D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Nergal Pendragon]

I apologize; offending statements removed.

Edit: And, I spotted a tone issue with my editing note, so corrected that after facepalming.

 

[Joe Liker]

Yay, another crazy, divisive thread built entirely around a trivial semantic designation! It's like the Internet breeds them!

BOTTOM LINE:

If you are the sort of person who enjoys thinking of RPGs in terms of combat roles, those roles can easily be achieved using the 5e system.

If you are the sort of person who thinks combat roles are artificial and stupid, you don't have to give them a second thought in 5e, as they are not strictly codified or enforced.

Everyone should be aware, however, that any mix of classes can succeed quite brilliantly in 5e. I am currently running dual playtests using the same set of encounters (not designed by me) to see how a so-called "balanced" party compares with a party of four wizards (each with a different specialization, but no abjurers or evokers).

I'm happy to report that while some encounters are more difficult for one party or the other, neither group has felt useless. The all-wizard group does best when it makes creative use of its utility spells, and the balanced group recovers more easily if something unexpected happens. But the wizard group is better at expecting the unexpected, so it's fine.

I'll also note here that a Diviner and an Enchanter working in concert are extremely badass.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Respectfully, I think the question isn't "did a character ever act in a role" but "does a character primarily act in a role". I know in AD&D 2ed and 3.x (going back further is too murky) we had characters covering multiple of the "defender/striker/leader/controller" role definitions. Casters often did multiple rolls, from striker (single target and multi-target like 4e Sorcerer), controller and leader. Sometimes even tank with clerics in heavy armor or wild shaped druids. With AD&D multiclassing (and dual-classing) we'd also see characters that shifted between roles often based on the needs of the particular encounter.

now if you want to say 4e wasn't perfect... we are on the same page, it did get better about that at the end. Yes most caster could cover any role in 3e (and most roles in 2e) so could non casters but not the same way... You could make a controller fighter in 2e or 3e, but he was specialized, the wizard could just change spell prep.

The idea of roles is a useful tool to discuss, but many versions of D&D used classes for niche protection instead of roles, and any particular build could cross several of the 4e definitions of roles. This isn't putting down those roles - they worked well for the edition they are associated with, but don't have the same catch-all quality in 5e because it doesn't put up the same solid dividing lines. In 4e my runepriest can't do half the damage the ranger or thief in the party do regularly, and they can't buff and heal. But the a single 5e paladin may do some leader roles (lay on hands, granting saves), some defender roles (heavy armor, good saves and HP) and some striker roles (with divine smite and bonus to attack rolls) before even breaking out feats.

the main problem I have is that you can totally talk freely about role in 4e, but in 5e it seems to be a no go... not that sneak attack isn't a striker feature, and that there feat is a defender (one with a mark) and that certain spells are one or another...

Being a defender wasn't a fighter's role; it was a tactical consideration. In fact, during 3E days, the fighter really wasn't even good at being a tank; the paladin and barbarian were simply better at it, due either to capacity to self-heal or simply having more hit points. When you start considering dropping someone from orbit onto the enemy simply because they'll not only survive the fall, but still be capable of battle... that's when you know you've got a class that is capable of taking some serious damage. And I understand the idea of teleporting the party into orbit to kill them mostly faded away with 3E because classes like the barbarian could survive reentry.

yup, and fighter in 3e wasn't really good at much inless you put most or all of your feats toward it...

So, yes, for saying "X is a role that must exist as a player choice from character creation, and class Y must do X" 4E did invent roles. Which isn't a bad thing.

except as my example showed... years before 4e came out the idea of the warlock was the same, and MUCH easier to express using the 4e words...

3E didn't hide it. Take a look at the class options. You still have your warriors (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger). You still had your priests (cleric, druid, some say bard goes here). You still had your magic users (sorcerer, wizard, some say bard goes here). It was pretty much codified and expanded, and Pathfinder simply codified and expanded it further.

ok, so what was a monk, and warlock... I bet if you ask 100 3.5 players you can't even get half of them to agree... because they muddied the water and hide what they did...

