Community

Ok I know a lot of people object to codified roles for classes, because .... well I haven't heard any good reasons but it seems to be a thing anyway.

 What if each class had specific features for a role and when you take the class you choose which role features it progresses.

So for example instead of having the druid be OMFG HAX! because it has multiple class features stronger than whole classes, like in 3e, or limited to the wild-shape caster like in 4e. You pick one based on the role you wanna fill and how you  wanna fill it.

So a defender druid would get wild shape and a more limited spell list.

A striker druid would get animal companion and a more limited spell list.

A controller druid would get better spells, especially access to AoEs and such.

While a leader druid would get more healy-buffy spells.


You can do the same thing with a berserker:

Striker gets charge in and do massive damage on a single strike abilities.

Controller gets the cleave and whirlwind type stuff to clear a path through multiple foes.

Leader can induce frenzy in allies. 

Defender ...

Ok so some class-role combos are harder than others but you get the idea. 

This is basically how I play 4E. 

Still I would prefer if 5E classes had the 'ability' to perform various roles without being forced to do only that.

Clarification, I mean, classes and characters should not be locked into a role, especially not balance wise like in 4E.
Players should be able to turn their characters toward roles, or combination of roles or roles they have made up by themselves, but that should be determined by their choices, not forced by rules.

If a fighter chooses to use a shield and platemail he becomes more of a defender and less than a striker than a figher in medium armor and a two handed sword, but the rules don't force them into those categories.

In principle I think that's exactly what most folks want. 3e actually does this but it doesn't make you come out and say "I'm gonna be a tank" on your character sheet. The tank feats and spells are there; the player is free to pick them.

One of the things I like about the 5e we've got so far is they allow us to pick those roles but they don't force a class to always be one role (exactly as you're describing). A fighter can pick the fighting style to fill a specific range of roles in the group - mostly tank or striker but there's some variety in each. Clerics are all over the shop as well with domains basically determining all of their baseline proficiencies and giving spells that push them into drastically different sorts of play styles.

Rogues and wizards, I feel, have less flexibility going for them right now but maybe that'll change.

Just using 3e as an example (might be a bad idea... we'll see), the only role a wizard can't really fill is a healer. I know there were mechanical flaws and in practise the wizard wasn't as flexible but that wasn't the fault of the spells so much as it was the way monster saves scaled up. A 3e rogue isn't as flexible in practise as it was in theory either but there was potential for them to fill a wide variety of roles in the party.

I think my main complaint about roles, aside from the mistake of forcing classes to only perform one function, is that it creates a situation where people perceive that their class is only good in combat. I know the roleplaying doesn't have to depend on the mechanics but the way the mechanics are presented has an impact on how people roleplay, for better or worse.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 8:36AM, rampant wrote:

Ok I know a lot of people object to codified roles for classes, because .... well I haven't heard any good reasons but it seems to be a thing anyway.

Because they pigionhole things.   Even if they don't actually pigionhole things, it makes people feel like they are being pigionholed.

For example, you try and have 4 different druids and beserkers.  You crowed out the idea that there could be say... a skirmishing druid/beserker too.


That said, the base idea of classes with choices is good.  Though i feel they are already doing that with sub-classes..

warlocks get different pacts,
sorcerers have different bloodlines,
fighters have different styles,
rogues have different schemes,
wizards have specialties,
clerics have domains.

Not hard to imagine druids with different circles/seasons, or beserkers with different clans.  Each covering a "sub-role".

Well, it's something at least.  We wouldn't need to come up with a whole new "Avenger" class if a normal paladin could just choose to be either a tank or a healer or a striker.  On those grounds, the idea has merit.

It really doesn't "solve" the problem of roles, though.  You still make one decision (to be a tank or a healer or a striker or a controller) and that heavily influences every action you'll ever take for the duration of the campaign.  I hate to bring up the WoW comparison (is that like the new Godwin's Law around here?), but it is really directly analogous to how they deal with their class system over there: each class has three sub-classes, and each sub-class has one specific role, and if you try to violate that role then you are "doing it wrong".

My opinion has always been that the choices you make in combat should be "what to do" and not "how to do it"; rather than choosing between a big heal or a small heal, or choosing between a heavy strike or two light strikes, or choosing whether to entangle a foe or to blind a foe, the question should be whether to heal or to strike or to control.

Acting within a role does not make for interesting choices - there is almost always a "best" answer.  Choosing which role to act upon does make every choice interesting, because the options are not directly comparable.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 8:50AM, Sesdun wrote:

This is basically how I play 4E. 

Still I would prefer if 5E classes had the 'ability' to perform various roles without being forced to do only that.

Fighter does this, and should serve as an effective model.

