How many roles should there be?

[Mokona]

If roles were separated from classes...

A lot of the discussion in this thread revolves around roles limiting classes. As I said initially, this discussion is not about classes. I appreciate the really insightful and wildly diverse definitions of roles!

Some have said that roles "limit the game to combat" or put combat-only blinders on players. It might be true that 4th edition did this (and with more than just roles). I love 4e and I play it now. I will admit that the 4e games I play in feel a little too combat-focused.

I want to be completely honest:

I came to dislike 4e roles but I enjoy intelligent debate. I don't think those who hold dissenting opinions should shout at those who think about roles and dissenters definitely should not try to drown out discussions that might lead to helpful evolution of the game.

Dungeons & Dragons grew out of Chainmail. The origin of the game is a "mini-wargame". Combat is not the end-all, be-all of D&D but it does exist. Combat rules will always exist in this game (well, probably).

Therefore lets make sure designers have the best thoughts we can muster on the topic. Let's crowdsource 5th edition. We want the best game possible and I strongly believe threads like this can contribute significantly.

Even if roles are relegated to the secret inner sanctum sanctorum of 1801 Lind Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057, USA (i.e. Wizards of the Coast).

 

[Terraism]

This is simply not true. If I want to roleplay my character as a cowardly, weak guy who is always picked on, etc., it is going to stretch credulity to the breaking point if I'm playing a 4e defender type role where I have to be able to absorb large amounts of punishment, be in the front lines in combat, etc.

What I don't understand here, then, is why you've defined this character as a fighter - in any edition. If you're playing a cowardly weak guy who's always picked on, wouldn't he make more sense as a rogue, or maybe a warlord with "I don't attack" powers? In the former case, you'd have a martial (no magic) character who kinda creeps and hides (ohgodnottheface) around the edges of combat and occasionally manages to stab someone in an important spot, and in the latter, it's a character who's shouting "hit the big guy not me hit the big guy!" and his party is kindly obliging.

[EDIT] I will concede what Minigiant pointed out - yes, it's true that 4E roles don't allow "I'm useless in a fight" as a character option. I'd argue that it's not at all an issue with the idea of roles, however, just part of the design philosophy that expects all characters to be able to contribute to every arena of the game, social or combat.

If it's important to people that such not be the case, I could see a case being made for a fifth defined role: "none". For people who just plain don't contribute in a meaningful way. I'm still curious, by the way, how you would define that weakling character in, say, 3E or 2E, class-wise.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think folks that didn't spend much time with 4e don't understand the roles concept.

As others have said, 4e put its mechanics out there for all to see, and it turned a lot of people off.

I agree, but I would also add that I believe that the designers' awareness of the "revealed roles" informed their designs in ways that didn't help the situation any. I think its responsible for a lot of 4e's perceived problems. I ran 4e for a bit, although I'm not an expert, and it seemed to me that the classes were a lot more "silo-ed" than they were before. Which had good and bad effects.

 

[Minigiant]

Well maybe I should answer the question. There should be 11, explicit, and unforced roles.

Combat

• Heavy
  • Meatshield (take melee damage)
  • Warrior (have a good basic melee attack)
  • Damage Dealer (deals damage)
• Light
  • Damage Dealer (deal heavy damage)
  • Hunter (be able to damage any enemy on the battlefield)
    • Snipers
    • Skirmishers
  • Escape artist (escape from/survive hostile match-ups)
• Support
  • Healer (heal damage)
  • Buffer (grant bonuses)
  • Chessmaster (grant actions and movement)
• Special/Control
  • Crowd control (hamper groups of enemies)
  • Blaster (damage groups of enemies)
  • Lockdown (remove a single target from the combat for a period of time)

Exploration

• Wilderness
  • Forager/Hunter
  • Tracker
  • Animal Handler
  • Wild Guide
• Dungeon
  • Trapfinder
  • Lockpick
  • Secret Finder
  • Dungeon Guide
• Urban
  • Info Gatherer
  • Appraiser
  • Pick Pocket/Thief
  • Forger
  • City Guide
• Jock
  • Athlete
  • Acrobat
  • Lookout
  • Sneak

Social

• Diplomat
  • Diplomacy
• Persuader
  • Bluff
  • Intimidate
• Insighter
  • Sense Motive
  • Lie detector

So a fighter could be light and/or heavy in combat based on armor and weapon choice. The fighter would get jock (athlete) in exploration by default but be able to snag one of the other exploration role. The Fighter then has the choice to get a social role or take another exploration role.


The wizard get all four combat roles at a weak level. They can strengthen any of the combat roles by not choosing a exploration or social role.


The rogue gets all the exploration roles. They can then choose to remove or weaken them to get the light combat role or any of the social roles.

 

[Andor]

Well maybe I should answer the question. There should be 11, explicit, and unforced roles.

Combat

• Heavy
  • Meatshield (take melee damage)
  • Warrior (have a good basic melee attack)
  • Damage Dealer (deals damage)
• Light
  • Damage Dealer (deal heavy damage)
  • Hunter (be able to damage any enemy on the battlefield)
    • Snipers
    • Skirmishers
  • Escape artist (escape from/survive hostile match-ups)
• Support
  • Healer (heal damage)
  • Buffer (grant bonuses)
  • Chessmaster (grant actions and movement)
• Special/Control
  • Crowd control (hamper groups of enemies)
  • Blaster (damage groups of enemies)
  • Lockdown (remove a single target from the combat for a period of time)

If I understood that correctly, then I think you are describing, not roles in the 4e sense, but what I and others have been calling functions.

