Should There Even Be Roles?

[Klaus]

I know that 4th edition can handle class diverse archetypes within each class. I just think adding role descriptors to various classes/builds adds a needless level of complexity to the game.
D&D players have made it through 30+ years without roles so, to my mind, doesn't need them. Leave roles to player imagination and their sense of teamwork (which should be fostered by a good DM).

As I mentioned upthread, D&D has had roles since the beginning. Fighters had the best armor and the most hit points, and it was a fighter's "duty" to stand on the frontlines keeping monsters away from the squishy wizard. The cleric's "duty" was to heal his companions, deal with undead and call down blessings to help his allies. Etc.

Roles have been in D&D for 30 years, except now they're summarized in a class' description to make it easier to choose what you want to play.

 

[Li Shenron]

One of the complaints about the classes in 4e was they felt too constrained in what they were supposed to do. The idea that each class had a main role just made them feel inflexible compared to previous editions.

Should they even try to have suggested roles for each class in 5e, at all?

I think it was useful for some classes when they defined what they should do, it helped focus some. But I see more of a need to vary what each can do, some might want a Fighter to be a defender and some might want them to be a striker, like they tried with subclasses.

I think there's some need to have the roles be slightly looser. But I guess it might help for some if classes had different focuses/disciplines to determine the kind of things they should try in the game.

Traditional D&D classes (Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric) have a cultural role but also of course a general practical role, but they are starting points. The spellcasters especially can develop into completely different roles in battle, exploration or downtime. Fighters are naturally more limited, but at least there should be room enough for duelists, meat-shields/defenders, battle leaders, snipers and maybe a few more.

I think 4e put too much thinking and reverse engineering effort, and ended up with "(tactical) roles" that are more limiting than anything else (especially limiting to the designers themselves). It was an interesting analytical job to define those roles, but they should have been used as DM's guidelines for dealing with the PCs, not for players to base their characters upon.

 

[AlioTheFool]

So... making a bard with a "Street Performer" background that grants Thievery as a class skill is out of the question?

Not trying to pick on you, but I've seen this complaint a lot, that "the rules don't allow me to play the character I want", when IME the 4e rules offer a far broader range of archetypes than any other edition of D&D.

I've heard this argument more times than I can count already. It's not that it's "out of the question" so much as it is, "that's not what I want."

Sure, you have a range of archetypes in 4E. However, I'm not looking for a specific "type." If I choose Bard as my class, I'm a Bard. I have a finite choice of powers, and regardless of what your take on 4E might be, mine is that my character is defined by my powers.

The majority of my games are combat focused. Probably 90% of game time in 4E is spent in-combat. Therefore, whatever class mix my character is, is the character I'm playing. That shapes the limited time spent within the role-playing aspect of the game.

I want to play a Bard who spits out a mocking limerick, then throwing a fireball at the enemy, then sneaking around its back to stab it in the back.

Is that the game everyone wants? Probably not. But we're all putting in our $.02 on this, and that's mine.

 

[Klaus]

I've heard this argument more times than I can count already. It's not that it's "out of the question" so much as it is, "that's not what I want."

Sure, you have a range of archetypes in 4E. However, I'm not looking for a specific "type." If I choose Bard as my class, I'm a Bard. I have a finite choice of powers, and regardless of what your take on 4E might be, mine is that my character is defined by my powers.

The majority of my games are combat focused. Probably 90% of game time in 4E is spent in-combat. Therefore, whatever class mix my character is, is the character I'm playing. That shapes the limited time spent within the role-playing aspect of the game.

I want to play a Bard who spits out a mocking limerick, then throwing a fireball at the enemy, then sneaking around its back to stab it in the back.

Is that the game everyone wants? Probably not. But we're all putting in our $.02 on this, and that's mine.

Mocking limerick -> Bard implement power.
Fireball -> multiclass to take an area-of-effect fire spell (bonus: pick this power from the Sorcerer so it is Charisma-based)
Sneak -> Training in Stealth
Hit in the back -> Bard weapon power.

 

[TrippyHippy]

As I mentioned upthread, D&D has had roles since the beginning. Fighters had the best armor and the most hit points, and it was a fighter's "duty" to stand on the frontlines keeping monsters away from the squishy wizard. The cleric's "duty" was to heal his companions, deal with undead and call down blessings to help his allies. Etc.

Roles have been in D&D for 30 years, except now they're summarized in a class' description to make it easier to choose what you want to play.

