D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

Eirikrautha · Jan 21, 2015

There's a big difference between players choosing roles and roles encouraged and enforced by the rules. I think that is part of the disconnect in this discussion. As I stated in my first post, I have no doubt that some tables played with and formalized combat roles. More power to them. But the mechanics of the game did not force or reward such roles until post 2e. This is because 1e and pre-splat 2e didn't have "builds" per se. The rules (and monsters, etc.) did not mandate increasing numerical challenges to the point where non-optimized characters were impotent. What later editions called "roles" were actually tactics that were open to all characters. The only roles that were enforced by the mechanics of the game were the class roles that were exclusive to each class (like thief's skills).

The more recent roles of striker or controller represent tactical choices that were available to most classes in early editions, based on circumstance (a thief would need surprise and backstabbing to be the striker for a particular encounter, a wizard might need space for the fireball, a cleric might need to be fighting undead, etc.). Unlike modern editions, the character was not built by the player to maximize the chances of filling one role at the exclusion of others, nor did the math of the game require it.

This is the primary objection to the conflation of roles and 5e. No one cares if your table decides to use roles in your tactics. Have fun! Seriously!

But under no circumstances should roles like striker or controller be explicitly supported by WotC for 5e (though I have no problem with character choices that provide options. If your table wants to use these feats to specialize, I'm glad they are available for you). But 5e is not and should not be in the business of formalizing roles and encouraging build specialization. These mechanics preclude the kind of fun that happens at my tables (one reason I and my friends are leaving Pathfinder for 5e). So 5e's absence of explicit roles is a good thing for us.

Jester David · Jan 21, 2015

5e has returned to the vague roles of 3e. They include such gems as: skill monkey, face/diplomancer, tank, meat shield, healer, buffer, debuffer, crowd control, AoE damage, melee damage, ranged damage. Or combinations of two.

SirAntoine · Jan 21, 2015

Eirikrautha said:
There's a big difference between players choosing roles and roles encouraged and enforced by the rules. I think that is part of the disconnect in this discussion. As I stated in my first post, I have no doubt that some tables played with and formalized combat roles. More power to them. But the mechanics of the game did not force or reward such roles until post 2e. This is because 1e and pre-splat 2e didn't have "builds" per se. The rules (and monsters, etc.) did not mandate increasing numerical challenges to the point where non-optimized characters were impotent. What later editions called "roles" were actually tactics that were open to all characters. The only roles that were enforced by the mechanics of the game were the class roles that were exclusive to each class (like thief's skills).

The more recent roles of striker or controller represent tactical choices that were available to most classes in early editions, based on circumstance (a thief would need surprise and backstabbing to be the striker for a particular encounter, a wizard might need space for the fireball, a cleric might need to be fighting undead, etc.). Unlike modern editions, the character was not built by the player to maximize the chances of filling one role at the exclusion of others, nor did the math of the game require it.

This is the primary objection to the conflation of roles and 5e. No one cares if your table decides to use roles in your tactics. Have fun! Seriously!

But under no circumstances should roles like striker or controller be explicitly supported by WotC for 5e (though I have no problem with character choices that provide options. If your table wants to use these feats to specialize, I'm glad they are available for you). But 5e is not and should not be in the business of formalizing roles and encouraging build specialization. These mechanics preclude the kind of fun that happens at my tables (one reason I and my friends are leaving Pathfinder for 5e). So 5e's absence of explicit roles is a good thing for us.

The roles are unique to 4e, and shouldn't be thought of as "the defining roles" for PC's. They are examples of roles, which came with unique mechanics to support them. There is as much or more strategy to thinking of your own tactics than specializing like this.

SirAntoine · Jan 21, 2015

SteveC said:
Man it's good to see that 4E is still on everyone's hate list.

To answer the question: the roles are pretty much the same as they've always been, it's just that they've gone away from talking about them. The toughest role to fill from what I've seen is really the defender, since it's pretty difficult to keep monsters from getting around you in this edition.

