D&D General D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?

[TwoSix]

I think that terms like carry, top laner, jungler, etc. are a bit outside of what I have in mind when I talk of MOBA roles. I believe that LoL would call the aforementioned terms like bruiser, assassin, marksman, etc. "classes." However, I think that these are what 4e would call "roles."

The various lanes and "jungler", I would agree aren't particularly relevant for a discussion of D&D roles. The idea of a "carry" though, a role that is underpowered at the start and requires party cooperation to ensure that it becomes powerful enough to "carry" the team to a win at higher levels thanks to its superior scaling, seems quite fitting for a concept involving the ongoing discussions about the role of casters compared to non-casters.

 

[MwaO]

4e D&D, football/soccer terms:
Defender. Defender.
Striker. Striker.
Controller. Midfielder
Leader. Keeper.

 

[Aldarc]

I continue to worry about the separation of the two though. That's the road that leads to skill challenges and totally separate competencies within the two realms. I would very much prefer combat with all its assorted tools, sit clearly in the player toolkit as a solution to problems and not as a problem unto itself. Ideally you want a wall of stone spell that is both practical as a way to separate the enemy forces into two or more easily managed groups, and provides a meaningful answer to "how much of this floodplain can we dam off?"

Is that any different of a concern than having combat as a separate pillar from social and exploration?

The various lanes and "jungler", I would agree aren't particularly relevant for a discussion of D&D roles. The idea of a "carry" though, a role that is underpowered at the start and requires party cooperation to ensure that it becomes powerful enough to "carry" the team to a win at higher levels thanks to its superior scaling, seems quite fitting for a concept involving the ongoing discussions about the role of casters compared to non-casters.

I'm just not the biggest fan of these sort of uneven progressions.

 

[TwoSix]

I continue to worry about the separation of the two though. That's the road that leads to skill challenges and totally separate competencies within the two realms. I would very much prefer combat with all its assorted tools, sit clearly in the player toolkit as a solution to problems and not as a problem unto itself. Ideally you want a wall of stone spell that is both practical as a way to separate the enemy forces into two or more easily managed groups, and provides a meaningful answer to "how much of this floodplain can we dam off?"

I'd say the problem there is that modern versions of the game have little faith that any players will accept a substandard role in combat just to maximize their contributions in non-combat spheres.

That, plus the fact that the modern game has moved away from optimizing the party to defeat challenges, and is now much more about the theatrics of displaying the individual characters' concept and competence.

 

[Aldarc]

I continue to worry about the separation of the two though. That's the road that leads to skill challenges and totally separate competencies within the two realms. I would very much prefer combat with all its assorted tools, sit clearly in the player toolkit as a solution to problems and not as a problem unto itself. Ideally you want a wall of stone spell that is both practical as a way to separate the enemy forces into two or more easily managed groups, and provides a meaningful answer to "how much of this floodplain can we dam off?"

I would also add that the road that you believe leads to skill challenges can also lead to other options too. It's not just skill challenges or nothing if you head down that road. There are tabletop games out there that separate combat and non-combat. Believe it or not, but most of these games lack skill challenges. So your fear of skill challenges should not be an obstacle for traveling a road with many branching roads.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Im talking about every fighter needing only Str and Con, every Wiz only needing Int and Dex, etc... Multiclassing being hybrid focused so you cant stray too far from the intended role path design.

Then this doesn't apply to 4e. Fighters and Wizards were in fact some of the most diverse classes there. Strength was a common point, but there are Fighter builds that ask for Dex, Con, or Wis. I was quite taken with the Wis one, myself. Meanwhile, while all Wizards wanted Int (as is still the case in 5e), Dex, Cha, Con, and Wis all got their own builds, e.g. Charisma was related to using illusions, while Constitution was about defensive magic.

I like a class that can choose how its good at defense. Well armored with a shield? Quick agility making you hard to hit in the first place? Lots of Con allowing you to soak damage? I want all these just in the fighter alone. Please don't tell me to play a rogue or barbarian instead. I want them to have options as well!