Sorcerer has a chance of doing this, depending on how subsequent origins turn out.  A Dragon Sorc is a rather respectable tank, if built with that in mind.

Yes, 5E so far is quite good in this respect.
The only thing I am a bit worried about is that all classes seem to need its own 'system'. Every class uses its own rules and its own resources. I think this treathens to limit players options to compose the character they want (and get the role they want), and it will complicate multiclassing.

That some classes had their own system (Wiz, Sor, Warlock) to do similar things was one of the annoying parts of 3e..
I hope some mechanical overlap will appear when new classes are added to the playtest.. 

If the ranger is driven by Thrill of the Hunt points and the Warlord has a number of shouts per day and level... then things are going in the wrong direction.... =/

It seems this edition is leaving the Controller, Leader, Striker, Defender roles. But your point still stands.

Fighter and Cleric seem easy enough to fill every roll so I can see that happening. Between Domains and CS you can probably make any role for each class. If you want a skillful non-rogue, however, you going to need Jack of all Trades. 

For the wizard, it's harder. There are traditions we've yet to see and various spells for sure but fitting them in different roles is limited to Controler or Striker types. But Sorcerers and Warlocks can probably end up doing some healing so that'll help.

In the end though I would like it when I can have a group and they can pick any class without having to worry that "We don't have a cleric yet!" 

One of the things I loved about 4e, which I fear may be lost, is how the system really rewarded teams that worked together.  The controller set up the battlefield, the leader kept the allioes in the fray, the defender used the battlefield to hamper foes, and the striker used it to kill them

To recapture that, it's not enough that one player can build a controllery character -- if none of the others are built to synergize with them.

I fear a return to the days where it was every man for himself.

I think people don't like roles because they're something new. Another aspect, though, is that they were fundamentally applied wrong -- because even in the Player's Handbook, you could make Paladins that weren't defenders and Clerics that weren't Leaders. I think roles should have been applied to individual mechanic parcels (as a keyword), rather than whole classes -- so you can infer that a rogue is a largely-striker class if most of the powers, features and class feats have the Striker keyword, but the rogue is at no point labeled as a striker wholly, because a non-striker could be implemented.

Also, it might've presented the game the wrong way. Classes in 4e are listed first by their power source and role; so a rogue was a Martial Striker first. These roles were combat-only, so it demonstrated to people that were just learning the game that the system defines classes purely in the way they behave in combat (at least, as shorthand; again, Martial Striker told you nothing about its non-combat options).

Rather than creating a set of roles and squeezing classes into the categories, maybe D&D Next should look at the character types of the past editions and create categories for them to fit into. Categories that reflect all three pillars, rather than just one. Merely a thought; I have no example categories in mind. 

I used roles mostly as a DM tool - they're handy (though really inaccurate in some cases) markers for "knowing what the party's strengths are", without actually having to know the ins and outs of every class and ability as DM.

Not all classes need to be able to fill all 4e roles, but preferrably more than one. I don't really like binding roles to class variants such as pacts, domains, etc. because it should be possible to create a character with a hybrid role, no role or an ambiguous strange role if so desired..

Something I am actually missing from 4E is the tactical part of movement (provoking opportunity attacks when moving within a threated area) and also marking.

I kind of disliked marking when I began playing 4e but I gradually started to like the mechanic, although we do it in a houseruled way (multiple marks can overlap from different characters/monsters).

It brings some more tactical aspects to the game.

Preferrably I would like to se Mark as a general combat action that anyone can take. Fighters could get a CS ability that lets them do it without using any action if they spend a dice, and maybe refund two dice if the target violates the mark, or somesuch.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Sesdun wrote:

Preferrably I would like to se Mark as a general combat action that anyone can take. Fighters could get a CS ability that lets them do it without using any action if they spend a dice

Huh.  I actually like that quite a bit.  Though isn't that just a flavor of "aid another"?  (Wait, does 5e have an Aid Another action or equivalent?)

Personally, I found the 4e roles to be pointless.  Characters still end up being an amalgamation of their abilities in 4e, crossing role boundaries all the time.  No skin off my teeth should roles be included in 5e, I simply have no need or desire for them as long as the underlying amalgamation of abilities that make up any particular character are fun.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:24PM, greatfrito wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Sesdun wrote:

Preferrably I would like to se Mark as a general combat action that anyone can take. Fighters could get a CS ability that lets them do it without using any action if they spend a dice

Huh.  I actually like that quite a bit.  Though isn't that just a flavor of "aid another"?  (Wait, does 5e have an Aid Another action or equivalent?)

Yes, if mark is just that -2 to hit someone else.

