ever ready (fighter)
trick monkey (thief)
nuker (mage)
buffer/debuffer (priest)
3.xe
![confused :confused:](./images/smilies/confusedyellow.gif)
4e
striker
controller
leader
defender
5e
![confused :confused:](./images/smilies/confusedyellow.gif)
Discuss.
PS: it is desired to correct/challenge whatever premise you want in the OP
Moderator: Moderators
Well, I think they had similar ideas to older editions with 3E, but really, your roles ended up being:xechnao wrote:What do you think?
Kaelik, to Tzor wrote: And you aren't shot in the face?
Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!
If you're saying that every PC should be equally adept at melee combat, ranged combat and healing (to name three possible roles), I disagree.Psychic Robot wrote:5e: No roles because roles are dumb.
I don't think the argument is over having roles in the game, or roles in the party, so much as it is about having those roles linked to classes.Caedrus wrote:This is just about impossible unless everyone's the same. Roles arise naturally, whether by design or not. Even if the differences are something like "These weapons both have the same damage per second, but different rates of fire."Psychic Robot wrote:5e: No roles because roles are dumb.
Ah. Well that's okay then.PoliteNewb wrote:I don't think the argument is over having roles in the game, or roles in the party, so much as it is about having those roles linked to classes.Caedrus wrote:This is just about impossible unless everyone's the same. Roles arise naturally, whether by design or not. Even if the differences are something like "These weapons both have the same damage per second, but different rates of fire."Psychic Robot wrote:5e: No roles because roles are dumb.
Because having roles linked to classes leads to every member of the same class being pretty much the same.
If I'm understanding PR correctly, when he says "no roles", he means "writing 'Fighter' on your sheet should not lock you into a role". And I agree.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Ok, then you can answer what "party needs" regarding the role of various individuals you would like to have in D&D.RobbyPants wrote:That's how I feel. I'm fine with individual characters picking up a "role" as they identify a need in the party. I just don't like them being linked to classes in such a way that dictates what class the new player has to play when joining a game.
Interesting observation.Roy wrote:Roles exist as a way to force multiplayer. Except that it's a tabletop game, so it's kinda assumed you'll willingly play multiplayer.
It varies, really.xechnao wrote:Ok, then you can answer what "party needs" regarding the role of various individuals you would like to have in D&D.RobbyPants wrote:That's how I feel. I'm fine with individual characters picking up a "role" as they identify a need in the party. I just don't like them being linked to classes in such a way that dictates what class the new player has to play when joining a game.
Yeah, but couldn't those be defined as tactics, rather than roles?RobbyPants wrote:It varies, really.
If you have a group of four players, all who want to play archers or squishy wizards who sling spells from a distance, you're going to need a way to stay at a distance, or the party will die. This can come in the form of:
- Better mobility than your opponents
- Having/summoning a tank to get in the way
- Using battlefield control spells to put stuff in the way
- SoD/lock down/trick monkey casterxechnao wrote:3.xe
What do you think?
Go ahead and quote it.xechnao wrote:Interesting observation.Roy wrote:Roles exist as a way to force multiplayer. Except that it's a tabletop game, so it's kinda assumed you'll willingly play multiplayer.
Roles indicate to others a different way of doing things that they can't follow. So if the game assumes roles it is like individuals having to assume that they have to embrace the fact that they cant do certain things that some other individual can.
EDIT: BTW, Roy I am quoting this post to some other genre forum(s) where I have started the same thread. Hope you dont't mind
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
General agreement with this. What's especially galling in a game (IMO) is when trying to be broadly competent is mechanically inferior (3X multiclassing), or (related and possibly the same) if you're not maxed/optimized for something, there is no point in trying (3X skills, in many cases).Roy wrote: Ultimately this shows that not only do most people not want to be trapped in a little box, that they will actively go out of their way to be broadly competent, to ensure participation in as much of the game as possible. And this means that the ideal 'role' is 'multi threat character'. It's only if forced to that they will opt for less. And while I don't go as far as JE in saying that a character needs to be the whole fucking party or they aren't trying, you had damn well have a valid means of contributing to solving any problem that comes up at least 90% of the time. Can't drive the tank? Man the turret then. Can't do that? Get a rocket launcher, face backwards and be a rear cannon to blast pursuers. Find something useful to do, or you're wasting everyone's time.
This is why my baseline, like Tome is a 3.5 caster. You have multiple combos available to yourself. Getting Solid Fog + Black Tentacles doesn't stop you from being able to Mind Fog + Mass Charm for example. Unlike Tome I don't assume things like infinite wish loops exist but aside from that it's fair game.PoliteNewb wrote:General agreement with this. What's especially galling in a game (IMO) is when trying to be broadly competent is mechanically inferior (3X multiclassing), or (related and possibly the same) if you're not maxed/optimized for something, there is no point in trying (3X skills, in many cases).Roy wrote: Ultimately this shows that not only do most people not want to be trapped in a little box, that they will actively go out of their way to be broadly competent, to ensure participation in as much of the game as possible. And this means that the ideal 'role' is 'multi threat character'. It's only if forced to that they will opt for less. And while I don't go as far as JE in saying that a character needs to be the whole fucking party or they aren't trying, you had damn well have a valid means of contributing to solving any problem that comes up at least 90% of the time. Can't drive the tank? Man the turret then. Can't do that? Get a rocket launcher, face backwards and be a rear cannon to blast pursuers. Find something useful to do, or you're wasting everyone's time.
In my ideal, you should have 1-2 schticks you are good at, a handful you are not awesome but are competent at, and then a default level for everything else (where you can still attempt and sometimes succeed).
I have no problem with a specialist shining at his chosen specialty...but I don't like specialization being the baseline, and I don't believe specialization should pay massive dividends over generalization. Specialization should be largely a flavor issue...you specialize to be a fire mage or a necromancer, not because if you don't, you will suck.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
I'm not attacking you. I'm saying that you're pretty much saying the same thing I did.And while I don't go as far as JE in saying that a character needs to be the whole fucking party or they aren't trying, you had damn well have a valid means of contributing to solving any problem that comes up at least 90% of the time.