Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eirikrautha" data-source="post: 6507554" data-attributes="member: 6777843">Situational modifiers are the conversation!  The whole point of this argument is that the combat roles are situational!  The thing that many people at my table don't like is the idea of building a character for a combat role when such a role depends on the circumstance of a combat.With a doorway, you might act as a controller.  Without it, you might action surge and be a striker.  You are absolutely right that a thief might decide to hold the doorway and be the controller. Or a wizard might buff his AC and hold the door while you fire or jab with a reach weapon past him.  Without a door, other tactics present themselves.  Roles depend on your actions, not your "build."  Combat choices should NOT be arbitrarily narrowed by the rules based on your build.  The idea that mechanical advantages are necessary before you can fulfill a role is a repugnant holdover from 3.5 - 4.  My table doesn't want the mechanics of the game to assume that.  And 5e doesn't (at present).  Bounded accuracy means the 15 AC thief can hold the door in a pinch, he's just doing so with slightly more risk than the 17 AC fighter.  And, unless I'm misreading the rules, cover doesn't provide disadvantage, just a bonus of +2 to the opponents' AC (for firing through one character).  It's better than being swarmed by 12 orcs!See, what some folks on this thread don't seem to realize is that you can play with static combat roles without them being specified in the rules.  That's a table choice.  But once delineated in the rules and mechanics of the game, you can't play without them.  So you are arguing for a change to 5e that will preclude the playstyle at my table.  Which is why I don't want to see it happen!</blockquote>

Verification