If mark is what it is for defenders in 4e: if you attack someone but me I get to hit you (maybe with advantage), or something like that, it becomes more interesting and tactical.

There is a Help action, but I don't think it applies to attacks or defenses.

Ideally I would like to see feats being used to define roles, by modifying stats/class features/abilities to be more geared towards a certain style.

So a defender might have a series of feats that in total give him +2-3 hp per level and +1-2 AC, something similar to marking, and the ability to take multiple reactions in a round.

This would be a series of feats that any class can take to become an adequate defender. Some classes may be more inclined to it by default, but anyone can pick it up. If you want a durable front line wizard, you can do it (though the current inability to use any armor at all somewhat hinders this. It works much better for all the other classes).

On the other hand, you might have a similar series that gears a character more towards strikerness, giving a slight bonus to hit, a scaling bonus to damage,  an ability or two to help pierce enemy defenses (such as DR/ER) , and you're good to go.

Do something like that for each role, give a few more feats of each role than a single character can take, and let them cherry pick/mix and match as they please.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 8:56AM, Sesdun wrote:

Clarification, I mean, classes and characters should not be locked into a role, especially not balance wise like in 4E.

People keep saying that... and I don't see where 4E characters or classes are locked into roles.

Yeah, I know that PHB1 lists only one role per class... by the time they did PHB2, they knew better. Every class has a role it's best suited for, but pretty much every class that can do *that* role adequately can also do at least one other role adequately, and most can do two other roles.

(Vampire and a few others can't do anything adequately.)

On the other hand, even greater flexibility would be nice. I'd like every class to be able to be at its best in the player's choice of at least two and preferably three roles. (Not many pure classes could handle all four of the 4E-defined roles. But then I want more roles defined, primarily by subdividing those four, and to expect every character to actually be good at more than one. And then I want to give exploration and non-combat interaction the same treatment.)

If a fighter chooses to use a shield and platemail he becomes more of a defender and less than a striker than a figher in medium armor and a two handed sword, but the rules don't force them into those categories.

Hm, that matches 4E quite well. So maybe I misread what you were saying.

Ther reason people objected to roles is that they are unnecessary and limiting.  If you want to play a fighter as a damage sponge, you'll choose equipment and abilities which serve that proposed function.  There's no need to codify it with a metagame term like 'tank' or 'defender.'  And if you do, what do you do when a situation suddenly calls for your self-styled "defender" to suddenly act as a 'controller' by hurling the team halfling over a lava flow, or a 'striker' because he needs to crit on this dragon or we all die?  What does she do, just throw up her hands and say "sorry, not my role?"  That's assanine.  So roles break immersion with metagamey concepts for absolutely no reason.  They're crap.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 12:57PM, DragonGuardian wrote:

It seems this edition is leaving the Controller, Leader, Striker, Defender roles. But your point still stands.

I disagree.

This edition is not leaving those roles, it's hiding them.

We've had roles at least since 1E, but they weren't called that. In 4E they were called that, and mishandled a bit to create the false impression that each class was locked into a role (which impression should die if you've read PHB2, Martial Power, or the Wizard spell list in PHB1), and that mishandling was one of several factors that cause some people to reject anything that looks even vaguely like 4E even if it happens to be a dramatic improvement in game design over prior editions. So now they are forced to go back to not having identified roles, and must also avoid those specific role-names even though the characters still have to perform the same functions.

Pretending you are not doing what you are definitely are doing, does not generally contribute to good design. And if what sort of things a class (or power, or etc.) might need to be good for is not defined, you start getting classes (etc) that aren't good for much of anything.

I was never satisfied with the division into four roles anyway. Here's the current version of my list of combat roles:

Melee striker
Ranged striker
Area striker
Melee defender
Ranged defender
Buffer
Debuffer
Healer
Enabler
Ranged controller
Area controller
Melee controller
Battlefield arrangement

Not only would I not lock a class into one of them, I generally would make only a small number of negative recommendations ("this class is usually not good at X or Y"). I'd prefer each individual character to be good at not less than three roles. ANY three (or more) that can be made to work.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 8:36AM, rampant wrote:

Ok I know a lot of people object to codified roles for classes, because .... well I haven't heard any good reasons but it seems to be a thing anyway.

Do people really have a problem with the labels? It's not like classes with roles is something new...

I'm not a huge fan of pigeon-holing classes into a single role though. I'd like to be able to play a wizard defender or a fighter controller. I'd also like to be able to decide my percentage of each role too.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 8:36AM, rampant wrote:

What if each class had specific features for a role and when you take the class you choose which role features it progresses.