(((To be fair 4e still wasn't perfect because it didn't openly talk about secondary and other options)))

However, must a particular magic user act as a controller or a striker? No. Must a particular martial class act as a defender or striker? No. Each class was capable, though player choices, to adjust their tactics to a particular role. Some classes were inherently better at it than others, but that didn't mean you had to go that route.

just like 4e, except you had terms and out in the open options... "Gee phb 1 says a fighter is a defender, but I can build one that does as much damage as a rogue..." "Yea, because they are secondary striker with a bit of work you can make them strikers"

And, with quite a few, you could shift between which role you were playing. A lot of the powergamers of 3E didn't shift roles, but that doesn't mean they had the best way to play. 4E kinda made it a point to codify that a particular class must fit a particular tactical consideration by assigning it that consideration. Was that bad? No, it wasn't.

it was quite good infact because it lead to open discussion around th etable about what tactics and abilities worked best...

Please read this entire section before you react. I state some things pretty bluntly, but that is just my nature. By the end, I believe you will see what I truly mean when I state them.

ok lets see...

If you are getting the vibe that saying "they made that up for 4E" is dismissing your playing style... then, yes, you are playing DnD wrong. Because you have made it so personal you cannot accept anything that you see as criticism without taking it as an attack on your playing style. I've been there and I know what it is like; that's when you must take a step back, as it is becoming a barrier between yourself and others due to your extreme investment in it.

For me, that game was 3.0E. I was heavily invested in it when it hit, and involved in some very nasty flamewars when 3.5 came out. And, in fact, when 3.5E ended and 4E was announced, I was one of the people dancing, celebrating, and rubbing it in the face of 3.5E fans. For me, 4E was victory over those who had repeatedly attacked my playing style. So, yes, I was part of the problem that helped create the divide within the DnD community which ultimately killed 4E.

Years later, looking back, I have had to eat a massive amount of crow. Because, I recognize something important: A lot of the criticisms about 3.0 were, well, right. And a lot of items I took as attacks on my playing style were not, but were simple statements of how 3.0 was. And I had to accept that some of the things I bitterly defended as being tradition because I believed what WotC said were, in fact, things created just for 3.0; that didn't make them bad or good, just different.

So, yes, I was playing DnD wrong. And now I play Pathfinder. And play 5E. And Savage Worlds. And Numenera, when I can find a game (it seems 5E is killing Numenera, from what I've seen; games are massively harder to find since 5E came out).

In any case, I think you are too personally invested right now, like I was. That is why you are taking offense to statements that are not intended to be offensive or dismissive at all. In fact, if you'll look throughout my posts, you'll notice I try my best to be supportive and make it clear I am not dismissing your play style.

my problem is that I do see there was good and bad in 4e, and things I wish 5e had, and things I'm really glade 5e didn't.... but when I come to talk about it it just seems there is always someone "correcting" people and in general being jerks...

I think you're looking at roles the wrong way.

Pretty much, the issue with roles prior to 4E isn't that they didn't exist... but that they were defined more by class. Were you a martial fighter? A divine caster? An arcane caster? A thief? Could you do the job well compared to the standard version? Those were the considerations of what a role was before 4E. Items like defender, controller, striker... these were not roles; these were tactical choices, and the same character could shift between them as the situation warranted. So, prior to 4E, there was no need to classify a character via striker, defender, controller, leader... because any particular class could potentially fill any of those roles at any moment.

to an extent you are right, but also wrong... see those terms (not even all the best ones) are ones used to explain "Hey this class does X well" something missing in other editions.

Also, you're thinking about it wrong from the issue of 5E classes. What's to stop an Eldritch Knight from acting as a striker? It comes down to which spells they pick, as quite a few evocation spells work more for the striker role than for controller (in fact, evocation in 5E kinda sucks for the controller role). What's to stop the Battle Master from acting as a striker or a leader? What's to stop the Champion from acting as a hit-and-run specialist instead of a tank?

now you lost me... that was my thought as well, so... um I don't understand,,,

You can point out how the abilities lend themselves to a certain way to play those based on how 4E did it... and I can tell you that I can see ways to play them in roles outside of what you said, without losing effectiveness, under 5E rules. It all comes down to strategy.

that's how it worked in 4e too

 

[Bluenose]

Roles were intended to limit the versatility of classes so no one class was able to manage something like 90% of the game from it's own resources, and therefore classes were going to depend on each other in a way they hadn't since some rather early in the history of D&D. 5e has discarded those limitations in favour of letting caster classes have the huge range of competencies that the FR/2e/3e paradigm insists on.