No they have not. This is purely a revisionist history. 'Roles' as they are defined in 4th Edition were introduced in 4th Edition. And I don't ever recall a clamour of players struggling to choose a class in any previous edition whatsoever. The only thing 'Roles' made easier to choose was whether you wanted to play 4th Edition or not.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No they have not. This is purely a revisionist history. 'Roles' as they are defined in 4th Edition were introduced in 4th Edition. And I don't ever recall a clamour of players struggling to choose a class in any previous edition whatsoever. The only thing 'Roles' made easier to choose was whether you wanted to play 4th Edition or not.

Didn't fighters have the most hit points and the best armor? Is that revisionist?

I'd say even more than that it is just a D&D thing. I believe it's a thing in any combat game. The only thing you may not have is that every class has a specific role, or that a class only fullfills one role.
But is it really ever not a bad idea to bring damage to a combat, to be able to take damage, to be able to reduce the enemies combat abilities, and to buff and heal your group? I doubt it, you always want this.

The questions rather are: Do we care that all classes can fulfill one role? Do we really only want to look at combat roles? Do we care whether a party can cover the roles? Do we care if players can guesttimate whether they cover the roles or not?

Previous editions didn't care. Fighters may have been defenders and strikers in one, CoDzillas become defender/striker/leaders after 3 rounds of buffing, and you had no idea until you encountered your first combat encounter that a Rogue, a Monk and a Bard make a lousy party in combat.

 

[Klaus]

No they have not. This is purely a revisionist history. 'Roles' as they are defined in 4th Edition were introduced in 4th Edition. And I don't ever recall a clamour of players struggling to choose a class in any previous edition whatsoever. The only thing 'Roles' made easier to choose was whether you wanted to play 4th Edition or not.

"Fighters can be found at the front of any battle, contesting toe-to-toe with monsters and villains".
"[The cleric] is both protector and healer. He is not purely defensive, however".
"[The wizard] is weak in a toe-to-toe fight, but when prepared he can strike down his foes at a distance, vanish in an instant, become a wholly different creature, or even invade the mind of an enemy and take control of his thoughts and actions".
"Thieves are weak in toe-to-toe hacking matches, but they are masters of the knife in the back".

AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, 1989.

 

[TrippyHippy]

"Fighters can be found at the front of any battle, contesting toe-to-toe with monsters and villains".
"[The cleric] is both protector and healer. He is not purely defensive, however".
"[The wizard] is weak in a toe-to-toe fight, but when prepared he can strike down his foes at a distance, vanish in an instant, become a wholly different creature, or even invade the mind of an enemy and take control of his thoughts and actions".
"Thieves are weak in toe-to-toe hacking matches, but they are masters of the knife in the back".

AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, 1989.

Selecting comments in isolation like this simply reinforces the notion that you only see what you want to see (and they aren't even good quotes!). D&D is/should not be just a combat orientated game and each class description offered a lot more than just a pigeonholed combat role - and you are just grinding in on a limited aspect of each class.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Didn't fighters have the most hit points and the best armor? Is that revisionist?

I'd say even more than that it is just a D&D thing. I believe it's a thing in any combat game. The only thing you may not have is that every class has a specific role, or that a class only fullfills one role.
But is it really ever not a bad idea to bring damage to a combat, to be able to take damage, to be able to reduce the enemies combat abilities, and to buff and heal your group? I doubt it, you always want this.

The questions rather are: Do we care that all classes can fulfill one role? Do we really only want to look at combat roles? Do we care whether a party can cover the roles? Do we care if players can guesttimate whether they cover the roles or not?

Previous editions didn't care. Fighters may have been defenders and strikers in one, CoDzillas become defender/striker/leaders after 3 rounds of buffing, and you had no idea until you encountered your first combat encounter that a Rogue, a Monk and a Bard make a lousy party in combat.

D&D isn't just a combat game, and not everybody plays D&D, or selects a Class to play purely on tactical combat grounds.

 

[hanez]

"Fighters can be found at the front of any battle, contesting toe-to-toe with monsters and villains".
"[The cleric] is both protector and healer. He is not purely defensive, however".
"[The wizard] is weak in a toe-to-toe fight, but when prepared he can strike down his foes at a distance, vanish in an instant, become a wholly different creature, or even invade the mind of an enemy and take control of his thoughts and actions".
"Thieves are weak in toe-to-toe hacking matches, but they are masters of the knife in the back".

AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, 1989.

I think that you took the time to find those quotes shows very little about classes in 2e D&D. For example the wizard or the cleric could have any role depending on what spells and schools you focussed on. A necromancer would be very different then and evoker or a illusionist. Taking away these options and narrowly focusing on a classes "role" in battle was introduced in 4e, in my opinion.