I'd love to see something like this. The good news is that I might get what I want! We already have combat styles, cleric domains, wizard traditions, warlock pacts, rogue schemes, sorcerer origines. I won't be able to adjust the percentage of each role with these but being able to select one would be good enough.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 7:10PM, Sesdun wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:24PM, greatfrito wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Sesdun wrote:

Preferrably I would like to se Mark as a general combat action that anyone can take. Fighters could get a CS ability that lets them do it without using any action if they spend a dice

Huh.  I actually like that quite a bit.  Though isn't that just a flavor of "aid another"?  (Wait, does 5e have an Aid Another action or equivalent?)

Yes, if mark is just that -2 to hit someone else.

If mark is what it is for defenders in 4e: if you attack someone but me I get to hit you (maybe with advantage), or something like that, it becomes more interesting and tactical.

There is a Help action, but I don't think it applies to attacks or defenses.

In an earlier version, Help action specifically worked on attacks.


It no longer says that it does - but it is still listed under "Actions in Combat".

On the other hand - it refers to "checks" rather than "attacks" - and, although an argument for an attack being a check can be made - in most cases they are not treated as such.

It did apply to attacks in an earlier iteration of the rules - so they took it out for the current version; no idea whether that was a permanent change or will be reversed.  Personally -  since it fits the general approach of "pay an action to gain advantage" - even if one person pays the action to give someone else advantage - I'd have allowed it.  Time will tell.


Carl  
   

                     

Sep 21, 2012 -- 10:54PM, warrl wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 8:56AM, Sesdun wrote:

Clarification, I mean, classes and characters should not be locked into a role, especially not balance wise like in 4E.

People keep saying that... and I don't see where 4E characters or classes are locked into roles.

Yeah, I know that PHB1 lists only one role per class... by the time they did PHB2, they knew better. Every class has a role it's best suited for, but pretty much every class that can do *that* role adequately can also do at least one other role adequately, and most can do two other roles.

(Vampire and a few others can't do anything adequately.)

On the other hand, even greater flexibility would be nice. I'd like every class to be able to be at its best in the player's choice of at least two and preferably three roles. (Not many pure classes could handle all four of the 4E-defined roles. But then I want more roles defined, primarily by subdividing those four, and to expect every character to actually be good at more than one. And then I want to give exploration and non-combat interaction the same treatment.)

If a fighter chooses to use a shield and platemail he becomes more of a defender and less than a striker than a figher in medium armor and a two handed sword, but the rules don't force them into those categories.

Hm, that matches 4E quite well. So maybe I misread what you were saying.

Stripped of its features, but not the core of their powers all classes are quite similar.

A typical striker, leader, defender or striker deals the same damage on a typical at will (1[W] + mods) and the same on encounter abilities of the same level.

In 4E, the balance of roles are then constructed using class features and additons to this base.
- All strikers gain a class feature that allows them to do a similar amount of extra damage on top of the normal damage. The feature varies in exact composition but the damage is at least intended to be equal.

- All defenders gain a marking abillity and something to do when a mark is violated, or in later defenders, an aura that worked like a mark.

- All leaders gain a two-piece use a surge and get extra HP on a minor. In additon they get some trigger buffs on their attacks.

- Controllers are a bit more diverse, which makes it the easiest role to replace.

No class, except the berserker in HoF and maybe some in Essentials if you mess with them, provides the role-power of more than one role. Thus a character is locked to a role by lacking the role-defining powers of the other roles. Sure, they can pretend to fill the role without those, but a 2h-fighter will never deal damage on par with a striker, a leader will never be a defender regardless of platemail and shield, etc.
Hybrid classes allowed construction of dual role characters, but most often at either a high price that made your character useless, or by exploiting loopholes that made it feel like cheating instead.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 11:29PM, warrl wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 12:57PM, DragonGuardian wrote:

It seems this edition is leaving the Controller, Leader, Striker, Defender roles. But your point still stands.

I disagree.

This edition is not leaving those roles, it's hiding them.

We've had roles at least since 1E, but they weren't called that. In 4E they were called that, and mishandled a bit to create the false impression that each class was locked into a role (which impression should die if you've read PHB2, Martial Power, or the Wizard spell list in PHB1), and that mishandling was one of several factors that cause some people to reject anything that looks even vaguely like 4E even if it happens to be a dramatic improvement in game design over prior editions. So now they are forced to go back to not having identified roles, and must also avoid those specific role-names even though the characters still have to perform the same functions.

Pretending you are not doing what you are definitely are doing, does not generally contribute to good design. And if what sort of things a class (or power, or etc.) might need to be good for is not defined, you start getting classes (etc) that aren't good for much of anything.