 

[Drudenfusz]

Even though I liked the clear roles in 4th Edition (yes, I also enjoy playing MMOs), I don't mind not having clear roles with 5th Edition now (just like I don't miss them in most other RPGs). Sure, the classes have still certain ideas on which they focus, but I don't see that as role, especially since with backgrounds and the class archetypes much variations get added that might change the focus. So, it is esay to have versatile characters who don't have to fit a narrow concept.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

yup, and fighter in 3e wasn't really good at much inless you put most or all of your feats toward it...

Or even if you put most or all of your feats toward it... As much as I love that edition and as much as Pathfinder improved it, I really have to admit that the 3E/Pathfinder fighter is pretty near useless as a class. That's one of the things 4E got right, and which I am happy to see passed on to 5E.

except as my example showed... years before 4e came out the idea of the warlock was the same, and MUCH easier to express using the 4e words...

The warlock was trying to be something the wizard wasn't: An arcane class with unending arcane power that didn't run out of its main power. It was during that period where WotC was releasing classes like crazy; IIRC, there's a class around the same time that operated similar to the 4E warlord.

And, I'll agree it was easier to express using 4E words. Most of the classes were. But, unfortunately, presentation is everything; while WotC may not have wanted to create an idea they were completely eliminating options, the words they chose for 4E created the appearance they were in the minds of some. They changed the way people approached the game and thought about classes. This isn't a bad thing; it gets people to think about what they're actually doing in combat. It just didn't translate into class selection in 5E and wasn't part of class selection before.

ok, so what was a monk, and warlock... I bet if you ask 100 3.5 players you can't even get half of them to agree... because they muddied the water and hide what they did...

(((To be fair 4e still wasn't perfect because it didn't openly talk about secondary and other options)))

To be fair, 3E wasn't perfect because it took the existing roles and turned the "thief" section of the classical four into the "oddball" section. The warlock was definitely arcane, but the monk tended to be more of an oddball class; it acted like a martial, except it didn't share many traits with martials. Bards also tended towards the oddball category. It didn't help that the oddball classes tended towards very niche abilities. I heard that 4E actually struggled with classifying some of them because of this, which is another reason why the 4E roles didn't transition to 5E.

just like 4e, except you had terms and out in the open options... "Gee phb 1 says a fighter is a defender, but I can build one that does as much damage as a rogue..." "Yea, because they are secondary striker with a bit of work you can make them strikers"

Can you make a 4E fighter into a controller on par with a primary controller? You can with 5E. From what I've heard from a lot of 4E vets, you can't do that with 4E with anything resembling ease, yet with 5E that ease exists and isn't archetype dependent (4 attacks using a bow at fifth level is archetype-independent and allows you to hit a lot of enemies).

it was quite good infact because it lead to open discussion around th etable about what tactics and abilities worked best...

Which existed prior to 4E as well. 3.5, 3.0, and 2E optimization discussions put massive amounts of time and math into figuring out what options were best. And it only got worse when it came to the video games, as there are massive guides out about how to powergame those. People were very, very much into the idea of discussing tactics... 4E just simplified the conversation so everyone could join in with ease. 5E appears to be trying to keep that simplification without trying to outright put classes into roles, and so far it looks like they have relatively succeeded. I'm hoping they keep it up.

ok lets see...



my problem is that I do see there was good and bad in 4e, and things I wish 5e had, and things I'm really glade 5e didn't.... but when I come to talk about it it just seems there is always someone "correcting" people and in general being jerks...

Yes, I saw that on the first page. I also intended to give you experience with how you handled them, but was waiting on a timer to run down and forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me of that.

There, done. You hopefully got the notification for it before I even finished this post.

Yes, that does happen. It happens in everything. I won't state I am innocent of it; I know I'm not. I won't state you are innocent of it either, but calling up examples to prove what I am saying would not serve the purpose of the discussion and would only needlessly escalate things; you can identify a few times you know you have done it yourself, so you don't need someone else bringing them up. Unfortunately, it is human nature for people to do that; humans like to believe we know how the world works, and we don't like to be reminded we don't actually know. You can probably name real-life examples of this where it doesn't apply to gaming.

to an extent you are right, but also wrong... see those terms (not even all the best ones) are ones used to explain "Hey this class does X well" something missing in other editions.