That was also a thing in 4e. Going for high Con as a Rogue would be a risk, since you would likely be sacrificing your ability to do your core shtick, but that's not somehow untrue in 5e either.

Fighter is a defender, Cleric is a leader, Wizard is a controller, Rogue is a striker, etc... Hybrid multiclass keeps your focus on the class choice at level 1, but allows you a toe dip into something else but keeps you on the role designed path. I want to make a fighter striker, controller, and/or leader if I want.

What does that do, though? Like what does it mean to be a "fighter striker"? A "fighter leader"? What are those things?

And if they look exactly the same as (say) a Ranger or a Warlord, why is it such a problem to play the things specifically designed to be the thing you're asking for?

Or, alternatively, if you build up to that over time with alternate features, items, and feats, how does that not achieve what you ask for?

I also want to be able to multiclass and do the roles in all new and unexpected ways. I dont want the system to tell me the game is played in one expected way.

Okay...well...4e let you multiclass. And it didn't tell you the game is played in one expected way. Like it literally didn't do that. It told people what was an effective thing to do, and let them make their own decisions.

A Fighter that deals a ridiculous amount of damage is perfectly doable. One that can do the full Leader suite without any MC or other such stuff would be pretty hard, but that's just as true in 5e (arguably moreso; the only actual 5e "support" subclass for Fighters sucks.)

It's true the hype specialization is a great weakness of 3E. I still appreciate that it allows the flexibility in design and would like a game that values that concept. I blame the math more than the character options and choice, or lack thereof.

You got me all wrong, which is why I think the roles discussion is a poor one to begin with. I want every class to have options in every pillar. Yes, I know this has not been realized in any edition to date, in my experience of course.

I mean, it was realized in a particular edition, but it's rather hard to explain that to folks who hear that a class has a role and think "oh, so you're NEVER EVER allowed to do ANYTHING else?" rather than what it actually means, which is, "You start out equipped to do this thing; decide what you'd like to do from there, and build toward it if you want."

 

[payn]

What does that do, though? Like what does it mean to be a "fighter striker"? A "fighter leader"? What are those things?

This is really my fault for using 4E parlance to make a general point. I dont think I can explain to you any longer at this point.

And if they look exactly the same as (say) a Ranger or a Warlord, why is it such a problem to play the things specifically designed to be the thing you're asking for?

IDK, why dont all the fighters suck folks take this advice?

Okay...well...4e let you multiclass. And it didn't tell you the game is played in one expected way. Like it literally didn't do that. It told people what was an effective thing to do, and let them make their own decisions.

I mean, follow the tactical role prescribed by your class or fail could be seen as coming to your own decisions I suppose...

I mean, it was realized in a particular edition, but it's rather hard to explain that to folks who hear that a class has a role and think "oh, so you're NEVER EVER allowed to do ANYTHING else?" rather than what it actually means, which is, "You start out equipped to do this thing; decide what you'd like to do from there, and build toward it if you want."

Was not my experience.

 

[Vaalingrade]

IDK, why dont all the fighters suck folks take this advice?

They didn't actually make anything designed to be what I'm asking for.

They made some weak sauce once an hour BS to tell me to shut up.

 

[payn]

They didn't actually make anything designed to be what I'm asking for.

They made some weak sauce once an hour BS to tell me to shut up.

I think you are taking this too personal. The once an hour BS was designed to tell all of us to shut up.

 

[Pedantic]

I think that terms like carry, top laner, jungler, etc. are a bit outside of what I have in mind when I talk of MOBA roles. I believe that LoL would call the aforementioned terms like bruiser, assassin, marksman, etc. "classes." However, I think that these are what 4e would call "roles."

I think that's kind of backwards though, for the MOBA environment. The "role" is the thing your character provides to achieve the team's goal, the class is a descriptor of some grouped mechanics, and those mechanics are generally slotted into roles. Assassins and Mages are largely interchangeable, and top laners tend to be bruisers, with some other "classes" overlapping into it. Marksmen is an interesting case, because it's a back formation of common mechanics to the "ranged carry" role, and over time the design shifted to try and push that set of mechanics to other roles and/or to slide other sets of mechanics into that role.