D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[SirAntoine]

I believe you are correct. It was this familiarity with MMO terminology that sparked the criticism (rightly or wrongly) that 4e played like an MMO. With regards to 1e and 2e roles, my play experience matches yours. Any character might be called upon to be the major damage dealer (wizard vs mobs, cleric vs undead, thief with surprise, etc.) depending on the situation. No one called their character a "striker" and NO ONE built a character for a single role. The single-role building was a feature of 3e+ (my group didn't play with all the 2e splats for that reason... we saw the direction it was drifting). Early D&D focused on combat utility at our table, not on specialization, as you never knew what situation the DM was going to throw at you...

I don't know anything about MMO's, but so true. Every character was imagined as how they'd act on their own even though they would be in a party.

 

[Li Shenron]

This got me thinking, what are the actual roles in 5e now?

Anything you want to be, free for all.

For me a "role" playing game is a lot about distributing responsibilities according to each other's strengths and weaknesses. But I despise the idea of codified categories to conform to, especially since there are typically many roles assigned to each PC, and so for me blanket roles just cause unneeded restrictions on the long term.

It works much better to me to see game as a "continuum" of roles blending into each other, to the point that each spell, feat, class ability or magic item can change your overall role a little bit.

Is Defender a role now?

If you want to.

No mandatory roles doesn't mean you cannot design a PC around one from the beginning.

How necessary is the Healer?

Not at all.

I can't claim a specific number here, but if a Healer would (for instance) provide 50% healing of HP damage and other negative conditions, very roughly this may allow the DM to stretch the "adventuring day" by 50% (actually somewhat less, since a Healer doesn't restore other used daily resources such as spell slots).

However, there is absolutely no need to stretch the adventuring day. If you like adventures with more battles in each day, then stretch it, but then why not a second Healer, and a third Healer? They all stretch the adventuring day a bit more, so they are all "necessary" for someone who wants an even longer PC party resilience.

But all in all it's just an illusion. You can lower the CR of the encounters and increase the number of encounters at the same time, achieving the same stretch without healers in the party. But at the same time, not having a Healer means having someone else with other resources to make encounters easier, so you have to see the end results to judge, rather than assuming a Healer always makes the game easier.

Is Striker a unique enough set of skills to call it a roll?

Maybe.

High-damage dealer mostly has the role of speeding up a battle towards its end. That's certainly one strategic role. There are many ways to achieve this however, and at the very least there's two main options, melee striker and ranged striker. Ambusher is also a tactical variant (based on focusing all your skills on the first strike, presumably at the expense of the average) to both.

What do you think the roles that need covering are?

None.

If you mean from the point of view of what the game books provide, it's ok to suggest blanket roles for beginners. OTOH it is too restrictive to design the whole game around them, unless you want a very specific game rather than a game with endless potential.

If you mean from the point of view of a single gaming group, you can just go back to your older edition habits and use those roles (I am sure you can do so in 5e too) if it makes you feel safe, but in general terms there is no single role that is truly irreplaceable. If the game seems unplayable, try harder but also remember that your DM isn't irreplaceable either.

And how would your priorities them in a small group?

I wouldn't.

If you know something before you start playing, it makes sense to make some character design choices to suit the anticipated challenges. In that case, you can agree on some priorities.

But if you don't know that, rather than worrying about 'covering' some abilities, I would worry about not 'overlapping' with other PCs. There are some abilities where overlapping doesn't have any bad side effects, but in other cases there is a risk that the better PC will always go first and fix the problem, making the second feel redundant.

 

[Pickles JG]

4E was a bit of an aberration where it comes to DnD; it tried to enforce a few roles that, realistically, had not existed before. Other roles were forced to act in ways that sometimes did not quite match to DnD norm.