Perhaps. Perhaps it wasn't needed in prior editions because classes were not as beholden to it. We know wizards could be strikers or controllers; they could also be leaders or defenders as well with the right spells. People didn't play the wizard because they wanted to be an arcane controller or even knew what a controller was; they wanted to be a wizard. For a lot of people, the idea of the wizard being a class that can cast spells to control entire groups never even really crossed their mind, even if they ended up using those tactics in actual play. They just thought, "oh, hey, magic!"

4E changed that. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, it seemed like it was utterly locking roles... which meant that, for a lot of people, it did lock their roles because the primary role classification informed their thoughts about how to play the class. And even then, from what I hear from 4E vets, the edition was not forgiving for those who wanted to go outside the primary and secondary role even when they were aware they could go outside the primary role. It may just be a weakness of their builds, but I can only know the information I have at hand.

that's how it worked in 4e too

Yes. Except now, there really isn't a primary role beyond what you decide it to be.

 

[Blue]

now if you want to say 4e wasn't perfect... we are on the same page, it did get better about that at the end.

Umm, not sure how you got that from talking about how AD&D 2nd classes don't fit the same lines as 4e roles. I played lots of 4e and am still in a multi-year game. This really isn't an edition war. It's comments how things aren't always the same between all editions. Things can be different without implying one was bad.

Yes most caster could cover any role in 3e (and most roles in 2e) so could non casters but not the same way... You could make a controller fighter in 2e or 3e, but he was specialized, the wizard could just change spell prep.

Yes and no. Prior to 4e healing was explicitly divine caster, so much of the 4e leader role could only be fully covered by a cleric or druid, though buffing was much more open to all casters but not martial classes.

But if you want to take a look at that, it says that for the earlier editions, the niche that was protected was Healer, not Leader. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Not particularly relevant unless you want to get back into edition wars. It's just a sample that the boundaries of niche protection differed over time. And even there, you weren't just a healer. Both wizards and clerics could buff, but wizards could do battlefield control and area damage better than clerics and clerics could do other things. The lines for roles just weren't as clearly marked. They were more emergent from a wide selection of character choices, some of which like spells prepared were memorized. It wasn't until 4e where the codified into their design process stronger separation between the roles in order to encourage team play and strengthen niche control / stop players getting their toes stepped on by other players.

the main problem I have is that you can totally talk freely about role in 4e, but in 5e it seems to be a no go... not that sneak attack isn't a striker feature, and that there feat is a defender (one with a mark) and that certain spells are one or another...

It's reasonable but not as useful as it's been in the past. From my earlier example with the 5e paladin when a character can fit into at least 3 of the 4 roles by themselves before adding customization from feats, it's not a very strong descriptor. It's convenient shorthand, and some character will be primarily one role, but it's not the tight grouping of 4e where it was very meaningful and important for balanced party composition. In some ways it's if we tried to describe the current classes using the Chainmail names like fighting-men and magic-users. "Well, I'm a bard of valor, which am I?" It's not a clear fit, things have changed since those descriptors covered the gamut.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or even if you put most or all of your feats toward it... As much as I love that edition and as much as Pathfinder improved it, I really have to admit that the 3E/Pathfinder fighter is pretty near useless as a class. That's one of the things 4E got right, and which I am happy to see passed on to 5E.

I am scared, but hopeing that is the case..

The warlock was trying to be something the wizard wasn't: An arcane class with unending arcane power that didn't run out of its main power. It was during that period where WotC was releasing classes like crazy; IIRC, there's a class around the same time that operated similar to the 4E warlord.

The irony, My group HATED the Marshal, but loved the warlord... then again we also loved Bo9S and as I have been repeatedly told that was wrong...

And, I'll agree it was easier to express using 4E words. Most of the classes were. But, unfortunately, presentation is everything; while WotC may not have wanted to create an idea they were completely eliminating options, the words they chose for 4E created the appearance they were in the minds of some.

could not agree more... the cut and paste "what is the defender?" was the worst...

They changed the way people approached the game and thought about classes. This isn't a bad thing; it gets people to think about what they're actually doing in combat. It just didn't translate into class selection in 5E and wasn't part of class selection before.

Most people who disliked the change left, and those that got it stuck around...