For example, if I want to make a Cleric of the god of Healing or Peace who demands a vow of pacifism from it's followers, but doesn't leave them helpless in combat by granting them abilities to hinder or calm enemies, I would do so mechanically combining the functions of:

• Healer (heal damage)
• Crowd control (hamper groups of enemies)
• Lockdown (remove a single target from the combat for a period of time)

4e had some excellent ideas, that no one should have nothing to do during part of the game was one of them. That this then means everyone has to contribute in one of a few pre-packaged ways was not.

To answer the original question, I think Roles should be replaced by smaller and more flexible Functions. I think players, and certainly GMs need to be able to shuffle them around without kowtowing to how WotC thinks they should go together.

I think you could make a pretty good case for organizing spell lists along the lines of functions (in theory they always have been) and adding them to a list of mundane and other power/abilites and letting people construct classes by picking a few from column A and column B.

Probably this won't happen, although I think we will see a bit of this with the module approach to class design. Some guidelines in the GM on how to construct or modify classes would suffice.

 

[Minigiant]

If I understood that correctly, then I think you are describing, not roles in the 4e sense, but what I and others have been calling functions.

For example, if I want to make a Cleric of the god of Healing or Peace who demands a vow of pacifism from it's followers, but doesn't leave them helpless in combat by granting them abilities to hinder or calm enemies, I would do so mechanically combining the functions of:

• Healer (heal damage)
• Crowd control (hamper groups of enemies)
• Lockdown (remove a single target from the combat for a period of time)

4e had some excellent ideas, that no one should have nothing to do during part of the game was one of them. That this then means everyone has to contribute in one of a few pre-packaged ways was not.

To answer the original question, I think Roles should be replaced by smaller and more flexible Functions. I think players, and certainly GMs need to be able to shuffle them around without kowtowing to how WotC thinks they should go together.

I think you could make a pretty good case for organizing spell lists along the lines of functions (in theory they always have been) and adding them to a list of mundane and other power/abilites and letting people construct classes by picking a few from column A and column B.

Probably this won't happen, although I think we will see a bit of this with the module approach to class design. Some guidelines in the GM on how to construct or modify classes would suffice.

Roles are a combination of Functions. One of the biggest mistakes of 4e is not being clear with the functions of the biggest. Among other things.

Players and DMs will have to kowtow partially to WotC's vision. D&D will always use classes. 80% of the Functions will be tied into a class feature or have its effective based on the class performing the function.

Traditional being a Meatshield requires High AC and High Armor. Traditional rogues don't have high AC and high HP. So if you want your rogue to function as a Meatshield, you'll have to roll high, spend feats, or multiclass. Now it would be a Heavy with a Meatshield focus. He might not be able to perform all the functions of a Heavy until he reaches higher levels. To be a complete Heavy at lower levels, the character would have to pick a class with Heavy as their natural role.

I want the designers to have natural roles for the classes in mind and make sure every class/race has a uniques collection of natural functions. But each class should be allowed to fulfill functions outside of their natural functions and have roles outside of their natural roles. Of course, they can't write any of this in the books as D&D fans don't like being told what to do. But they should keep roles and functions, natural and additional, in the back of their minds.

 

[Khaalis]

Personally I like the idea Fantasy Craft uses for roles. They are loose enough to not be restrictive and they are merely a summary of what the class is designed to do the best. They also cover all areas of the party needs, not just combat roles. I don't personally see a need to separate the Combatant role into the 4E roles.


Party Role: A short entry in each class that suggests the primary ways in which the class can contribute to the success of a party. Most classes can (and often do) fill multiple roles.
There are five main party roles:
* Backer: Improves the party’s performance
* Combatant: Good at fighting
* Specialist: Masters of one or more skills
* Solver: Excels at plot advancement and information gathering
* Talker: The face. Great with NPCs and social situations

Additionally a few classes are described as Wildcards: classes the have enough going on that they can fill in for two or more of the other roles depending on
how their abilities are developed.


Examples:
Assassin = Talker/Combatant
Bard = Talker/Backer
Cleric = Wildcard/Backer
Fighter = Combatant
Ranger = Combatant/Solver
Rogue = Specialist/Combatant
Warlord = Backer/Combatant
Wizard = Wildcard

 

[Herschel]

This is simply not true. If I want to roleplay my character as a cowardly, weak guy who is always picked on, etc., it is going to stretch credulity to the breaking point if I'm playing a 4e defender type role where I have to be able to absorb large amounts of punishment, be in the front lines in combat, etc.

Playing a "cowardly, weak guy" doesn't fit with with any of the defenders' classes. In fact, it really doesn't fit in a game of heroes period, outside of a few corner cases. The Fighter has always been a strong guy, never weak so your analogy really falls apart. You can play a cowardly fighter, sure, but then you're not playing to the strengths the character has.

 

[dagger]

Playing a "cowardly, weak guy" doesn't fit with with any of the defenders' classes. In fact, it really doesn't fit in a game of heroes period, outside of a few corner cases. The Fighter has always been a strong guy, never weak so your analogy really falls apart. You can play a cowardly fighter, sure, but then you're not playing to the strengths the character has.

When you roll stats you don't always get what you want.

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, I know it would never gain traction in "core" D&D, but I'd love to see a variant rules module where the support abilities of the cleric and the spellcasting of the mage get rolled into a single "spellcaster" class.

I know the tendency is to think that such a class would be overpowered, but I suspect that if a wizard could only heal "out of combat," and had to save some of his magical energy for that, it MIGHT reign in his ability to dominate the game with his spells. In the end, its world role would probably end up a little bit like the Shugenja from 3e's Oriental Adventures.

I know it's a somewhat radical idea, but I'd honestly like to see it tested. Thoughts?