It did not enforce roles - roles were descriptive it was no more necessary to cover all the roles than it is in 5e. I concur they were new to D&D. Previously roles had been classes and they were balanced around their combat & out of combat function. 4e took the view that everyone had to be balanced in combat so the role system allowed them to design characters that were strong in different ways.
(EG 2e fighters are both the most resilient and hardest hitting but limited out of combat & one dimensional in it. In 4e some of that combat power has to give)

The second point sounds like being hung up on names.
If you wanted to be a high damage melee or archer in 4e you had to be a ranger not a fighter. Or wait for the slayer subclass.
It's not ideal as Rangers have the woodsman baggage too though oddly it would be fine in a 5e background style version.
The classes were much more similar in survivability than in previous editions too.

With 5e, there are no "needed roles" covered. The 5e system is EXTREMELY forgiving...there are nigh-infinite ways of getting around or otherwise overcoming any problem...so long as the players think and play smart in stead of relying on the numbers and special abilities listed on their PC's sheet.

That said, I think the "most bases covered" party would consist of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. Any of the 'archtypes' within those would do. If the players all work together to create their characters as a cohesive, elite, fighting force that carries out adventuring like a well-oiled machine...there is virtually nothing they couldn't do. Of course, this is a blatant white-room scenario. Players don't do that. Players latch onto something interesting they want to try out, or have some particular background or 'theme' in mind for a character, etc...etc...etc. This is expected and a good thing! And I firmly believe that this way of thinking was at the forefront of the design of 5e as a system.

Anyway...I don't believe the "roles" thing plays much of a part in 5e at all. A party of all fighters would do just as well as a mix of classes....it's just that the all-fighter group would be highly specialized and need to either find ways to avoid certain situations or find ways to overcome them (oh, I don't know, maybe hire NPC's and henchmen...? Like in the olden' days of yor...).

I snipped bits but this seems pretty much correct. 4e was the same in terms of mixing up parties. (We never used to hire people in the olden days - well maybe consultants but not contractors or temps. I think the game in general has moved more to heroic fantasy story telling than Gygaxian Pv DM & resource management.)

5E is not designed with the idea of a low-damage frontline defender being viable. It can be done, but the character is probably going to die a lot; the character defends better by both being in the way and dealing a lot of damage quickly. Plus, the high monster HPs in this edition make a low-damage frontline character a bad idea.

I disagree while the frontline protection fighter with sentinel feat & a shield will do about half the damage of a great weapon style great weapon master one. Provided his allies can kill stuff he engages he can survive fine, he can dodge if he really needs to. (a party with a defender needs more team work then a load of strikers ) (FWIW I would always be the great weapon guy)

Uhhh...no. Just no.

Those "roles" didn't exist before 4e in rules or in play. Period.

Those ones didn't but classes were roles plus as I mention in my first reply in this post they were balanced across all of the (new for 5e) pillars not just combat. You did not build a 1e fighter to be versatile beyond carrying a bow a sword a big weapon & something funky as that was the limit of your build choices.

 

[Leatherhead]

There are no more roles, there are only archetypes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The real answer is that it really depends on your playstyle.

People who liked 4e's roles will argue that 4e didn't invent roles, it merely labelled and formalized them. That's not inaccurate, it's just not universal. Any point-based, race-to-0 system has four major ways to affect it: reduce the enemy's points (striker), regain your own points (leader), stop the enemy from reducing points (defender/controller) and make it easy for you to reduce their points (leader again). 5e combat hasn't gotten rid of the race-to-0 HP system, so 5e combat still "exhibits" these roles. So people that say that 4e's roles are only a 4e thing aren't quite seeing that element of it.

The reason they aren't seeing that element of it is because, for a lot of these players, combat was never what the game was "about." In 4e, a role is part of your class, part of your most defining character aspect. If you're a warlock, your *job* is to do damage. Says so right on the tin. If you're taking the warlock class because you like the fluff and want to interact with critters, that's great, but one of your defining aspects is that you do damage in combat.

In 5e, that kind of role is much lighter. Any class is capable of being a striker/leader/defender/controller, at least for a little while, perhaps with some work. Everyone can buy healing potions (and healing during combat is mostly about not being at 0 hp anymore), anyone can nova, anyone can take a few hits, anyone can impose a condition or move folks around. Some are better than others, but everyone can do a minimal amount. That's not to say that there aren't roles, just that they aren't nearly as defining as they were in 4e, and that they're more flexible -- you can be a "tanky" warlock if you really want to be. That's not necessarily what warlocks do best, but whatever, go for it. You don't need to be better at that than the fighter to be good enough to contribute. Part of that is because combat is less of a monolithic entity than it was in 4e -- being able to take 1 round of hits from the monster might be enough to handle the whole fight.

