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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if 5e had 2 types of roles
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="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5701505" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>This is why I stated the test that I did. It checks to see if the proposed role adds something to the game. "Face" is a bad role because everyone that takes it is going to have Cha and at least 2 of a small set of skills. That's what "face" is, in game terms. So for a "Face" role, everything you just said is absolutely correct.</p><p> </p><p>Well, that last little bit might be helped by a "Face" role, but it isn't worth the trade for the bloat. Another test for a good role is that it becomes a useful form of shorthand, so that the players and the rest of the group can reasonably expect at least some usefulness in a situation. This helps with keeping the character straight. "Face" could possibly pass that test, if you made "face" robust enough, though that would have its own problems. </p><p> </p><p>All my "tests" are really doing is saying that for a set of roles to pass your objections, they have to cut across the grain of the current game elements, in ways that make sense for a broad swath (if not all) non-combat functions.</p><p> </p><p>Thinking about it pre 4E, "defender" was nothing but "wears lots of armor and has lots of hit points", with a few niche exceptions. That just made "tank" a role more honored in the abstract than the concrete. But as soon as someone thought enough about it to define "defender" as "makes you pay attention to them or else", and said that everyone with that label had to meet that criteria, it has useful meaning. Sure, lots of armor and hit points will often go with that function, but even then the conception of the role says don't stop there. That's why the 4E paladin can be a decent defender (among other things) while the earlier versions is a watered-down defender to compensate for his other things.</p><p> </p><p>I gather that you and Abdul think that once that kind of thinking is applied to any set of non-combat roles, all sets will be excluded. I think that maybe there are a set of roles that will work, along with a bunch of others that should be excluded on the grounds that you guys have stated. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5701505, member: 54877"] This is why I stated the test that I did. It checks to see if the proposed role adds something to the game. "Face" is a bad role because everyone that takes it is going to have Cha and at least 2 of a small set of skills. That's what "face" is, in game terms. So for a "Face" role, everything you just said is absolutely correct. Well, that last little bit might be helped by a "Face" role, but it isn't worth the trade for the bloat. Another test for a good role is that it becomes a useful form of shorthand, so that the players and the rest of the group can reasonably expect at least some usefulness in a situation. This helps with keeping the character straight. "Face" could possibly pass that test, if you made "face" robust enough, though that would have its own problems. All my "tests" are really doing is saying that for a set of roles to pass your objections, they have to cut across the grain of the current game elements, in ways that make sense for a broad swath (if not all) non-combat functions. Thinking about it pre 4E, "defender" was nothing but "wears lots of armor and has lots of hit points", with a few niche exceptions. That just made "tank" a role more honored in the abstract than the concrete. But as soon as someone thought enough about it to define "defender" as "makes you pay attention to them or else", and said that everyone with that label had to meet that criteria, it has useful meaning. Sure, lots of armor and hit points will often go with that function, but even then the conception of the role says don't stop there. That's why the 4E paladin can be a decent defender (among other things) while the earlier versions is a watered-down defender to compensate for his other things. I gather that you and Abdul think that once that kind of thinking is applied to any set of non-combat roles, all sets will be excluded. I think that maybe there are a set of roles that will work, along with a bunch of others that should be excluded on the grounds that you guys have stated. :lol: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if 5e had 2 types of roles
Top