I was never satisfied with the division into four roles anyway. Here's the current version of my list of combat roles:

Melee striker
Ranged striker
Area striker
Melee defender
Ranged defender
Buffer
Debuffer
Healer
Enabler
Ranged controller
Area controller
Melee controller
Battlefield arrangement

Not only would I not lock a class into one of them, I generally would make only a small number of negative recommendations ("this class is usually not good at X or Y"). I'd prefer each individual character to be good at not less than three roles. ANY three (or more) that can be made to work.

I was considering making a post about that very thing... what are the real roles! (and ignore the negative crap of people pretending roles dont exist) The simplistic broad roles described initially in 4e were for newbies to get them in to game the classes where nowhere near just one role and the roles themselves are more elaborate... I have heard of a variant of the defender called the martyr... The Vampyre class was described as such to me.

I guess I'm in the camp that is against codified roles hardwired into the system.   I think that most players adopt a role depending on what abilities their characters choose, so in essence, it is the specialty or feat choice that helps mold PC roles.  

In addition, depending on the situation in combat or in non-combat situation, often players may want to try out different roles, or they may be forced into different roles.   If they have some ability that can be used for striking, leading, defending, controlling, in the right situation, they should step up and switch roles.  

I also like the idea that players have to communicate with each other and coordinate their tactics (or learn to play with each other) rather than having pre-scribed roles.   To me, the every man for himself feeling immerses me into the game world more completely than "I am the controller" does.

That being said, maybe WoTc, should write a section into the Character section of the rules that explains typical roles and lists some of the abilities or feats that help PCs perform those roles.      
  

Codification is there for new players, it really helps them get up to speed of the concepts of the game.   Calling a mark a mark and a defender a defender, helps them learn to play the game.   This is no different than calling dice dice and tokens tokens, all gamist terminology that everyone now knows because of playing monopoly as a kid, but nobody questions them.  Without the simplified jargon, it becomes more confusing to use and learn.  If instead you had to say dot marked polyhedral collection then it gets confusing when yours has numbers or how about representational flat small cut out piece, when your tokens are the standup kind. 

They will outgrow the simplistic terminology and further learn the complexities that are layered in the system and buy all the players manuals and such, or they may stick to the plastic pregen labeled 'defender with mark'  they got at encounters and never change.  But you cannot make the terminology complex because it defeats the purpose of helping the new player get into the game.  Unless you are in the camp that thinks that D&D should remain a game for the old guard and you learned it decades ago and so shall the new blood.   WOTC needs to grow their audience as the old guard is not enough to keep the game off the life support it is on, they are trying by doing board and skirmish and card games to keep the D&D brand, but I don't see much overlap there for RP types.

Packaging feats and powers per role does not really work, it has to be per role and class - even though the mage may function as a controller, if they are prohibited from shields and armor all the feats/powers related to that need rewritten to say things like magical shields and magical armour.  Instead of physically pushing or commanding things around the battle field, they are throwing down ice and using their orbs force powers.  So they may behave the same in the same role, but you cannot describe them the same with common controller powers/feats unless you entirely remove flavour text and have them be incredibly boring and say 'slide 2'.  Likewise the druid may have a power where vines on the trees snake across the battlefield and control the enemy, how they control the battlefield is very different from another class.

People say they get bored of 4e because the mechanics are all the same, but watch a game where the DM/PC read the flavour line on their power cards every attack, it makes for a huge difference in RP.  If you try to boil the game down to mechanics like you have the push feat means you are a defender or you have the slide feat means you are a controller, it does indeed get incredibly boring.

The problem I've always seen is that if you design without some sort of role in mind (whether this role 'defender' or 'guy who hands out the heals when he attacks', a purpose role vs. an ability role) you end up with classes like the wizard and swashbuckler, one is massively op because he can do anything better than anyone else (until the erudite and the artificer come along anyways), the other is massively up because he doesn't really do anything well.


Sesdun, not quite correct, some classes such as the barbarian or many controllers like the wizard relied on their powers to perform their role, this is why their powers are some of the best to powerswap in for. Furthermore they weren't as stuck as you make them out to be, for example I can easily make a standard great weapon fighter who outdamages a slayer, all ai have to do is play a dwarf, use an axe, and abuse my marking mechanics to generate extra attacks. If you want out of your assigned role you gotta use the abilities they give you to do it.

Yes I know, for some classes these things were baked into the powers, but that's an exception to the basic structure. That's part of what I meant when I said you could use loopholes and exploits that felt like cheating to create some hybrids.

There is no reason for why the barbarian striker ability would be more easily obtainable to other classes than some of the other role abilities...  the entire system feel bugged and poorly thought through. =(

Sep 21, 2012 -- 8:36AM, rampant wrote:

Ok I know a lot of people object to codified roles for classes, because .... well I haven't heard any good reasons but it seems to be a thing anyway.