The most recent 5E game I was in had a player (a teenager) say "get behind the meat-shield," which made my curmudgeonly old heart happy , as I was saying the exact same thing in the late 70s.

Was that player explicitly thinking of his role as a defender? Of course not, but he realized that the wizard was squishy, but also able to end the combat immediately with his spells if he could only stay alive. And the cleric was the only one who was going to keep everyone on their feet through all of the battles. Yep, pretty much roles, same as in the 70s.

A few similarities existed, yes, but there is nothing "of hate for 4e" in saying the defender role was invented in 4e. The terms, striker, controller, and leader, of course, bear the least similarities to the traditional "roles" characters would play. By roles, what we should be talking about is our characters themselves. They are the main characters in a story, called a role playing game. To redefine roles as their tactical positions in combat, on the team, is a disservice. So I would say the tactical positions invented by 4e are not traditionally so much a part of the game, and they are not in 5e now. Little could be more different, in fact, than strikers, leaders, and controllers.

Ratskinner · Jan 21, 2015

Pickles JG said:
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.

This is along the lines that I would quibble with the idea that 4e's roles were "always there". Playing in a 1e group makes it very obvious to me that the Old-School Fighter types are all basically striker AND defender, while the rogues are utility/skill-monkeys and not terribly effective in any of 4e's roles. Clerics still have some "leader-y" abilities, but they don't play very much that way because of the heavy restrictions of spell use in combat....more like a B-grade fighter with a refillable potion of healing for after the fight. Wizards....well, maybe they play as controllers for a few levels in the middle before breaking the game (or the campaign ends), but much like rogues they generally don't do anything well...except for once in a blue moon completely owning the joint. (All of this, of course, IME and IMO.)

Did Old-School have roles? Sure, but they weren't the same as 4e's. Those took a few decades of evolution (both within and without D&D) to clearly develop. (And I've seen folks argue that 4e got it wrong, at that! :erm:

)

In any case, from what I've seen with 5e, its a lot less dependent on having all the "exact right party composition" boxes checked than any of the previous editions. YMMV, of course.

SteveC · Jan 21, 2015

SirAntoine said:
A few similarities existed, yes, but there is nothing "of hate for 4e" in saying the defender role was invented in 4e. The terms, striker, controller, and leader, of course, bear the least similarities to the traditional "roles" characters would play. By roles, what we should be talking about is our characters themselves. They are the main characters in a story, called a role playing game. To redefine roles as their tactical positions in combat, on the team, is a disservice. So I would say the tactical positions invented by 4e are not traditionally so much a part of the game, and they are not in 5e now. Little could be more different, in fact, than strikers, leaders, and controllers.

I think this is just one area where we're going to have to agree to disagree. Roles in D&D are as old as setting up the marching order or picking out which spells to use.

I get that anything that even smells vaguely like 4E causes people to become upset, but perhaps if you think of it using different words "meat shield," "squishy," "glass cannon," "medic!" or something similar it won't be as upsetting. Or not. You don't have to officially acknowledge the roles to be effective at combat in D&D, they come out of things that just make sense.

A fighter protecting other physically weaker characters? That's being a defender. A wizard dropping spells like sleep, hold person or using a Wall spell to segment off the battlefield? Control. Clerics keeping the group alive and casting spells like Bless? Leader. And any character who's optimized for damage, especially spiked damage? Striker.

I think the big thing that happened in 5E that makes people think roles are gone is what they did to the fighter: the defender options have been lessened a lot and the class now is back to doing more damage. The thing is, the defender role is something that a lot of different classes can do now if they use the right feats. But the high hit point and AC character being a meat shield? Still there.

So yeah, don't agree with pretty much anything you wrote, other than how it's all about the characters and a good story. We can agree there.

BryonD · Jan 21, 2015

SteveC said:
I think this is just one area where we're going to have to agree to disagree. Roles in D&D are as old as setting up the marching order or picking out which spells to use.