To be fair, 3E wasn't perfect because it took the existing roles and turned the "thief" section of the classical four into the "oddball" section.

yup

The warlock was definitely arcane, but the monk tended to be more of an oddball class; it acted like a martial, except it didn't share many traits with martials. Bards also tended towards the oddball category. It didn't help that the oddball classes tended towards very niche abilities. I heard that 4E actually struggled with classifying some of them because of this, which is another reason why the 4E roles didn't transition to 5E.

again I think if they took the 4e roles and instead of hard coding soft explanation... this class defaults to X and plays well as Y and Z...

Can you make a 4E fighter into a controller on par with a primary controller?

nope... even in the best fighter ever is still not as good as a wizard...

You can with 5E

.
I doubt it, but I hope your right... that would make me soo happy...

From what I've heard from a lot of 4E vets, you can't do that with 4E with anything resembling ease, yet with 5E that ease exists and isn't archetype dependent (4 attacks using a bow at fifth level is archetype-independent and allows you to hit a lot of enemies).

well if you just want to hit a lot of targets, 4e can do that with bursts...

Yes, that does happen. It happens in everything. I won't state I am innocent of it; I know I'm not. I won't state you are innocent of it either, but calling up examples to prove what I am saying would not serve the purpose of the discussion and would only needlessly escalate things; you can identify a few times you know you have done it yourself, so you don't need someone else bringing them up. Unfortunately, it is human nature for people to do that; humans like to believe we know how the world works, and we don't like to be reminded we don't actually know. You can probably name real-life examples of this where it doesn't apply to gaming.

well I'm glade we can be human and talk...even if sometimes we are jerks to each other,

Perhaps. Perhaps it wasn't needed in prior editions because classes were not as beholden to it. We know wizards could be strikers or controllers;

see that was the thing, wizard and cleric and druid could do any role, and thief/rogue and fighter were more limited...


they could also be leaders or defenders as well with the right spells. People didn't play the wizard because they wanted to be an arcane controller or even knew what a controller was; they wanted to be a wizard. For a lot of people, the idea of the wizard being a class that can cast spells to control entire groups never even really crossed their mind, even if they ended up using those tactics in actual play. They just thought, "oh, hey, magic!"

4E changed that. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, it seemed like it was utterly locking roles... which meant that, for a lot of people, it did lock their roles because the primary role classification informed their thoughts about how to play the class. And even then, from what I hear from 4E vets, the edition was not forgiving for those who wanted to go outside the primary and secondary role even when they were aware they could go outside the primary role.

once again... lots of stuff that could be improved on..

It may just be a weakness of their builds, but I can only know the information I have at hand.

It was then as before easier with casters... clerics as controlers or defender or leaders or strikers... wizards same...

Yes. Except now, there really isn't a primary role beyond what you decide it to be.

If that turns out to be true I will dance in the streets... but I doubt rogue can choose controller.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If that turns out to be true I will dance in the streets... but I doubt rogue can choose controller.

It is called Alchemist's Fire/Caltrops/Acid Vial/Lamp Oil/Hunting Trap (handy mnemonic: TACAO, for Traps, Alchemist's fire, Caltrops, Acid vial, and Oil).

Any character can deal fair non-weapon damage (acid), deal ongoing damage that costs actions to end (alchemist's fire), slow a creature (caltrops), stop a creature from moving (caltrops, hunting trap), create an area of damage (caltrops, oil), etc.

Rogue, ranger, or flumph wrangler, this is available to every PC.

The one area 5e is a little conservative on here is healing -- antitoxin, sure, but a healer's kit doesn't do much that a healing potion does better. Poison is your damage buff. And longer-term injury is more subject to DM interpretation (does the Recuperating downtime activity allow you to heal from stuff that only a restoration can otherwise recover? It's a little vague...). They could do better to allow folks to be Leaders. But, then, a lot of action denial in 5e isn't as monolithic as it was before 5e (being charmed is hardly instant success!), so maybe it's fine.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I am scared, but hopeing that is the case..

I'm not scared for once. But... that's only because I've accepted that if it doesn't turn out the way I want, I have other games I can play. Anymore, I'm just not as invested in DnD as I once was. I have alternatives that can do the same thing, and I've heard there are alternatives for 4E coming out (13th Age is often cited as an example). So... if I want a 4E game, I don't need WotC for that. If I want a 3E game, I don't need WotC for that.