What if each class had specific features for a role and when you take the class you choose which role features it progresses.

Not a bad idea... if you think of a class/character entirely by their combat role. Not everyone wants to design a character thinking of that, or have the design based around that one aspect of the game. The four roles are great in a combat game, but have no place with the story or exploration. And they're really only good for a tactical combat, having little use in a strategic combat or ambush combat. They're very narrow.

It's also fairly limited. Beacause it's tied to single class features, it's hard to multi-role to fill gaps in smaller groups. And people who don't want a role have to pick one.
It leads to role-filling in party design, where the group is expected to have all the roles filled. So the game assumed that, which means if someone deviates from the baseline (no defender, no healer, etc) the game does not function as well. Conversely, if roles are dedicated but the game is not balanced around filling roles, a party with a solid member of each role will find the game too easy.  

It also leads the design of the game down one direction. Classes are designed not around what the class should do or what best represents that class, but into one of the four roles. And with your design, there's this implication that most classes need to fill multiple roles. There has to be a rogue that's not a striker, or that class feels lacking, so there's a forced attempt to make a rogue controller or something.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 8:36AM, rampant wrote:

So for example instead of having the druid be OMFG HAX! because it has multiple class features stronger than whole classes, like in 3e, or limited to the wild-shape caster like in 4e. You pick one based on the role you wanna fill and how you  wanna fill it.

So a defender druid would get wild shape and a more limited spell list.

A striker druid would get animal companion and a more limited spell list.

A controller druid would get better spells, especially access to AoEs and such.

While a leader druid would get more healy-buffy spells.

But does that feel like a druid? Would a 1e or 2e or 3e player new to the game look at that class and say, "Yes. This does everything I want a druid to do. I can remake my druid from older editions and it will work fine albeit more balanced."

@rampant
I doubt that would outdamage an elven slayer that just dumps everything into dex and uses a bow.
I think I reached a flat bonus of over +20 damage on my slayer on any basic ranged attack at lvl 5, and that was as a human, not an elf, and he got a swift ranged weapon...  _-_

But does that feel like a druid? Would a 1e or 2e or 3e player new to the game look at that class and say, "Yes. This does everything I want a druid to do. I can remake my druid from older editions and it will work fine albeit more balanced."

Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:13PM, wrecan wrote:

I fear a return to the days where it was every man for himself.

Not me. I look forward to it.

To clarify, I look forward to each character being able to decide for themselves how they will help during combat.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:19PM, BhaelFire wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:13PM, wrecan wrote:

I fear a return to the days where it was every man for himself.

Not me. I look forward to it.

To clarify, I look forward to each character being able to decide for themselves how they will help during combat.

So you are looking forward to something totally different from what he said. 

Sep 21, 2012 -- 7:10PM, Sesdun wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:24PM, greatfrito wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Sesdun wrote:

Preferrably I would like to se Mark as a general combat action that anyone can take. Fighters could get a CS ability that lets them do it without using any action if they spend a dice

Huh.  I actually like that quite a bit.  Though isn't that just a flavor of "aid another"?  (Wait, does 5e have an Aid Another action or equivalent?)

Yes, if mark is just that -2 to hit someone else.

If mark is what it is for defenders in 4e: if you attack someone but me I get to hit you (maybe with advantage), or something like that, it becomes more interesting and tactical.

There is a Help action, but I don't think it applies to attacks or defenses.

Well they really need to do it as an aura that has a range of the weapon they use and allow it to come into play once per turn...

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:28PM, Seerow wrote:

Sep 22, 2012 -- 4:19PM, BhaelFire wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:13PM, wrecan wrote:

I fear a return to the days where it was every man for himself.

Not me. I look forward to it.

To clarify, I look forward to each character being able to decide for themselves how they will help during combat.

So you are looking forward to something totally different from what he said. 

But closer to how it actually was 'back in the day'.

Carl

But the classes in the playtest are already combat oriented, most of the non-combat abilities come from backgrounds anyway.

I think it's a good idea to split these things up, have your combat role determined by one thing, and your non-com role by another instead of trying to fuse them. 

I suppose the question is less "should characters have explicit combat roles or not?" and more of "how much better should a specialist be when acting within his or her pre-selected role relative to actions taken outside of that specialty?"

Imagine that everyone could perform either as a tank or a striker or a healer or a controller, and that you could somehow measure their capabilities on a completely objective scale from 1 to 10.  (Imagine it as the amount of damage you could prevent, or deal, or heal; it's hard to quantify the controller, but imagine we can do so for the purposes of this example.)