I get that anything that even smells vaguely like 4E causes people to become upset, but perhaps if you think of it using different words "meat shield," "squishy," "glass cannon," "medic!" or something similar it won't be as upsetting. Or not. You don't have to officially acknowledge the roles to be effective at combat in D&D, they come out of things that just make sense.

A fighter protecting other physically weaker characters? That's being a defender. A wizard dropping spells like sleep, hold person or using a Wall spell to segment off the battlefield? Control. Clerics keeping the group alive and casting spells like Bless? Leader. And any character who's optimized for damage, especially spiked damage? Striker.

I think the big thing that happened in 5E that makes people think roles are gone is what they did to the fighter: the defender options have been lessened a lot and the class now is back to doing more damage. The thing is, the defender role is something that a lot of different classes can do now if they use the right feats. But the high hit point and AC character being a meat shield? Still there.

So yeah, don't agree with pretty much anything you wrote, other than how it's all about the characters and a good story. We can agree there.

But you don't have to agree.

You don't have to do anything.

If you would like to understand the situation then you should try to understand that for a lot of people (clearly not all, but a lot) D&D was played for many years and character "roles" existed within the narrative and flowed naturally without being bolted into the mechanics. It is a different way of going at it. Clearly not everyone played prior editions this way. I'll readily admit I was surprised to learn that what would now be called "the 4E perspective" was reasonably common. But 4E embraced that one perspective. Which is great for people who love that perspective.

But when you say that roles, as defined in the context of 4E, are as old as setting marching order, you are simply showing a lack of awareness of who MANY other people experienced the game, and frankly, a lack of open-mindedness to accepting this reality. There is nothing remotely wrong with enjoying your version. But it is not constructive to blindly reject that there are differences between your preference and others.

Mark CMG · Jan 21, 2015

I think earlier editions allowed for some specialization without pigeonholing characters. It depended more on how lucky you were with the stat rolls.

BryonD · Jan 21, 2015

Mark CMG said:
I think earlier editions allowed for some specialization without pigeonholing characters. It depended more on how lucky you were with the stat rolls.

Agreed.

But I don't know that it is even just that. It can be hard to really describe.
In very gross terms, in other editions your character could play a role. In 4E your role could be expanded into a character.

DEFCON 1 · Jan 21, 2015

Seems to me... the real reason why defined roles played such a part in 4E's design was purely a matter of mechanical *balance* in the design of classes for combat. The roles gave the designers benchmarks to make sure that any particular class they made had something useful to do and usually unique to it's power source during combat. It was made rather clear to everyone that in 3E, the bard seemed to be underpowered at most tables compared to other classes in combat. The monk tended to be underpowered. The cleric and high-leveled wizards tended to be overpowered. So with the desire in 4E to shave down these imbalances, they came up with things via roles that they could make sure every class could do so that there wasn't these imbalances. Bards had features and powers that made them on par with clerics, especially in regards to healing. Warlocks got damage boosts so that they weren't a poor man's blaster wizard. The designers could say "This is what a class in X role should be capable of accomplishing", and then make sure their class design reflected that.

But now for 5E... they are proficient enough in the building of more balanced classes that they didn't need to proscribe things so heavily. They could see (both via the eye and via the math) what classes *should* be able to bring to the table because of all the experience they brought in from 4E, and could thus *merge* the stylistic formatting of much of 3E with the balance of 4E to create 5E. And thus the need for specific and defined "roles" was no longer necessary.

They learned from the use of proscribed roles in 4E what was required for proper class balancing, and could take those training wheels off in the design of 5E. And yet... the actual features that roles gave could still be included in the game for those that wanted them, they just didn't have to be assigned to any specific class. Everyone is now free to recreate what a role could do with any manner of class they want.

D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

Eirikrautha

First Post

Jester David

Hero

SirAntoine

Banned

SirAntoine

Banned

Ratskinner

Adventurer

SteveC

Doing the best imitation of myself

BryonD

Hero

Mark CMG

Creative Mountain Games

BryonD

Hero

DEFCON 1

Legend

Similar Threads