 fighter so you're still pretty ineffective and hobbled... while the Ranger isn't in either situation.

The ranged ranger and the balanced ranger, yes, though the melee ranger is as hobbled as the fighter. Only the ranged ranger can afford to totally frontload Dex.

I run a sandbox so maybe this is where we differ. Just as an example, I have random tables I roll on for wilderness encounters when they arise... I have populated these tables with the creatures found in particular environments, and while I am not going to purposefully hit them with a multitude of fliers or climbers I am also not going to safeguard against said possibility especially in an environment (say mountainous) where it makes sense... I think it boils down to different play styles since I don't really purposefully design status quo encounters for my players.

I suspect a sandbox campaign encourages generalist PCs who can roll better with punches. My own campaign has a large cast of recurring NPCs and tends to soap opera on occasion. So yes, different play styles.

 

[Imaro]

in 4e it was Str for Melee, Dex for ranged for the ranger from the PHB, even for the mixed attack powers, so the balanced ranger had to invest in both Str and Dex. Some later 4e classes like the essentials thief keyed all their attacks to Dex, but the 3e divisions for stats were retained in the original 4e material.

Ah, you're correct... my mistake it's been a while since I've looked at 4e my rules knowledge is starting to grow rusty... That said, the ranger still had the option to be at least competent in the melee realm and the ranged realm... even if he was better in one than the other. He still had powers for both, the 4e PHB fighter didn't get this option.

The ranged ranger and the balanced ranger, yes, though the melee ranger is as hobbled as the fighter. Only the ranged ranger can afford to totally frontload Dex.

No the melee ranger isn't because he still has powers to use in ranged combat even if it isn't using his primary attribute with them, I'm assuming it would be his second highest attribute. The fighter had very little (I may be missing one or two he had but I doubt it) to no ranged powers whatsoever. That doesn't mean slightly diminished capability... that means ineffective, and that's not even touching on the difference in range between Str ranged weapons vs. Dex ranged weapons.

I suspect a sandbox campaign encourages generalist PCs who can roll better with punches. My own campaign has a large cast of recurring NPCs and tends to soap opera on occasion. So yes, different play styles.

Well we have a large cast of recurring NPC's as well...in various settlements across the Far North that the PC's have visited and noted on their maps... I think it has more to do with combat and exploration play style than the social pillar... of course YMMV.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well we have a large cast of recurring NPC's as well...in various settlements across the Far North that the PC's have visited and noted on their maps... I think it has more to do with combat and exploration play style than the social pillar... of course YMMV.

In a sandbox game, players are expected to be more proactive on all three pillars. Retreating from combat is more tolerated; declining a quest is okay; NOT pushing the big red button marked "don't push" is acceptable; and if you do any of these things, you accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

In non-sandbox play the DM takes more responsibility for what happens to the party, on all three pillars.

 

[SirAntoine]

The fighter always need to be effective at both ranged and melee combat.

 

[SirAntoine]

In a sandbox game, players are expected to be more proactive on all three pillars. Retreating from combat is more tolerated; declining a quest is okay; NOT pushing the big red button marked "don't push" is acceptable; and if you do any of these things, you accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

In non-sandbox play the DM takes more responsibility for what happens to the party, on all three pillars.

Even in a sandbox the DM has a lot of responsibility. Encounters should be kept down to within a certain level range.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Even in a sandbox the DM has a lot of responsibility. Encounters should be kept down to within a certain level range.

I strongly disagree. If the world conditions itself on the party, that's not a sandbox.

If the party goes down to level X of the dungeon (or equivalent), they're going to find level X monsters there. They won't suddenly become level II monsters just because it's a second-level party. The PCs choose their own level of risk/reward.