I have no problem with anyone focusing on one role over another; I just want a tank to look more like (7/5/3/5) than (10/3/1/3).  Even if the numerical performance gap was only 2 points between best and worst, it would still be the optimal solution for everyone to act within that mild specialty; the only difference is that it wouldn't be out of the question to break role when you needed to, the way it would in... say, late 3E, for example.

Sep 22, 2012 -- 7:40AM, Sesdun wrote:

No class, except the berserker in HoF and maybe some in Essentials if you mess with them, provides the role-power of more than one role. Thus a character is locked to a role by lacking the role-defining powers of the other roles. Sure, they can pretend to fill the role without those, but a 2h-fighter will never deal damage on par with a striker, a leader will never be a defender regardless of platemail and shield, etc.

A greatweapon fighter is not the best melee striker, but he's a quite adequate melee striker. A blaster wizard is about as good an area striker as a sorcerer, typically with less damage per target but able to hit larger areas at greater range. A skirmishing bowlord is a mixed ranged-and-melee striker with the best (although party-dependent) striker extra-damage mechanic in 4e; a taclord is about as good a striker although usually much more heavily tilted toward melee and toward primary damage rather than the extra-damage mechanic. Clerics make excellent controllers. Druids are adequate strikers in beastform (except swarm druids), and some of them are so-so defenders. Beastmaster rangers often function as controllers or defenders. Most shamans are defenders. Some bards are strikers, others are controllers. Need I go on?

Ever since the advent of computer games or D&D, you have the classic trinity of roles - tank, striker, healer. 4E did a very good job of maintaining the trinity, but also made each class diverse and not limited to the roles they were intended for like leader, defender, striker, etc. 5E design still incorporates these, but unfortuntely it is not well defined. I don't understand how you can do this from a design standpoint, since the benefits outweigh the risks.

I actually liked that 4E broke the trinity /tank/healer/damage by introducing healing surges and second winds.
This was a good step in the right direction. The meatshield/hp-battery/progress division have destroyed gaming of all kinds for way too long.

Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:13PM, wrecan wrote:

One of the things I loved about 4e, which I fear may be lost, is how the system really rewarded teams that worked together.  The controller set up the battlefield, the leader kept the allioes in the fray, the defender used the battlefield to hamper foes, and the striker used it to kill them

To recapture that, it's not enough that one player can build a controllery character -- if none of the others are built to synergize with them.

I fear a return to the days where it was every man for himself.

I honest have never experienced this in any edition of Dungeons and Dragons.  I have always in every edition seen the benefits of teamwork and seen destruction of teams that could not work together.  In every edition I have experienced this.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 10:41AM, arnwolf666 wrote:

Sep 21, 2012 -- 3:13PM, wrecan wrote:

One of the things I loved about 4e, which I fear may be lost, is how the system really rewarded teams that worked together.  The controller set up the battlefield, the leader kept the allioes in the fray, the defender used the battlefield to hamper foes, and the striker used it to kill them

To recapture that, it's not enough that one player can build a controllery character -- if none of the others are built to synergize with them.

I fear a return to the days where it was every man for himself.

I honest have never experienced this in any edition of Dungeons and Dragons.  I have always in every edition seen the benefits of teamwork and seen destruction of teams that could not work together.  In every edition I have experienced this.

I don't pretend to speak for Wrecan, but I think what he was going for is:

Pre 4E, characters could compliment each other. The party could work together wonderfully, and teamwork made things happen. Likewise, if the team did not work together, it could fall apart. However, 4E was built around the entire idea of team synergy. Pre 4E teams could work together. 4E teams did work together by design. People had to actually try to build characters in 4E that did not compliment each other in order to make the synergy level drop. Pre 4E, non-compatible teammates were a fairly common occurrence. He liked that party-based design of 4E, and fears it is going away with 5E.

Role specialization and teams functioning more efficiently within them is rather realistic.

"A team is not a bunch of people with job titles, but a congregation of individuals, each of whom has a role which is understood by other members. Members of a team seek out certain roles and they perform most effectively in the ones that are most natural to them." 

Dr. R. M. Belbin


No Lone Wolf (with Mary Sue just being very successful at it) and Hopeless Hanna do not count as roles.
 

Sep 23, 2012 -- 1:11PM, Garthanos wrote:

Role specialization and teams functioning more efficiently within them is rather realistic.

"A team is not a bunch of people with job titles, but a congregation of individuals, each of whom has a role which is understood by other members. Members of a team seek out certain roles and they perform most effectively in the ones that are most natural to them." 

Dr. R. M. Belbin


No Lone Wolf (with Mary Sue just being very successful at it) and Hopeless Hanna do not count as roles.
 