5e is also a more holistic game in that it considers combat one part of a greater whole. What you do during a fight doesn't define you. What is arguably more important is during an adventure. In that respect, 5e has brought roaring back the "roles" of earlier e's: the Warrior, the Explorer, the Speaker, and the Restorer. Less about how you perform in combat, these are about how you solve problems in an adventure (kill it, go around it, talk with it, or run through it and deal with the fallout). In keeping with 5e's philosophy, none of these roles is exclusive -- you don't "need" to be a Cleric to be a Restorer, and not every Cleric IS a Restorer. A Fighter with a half-decent Str, Dex and Cha could do all four things pretty well, though they'd be BETTER at being the Warrior. So the roles are loosely linked to class -- every class has a cylinder it fires "best" on, but it can do other stuff, too.

Which means that none of these roles -- combat roles or adventuring roles -- is definitive, and that's what a lot of people mean when they say 5e "doesn't have roles." They don't need to CARE about these roles as an element of character construction. They aren't a bad Warlock if they don't pump their damage up. They aren't a bad bard if they never take healing magic. They don't have jobs they HAVE to do. They just have things that maybe they're pretty good at by default if they want to go do it.

Which fits the way a lot of folks make characters and play D&D. Because it's a game about your character, and because you contribute through one character, having a diversity of things you can do is very, very key.

 

[Leatherhead]

Any point-based, race-to-0 system has four major ways to affect it:

Three ways. They call it the holy trinity. Here is a read for you.

But yes, it is all about being definitive VS being prescriptive.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In a tabletop rpg, the heavy handed MMO style roles aren't needed. That doesn't mean that there are not typical roles that seem to get played again and again. Here are a few roles that I have seen in multiple groups, independent of edition:

Reckless Fool- this character will be the first to react to anything remotely of interest and seek to touch/taste it as soon as possible.

Fair Weather Companion- this character will always volunteer to guard the rear, wait until the whole party has explored a room before entering, and stay near exits always ready to run.

Rabble Rouser- this character will turn any interaction encounter into a combat, whether by insult or an arrow to the face.

 

[KiloGex]

I'm going to agree with most people here, and say that roles are a thing of a past edition at this point. So long as you're playing with the basic rules (and by that I mean without any DMG alternate rules) and have a well-equipped group, you could be just as successful with 5 wizards as you could with 5 fighters. Between backgrounds, feats, archtypes, and the more free-range creativity that this edition allows, you'll be fine no matter what makeup your group is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Wait, what? Saying 4e was a depart from tradition is dissing on 4e now? I think it's pretty obvious that 4e took "traditional" D&D and went in a much different direction. That's either good or bad, depending on your preferences, but not a diss just by itself.

yes, when you spread false info like "4e created X whole cloth" when even the creaters can tell you they based it on D&D games that came before...

I am getting very sick of this whole "Your edition lost, go away" vibe I get from a lot of people around here... I played 2e,3e,and4e and am starting my first 5e campaign tonight... I have already talked to my group about roles...just like we did with Myth an Magic... there is no reason that you can't use the combat role lables in ANY edition...

2e had it as warrior/priest/magic user
3e and 4e were very similar, except 3e hid it and 4e labled it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

yes, when you spread false info like "4e created X whole cloth" when even the creaters can tell you they based it on D&D games that came before...

I'd again just like to point out the nuance here.

For some players, what 4e did with explicit roles was kind if inevitable and obvious and useful (because now you knew what you had to do!)

For some other players, what 4e did with explicit roles came out of left field and didn't seem like anything that they had experienced in the game before.

D&D is diverse. 4e absolutely did not "invent" its roles, and they are based in how D&D was played....by some people. Not everyone exposed to 4e had played with anything like them before.