Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What are the Roles now?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6529564" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>All of these things are tactics. None of them have anything to do with whether a class is designed to be good at something or not. The limitations that you blithely toss aside with a parenthetical are exactly the kinds of things "role" describes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. Thus were combat roles given "niche protection." They didn't spontaneously come into existence because bonuses started to grow. They already existed; there were already design goals for classes, albeit nebulous ones. Scaling bonuses, and the "only experts need apply" that came with it, made your tactical options more constrained--sure. But that's not the same as saying roles suddenly existed when they hadn't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It helps when people don't (a) tell other people what they aren't allowed to talk about, and (b) don't dogmatically insist that a particular set of definitions must be used, rather than being open to the possibility that different people use the same terms differently, and thus there needs to be a dialogue about what we mean when we use particular terms in particular ways.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It does when the entire conversation began by comparing 5e to 4e, using the terms 4e used. See (a) above.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>See below for some stuff addressing this example--I don't think it's as good as you think.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As mentioned above: I think these things you consider to be "reserved tactics" are a lot more important to "roles" than you do.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>"Granting them some abilities other characters might not have" is a decent gloss for what I have always used the word "roles" to mean. Not everyone has "heal a friend," but a class designed to be good at supporting others (probably) has it. Not everyone has "Great Big Nasty Sword of Serious Hurtfulness," but a class designed to be good at hurting enemies (probably) has it--or some equivalent. Etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Alright. Consider a few things.</p><p></p><p>1. Saves are absolutely the "synergistic escalation" problem you talked about. The difference between trained and untrained tracks, fairly well, with the difference between a "core" stat and a "dump" stat (proficiency starts a little lower, +2 versus a gap of +4; but it catches up quickly). A character with a bad save (low stat and no proficiency) is at -1 or +0, while a maxed-stat, proficient character is +11. To the best of my knowledge (not having seen any monster stats after the playtest) there <em>are</em> save DCs in the 19-21 range, which are thus fairly easy for the "great save" person to make, but (damn near) impossible for the "bad save" person to make. Given the difficulty of acquiring extra saves or save bonuses (for anyone other than Paladin or Monk, IIRC) this is a pretty substantial area of bonus-scaling.</p><p></p><p>2. Your example of AC is...a little off, to say the least. Comparing just armor vs. armor, sure there's only a three-point difference. But throw in Fighting Style (only available to certain characters) and shield, and suddenly it's closer to a six/seven-point difference. And there are monsters, even early on, with wicked bonuses to attack.</p><p></p><p>3. Melee ability is absolutely gated by class proficiencies. A character that doesn't have proficiency with a particular weapon is guaranteed to fall far enough behind their comrades that even Advantage can't quite make up the difference (it's worth roughly a +4 or +5), and if they also lack enough stat investment their odds of landing an attack fall into the 10-20% range.</p><p></p><p>4. 5e doesn't really give you the option to "build" things anyway. The vast majority of choices are made for you--or are bundled into a single choice--for several classes. Choosing to be the Champion Fighter, for instance, gives direct (passive) damage increases. Choosing to be a Life Cleric, not so much. Feats are the only way to "build" much of anything, and even that is a pretty shallow pool (IMO). So your requirements may be impossible to meet, which...isn't exactly sporting, is it?</p><p></p><p>5. Specifically on the subject of "restrict their movement," that's...actually something <em>nobody</em> is good at in 5e, and nobody <em>can</em> be very good at. You only get one reaction, and that's what you use to stop enemy movement. Short of convenient choke-points cropping up everywhere like waist-high walls in a Mass Effect game, "stop enemy movement" is a real difficult thing to do. Unless, of course, you have spells, because spells are ~magical~.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6529564, member: 6790260"] All of these things are tactics. None of them have anything to do with whether a class is designed to be good at something or not. The limitations that you blithely toss aside with a parenthetical are exactly the kinds of things "role" describes. No. Thus were combat roles given "niche protection." They didn't spontaneously come into existence because bonuses started to grow. They already existed; there were already design goals for classes, albeit nebulous ones. Scaling bonuses, and the "only experts need apply" that came with it, made your tactical options more constrained--sure. But that's not the same as saying roles suddenly existed when they hadn't. It helps when people don't (a) tell other people what they aren't allowed to talk about, and (b) don't dogmatically insist that a particular set of definitions must be used, rather than being open to the possibility that different people use the same terms differently, and thus there needs to be a dialogue about what we mean when we use particular terms in particular ways. It does when the entire conversation began by comparing 5e to 4e, using the terms 4e used. See (a) above. See below for some stuff addressing this example--I don't think it's as good as you think. As mentioned above: I think these things you consider to be "reserved tactics" are a lot more important to "roles" than you do. "Granting them some abilities other characters might not have" is a decent gloss for what I have always used the word "roles" to mean. Not everyone has "heal a friend," but a class designed to be good at supporting others (probably) has it. Not everyone has "Great Big Nasty Sword of Serious Hurtfulness," but a class designed to be good at hurting enemies (probably) has it--or some equivalent. Etc. Alright. Consider a few things. 1. Saves are absolutely the "synergistic escalation" problem you talked about. The difference between trained and untrained tracks, fairly well, with the difference between a "core" stat and a "dump" stat (proficiency starts a little lower, +2 versus a gap of +4; but it catches up quickly). A character with a bad save (low stat and no proficiency) is at -1 or +0, while a maxed-stat, proficient character is +11. To the best of my knowledge (not having seen any monster stats after the playtest) there [I]are[/I] save DCs in the 19-21 range, which are thus fairly easy for the "great save" person to make, but (damn near) impossible for the "bad save" person to make. Given the difficulty of acquiring extra saves or save bonuses (for anyone other than Paladin or Monk, IIRC) this is a pretty substantial area of bonus-scaling. 2. Your example of AC is...a little off, to say the least. Comparing just armor vs. armor, sure there's only a three-point difference. But throw in Fighting Style (only available to certain characters) and shield, and suddenly it's closer to a six/seven-point difference. And there are monsters, even early on, with wicked bonuses to attack. 3. Melee ability is absolutely gated by class proficiencies. A character that doesn't have proficiency with a particular weapon is guaranteed to fall far enough behind their comrades that even Advantage can't quite make up the difference (it's worth roughly a +4 or +5), and if they also lack enough stat investment their odds of landing an attack fall into the 10-20% range. 4. 5e doesn't really give you the option to "build" things anyway. The vast majority of choices are made for you--or are bundled into a single choice--for several classes. Choosing to be the Champion Fighter, for instance, gives direct (passive) damage increases. Choosing to be a Life Cleric, not so much. Feats are the only way to "build" much of anything, and even that is a pretty shallow pool (IMO). So your requirements may be impossible to meet, which...isn't exactly sporting, is it? 5. Specifically on the subject of "restrict their movement," that's...actually something [I]nobody[/I] is good at in 5e, and nobody [I]can[/I] be very good at. You only get one reaction, and that's what you use to stop enemy movement. Short of convenient choke-points cropping up everywhere like waist-high walls in a Mass Effect game, "stop enemy movement" is a real difficult thing to do. Unless, of course, you have spells, because spells are ~magical~. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What are the Roles now?
Top