They do in previous editions...

Sep 23, 2012 -- 3:55PM, lokiare wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 1:11PM, Garthanos wrote:

Role specialization and teams functioning more efficiently within them is rather realistic.

"A team is not a bunch of people with job titles, but a congregation of individuals, each of whom has a role which is understood by other members. Members of a team seek out certain roles and they perform most effectively in the ones that are most natural to them." 

Dr. R. M. Belbin


No Lone Wolf (with Mary Sue just being very successful at it) and Hopeless Hanna do not count as roles.
 

They do in previous editions...

Actually 80 percent of lone wolf stories are specifically about the character NOT remaining a lone wolf but rather being a rogue who discovers the value of the team.
 

Sep 23, 2012 -- 1:11PM, Garthanos wrote:

Role specialization and teams functioning more efficiently within them is rather realistic.

The problem I have with 4e's attempt to focus on team work, is that it just borked combat completely - turning it into an hour long slog and a bureaucratic nightmare (who has marked who, who is slowed, dazed or stunned, who is giving who bonuses or was that last round?)

Good riddance, I say.

How was that different from 3e?

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:18PM, Shasarak wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 1:11PM, Garthanos wrote:

Role specialization and teams functioning more efficiently within them is rather realistic.

The problem I have with 4e's attempt to focus on team work, is that it just borked combat completely - turning it into an hour long slog and a bureaucratic nightmare (who has marked who, who is slowed, dazed or stunned, who is giving who bonuses or was that last round?) 

As opposed to a few round craps game with who rolled the die highest? OR instead of I hits it with my sword full attack and the does the wizard have an insta-fix handy where everybody else might as well just watch?

Shrug to me its a damn cool hour of interesting choices and interactions... Love tactical combat. 

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Garthanos wrote:

Shrug to me its a damn cool hour of interesting choices and interactions... Love tactical combat. 

I prefer my turns to come up more often then every 15 minutes - which is why I am liking the DnD Next combat so far (except for the monster stats - they seem to be armed with wet bus tickets)

Sep 23, 2012 -- 7:28PM, Shasarak wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Garthanos wrote:

Shrug to me its a damn cool hour of interesting choices and interactions... Love tactical combat. 

I prefer my turns to come up more often then every 15 minutes - which is why I am liking the DnD Next combat so far (except for the monster stats - they seem to be armed with wet bus tickets)

Again, how in the world are people getting multi-hour long combats? Do you guys really take that long with your turns?

Hell, our latest Level 21 game, we had a major fight that was over in about 1 hour, maybe 20 minutes over tops.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 7:30PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Hell, our latest Level 21 game, we had a major fight that was over in about 1 hour, maybe 20 minutes over tops.

We never got to epic - those fights would probably span multiple gaming sessions. 

Like I said, I've never had any fight, regardless of level, take much longer than an hour. We even had a level 30 fight that only took about an hour, despite 2 of the players never having played a character above low-paragon before(we shot up from level 10 to 30 due to plot devices).

Sep 23, 2012 -- 7:28PM, Shasarak wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Garthanos wrote:

Shrug to me its a damn cool hour of interesting choices and interactions... Love tactical combat. 

I prefer my turns to come up more often then every 15 minutes

You will be waiting half an hour at level 10 I have no doubt just for the Wizard to decide how to use his over powered over sized repertoire of spells that the DM will have to analyze every time because the spells will be all so vague every body tak a nap the DM has to figure out how the charm spell works.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 7:47PM, Garthanos wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 7:28PM, Shasarak wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Garthanos wrote:

Shrug to me its a damn cool hour of interesting choices and interactions... Love tactical combat. 

I prefer my turns to come up more often then every 15 minutes

You will be waiting half an hour at level 10 I have no doubt just for the Wizard to decide how to use his over powered over sized repertoire of spells that the DM will have to analyze every time because the spells will be all so vague every body tak a nap the DM has to figure out how the charm spell works.

I dont see how either of those options would be any good for having frequent turns.

Sep 23, 2012 -- 8:02PM, Shasarak wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 7:47PM, Garthanos wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 7:28PM, Shasarak wrote:

Sep 23, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Garthanos wrote:

Shrug to me its a damn cool hour of interesting choices and interactions... Love tactical combat. 

I prefer my turns to come up more often then every 15 minutes

You will be waiting half an hour at level 10 I have no doubt just for the Wizard to decide how to use his over powered over sized repertoire of spells that the DM will have to analyze every time because the spells will be all so vague every body tak a nap the DM has to figure out how the charm spell works.

I dont see how either of those options would be any good for having frequent turns.

But awesomely retro... and naps are well much more fun now that Im not a kid.