And, I think 5E will benefit from this. WotC is a lot more cautious these days, and I'm noticing they put a lot more effort into what they do release. Yes, they're having some teething problems... but nowhere near the teething problems they had with 3E! If anything, they seem to be having a lot of bog-standard teething problems that quite a few RPGs have early on.

So, this gives me hope... and if they fail to live up to that hope, I can go elsewhere to get my game on. I think you can too, and I hope that a lot more 4E-oriented games come out so that you keep having options. After all, 4E had a lot of potential to be the greatest edition yet. WotC failed to realize that potential but that doesn't mean someone else can't solve the problems they didn't. And, frankly, 4E players deserve that effort.

The irony, My group HATED the Marshal, but loved the warlord... then again we also loved Bo9S and as I have been repeatedly told that was wrong...

The greater irony? My group loved the idea of powers that simply didn't go away when used in a day. The warlock was a favorite class because of it. That was the first thing they didn't like about 4E. They hated the way Numenera handles starting equipment, yet praise 5E's method. They absolutely loathed the idea of a standard array of scores with 3E, yet every single one of them has talked about how it makes things so much better with 5E. And they absolutely loath Vancian casting in Pathfinder, yet praise it in 5E

Even I have to admit there are things I didn't like in other games that I do like in 5E. And, ultimately, I think it's the presentation that does it. Which is what I think was 4E's greatest failing; it had a lot of essential ideas that worked well, but the way they were presented turned a lot of off to the game. Knowing how to look, you can see those same ideas buried within 5E and the areas where 5E borrowed from other games. And even then, I think it's more an artifact of how the community was than the weaknesses of the edition that killed it; the weaknesses of 4E are not something that would have been difficult to overcome as the game progressed if it wasn't for the community having split as it did.

could not agree more... the cut and paste "what is the defender?" was the worst...

I had a hard time explaining what a striker is to a few of my group. They didn't grasp the concept as easily due to what was, for them, alien terminology. The terminology change was probably the greatest barrier they had to deal with.

Most people who disliked the change left, and those that got it stuck around...

And had fun! Some of the things from 4E I am sad to have missed include the idea of being able to face down entire armies of minions with a single stat block for them. That is one item I did hope would be carried over.

again I think if they took the 4e roles and instead of hard coding soft explanation... this class defaults to X and plays well as Y and Z...

Then most people would easily understand it. They could even have put in that they built a class with X role in mind, and then highlighted how to play it Y, Z and A to show the class can switch roles with ease. And, honestly, I wish they had released a free primary at around the time the PHB came out that did precisely that. It would be a very useful tool for helping 4E players transition, would introduce some ideas to people new to 5E, and would have allowed them to continue to use the terminology without making it as concrete as it had been before. Then, instead of topics like this, the OP would just have had to download a PDF and read through that. Make the PDF easy to print and entire groups could benefit from it and adapt quickly.

Instead, when they abandoned 4E, they abandoned it hard. Which 4E players did not deserve.

nope... even in the best fighter ever is still not as good as a wizard...

I think we both agree that should not be. And I'm hoping the end result of 5E is that it won't be a phenomenon known to the system.

I doubt it, but I hope your right... that would make me soo happy...

well if you just want to hit a lot of targets, 4e can do that with bursts...

True. Looking at the combat system, I can see why they didn't keep bursts. Which is too bad, since bursts actually fit in perfectly with certain campaigns.

well I'm glade we can be human and talk...even if sometimes we are jerks to each other,

So am I!

see that was the thing, wizard and cleric and druid could do any role, and thief/rogue and fighter were more limited...

once again... lots of stuff that could be improved on..

It was then as before easier with casters... clerics as controlers or defender or leaders or strikers... wizards same...

From what I noticed, that tended to be more of a 3E thing, and even then groups could work around it. That said, I cannot disagree that casters had massively more options in any circumstance; magic simply gave them too much versatility. 5E seems to solve that by making it so that everyone has the option of using magic. So rather than try to eliminate the problem by correcting magic, they just give everyone magic so the problem is down to how players choose to build their classes.

Now, to be honest, I don't see why 4E couldn't have accomplished it beyond WotC not figuring out how. And I am very sorry they didn't. I also think they should have put more effort into the edition.

If that turns out to be true I will dance in the streets... but I doubt rogue can choose controller.

Rogues can choose Arcane Trickster and make the right spell selections for that and do it easily