Should There Even Be Roles?

[DEFCON 1]

Here's what I said in the other thread that explains how I might try and structure it:

"Personally, I'd like to see the lists of Exploits, Prayers, and Spells be one big list per source, with keywords in the individidual entries to tell us which ones are defenderish, lurkerish, artillerish, leaderish, and controllerish. Then whatever Class you decide to play (which would grant you certain Class Abilities that are independent of "role" and which get better over time)... you can then start picking your Exploits, Prayers, or Spells from any of the ones in that individual big list... allowing you to play your character however you want to play.

The game would of course tell you that focusing on one or two "role keywords" would probably be a good idea so that you don't over-extend yourself and become too broad and shallow... but you would still thus be able to be a "sneaky paladin" or a "artillery fighter" or "healing druid" etc. Plus, this way all spellcasting characters could have access to Fireball if they wanted, rogues could Cleave if they wanted to pick it up, and paladins could Cure Moderate Wounds.

The biggest advantage to this is that the names of the Exploits, Prayers, and Spells return to being more iconic, because they are now in use over however many Classes you create, rather than every single class having its own list of powers."

 

[I'm A Banana]

if you want to have several "social" roles, then we can talk. The big barbarian might have the "stand there and scowl impressively" role, whatever that is called. Meanwhile, some characters are "glib and witty" and others are more "erudite and formal".

Well, I wouldn't make them exclusive, necessarily. I think the "everyone can contribute to a challenge" idea is good. Just like everyone in 4e has some access to healing (second wind and the like), everyone should have some access to a social skill check.

However, I wouldn't make the barbarian's scowl and the bard's pseudo-magical charm mechanically equivalent, either, necessarily. Not every character would be equally as good at the "talky bits" as every other character. This should be OK, like every character not being as good at healing as the cleric is.

So the Fighter is the best Warrior. If the fight is a minor challenge (a handful of goblins), she might be able to handle it herself in a die roll or 3. The thief, though, might struggle in the same situation -- he's not as great as a Warrior -- though he has some sort of "baseline ability" that he can use, if he's clever and quick, along with the environment, to gain a victory.

If the fight is a major challenge (a dragon!), the fighter won't be able to handle it herself -- she'll need the help of even the less-combat-worthy folks on her party. She'll use her own skill to help give the thief and the cleric and the wizard a leg-up, but she's clearly the vanguard of this dragon-slaying party.

In the same way, say the Cleric is the best Face. If the interaction is a minor challenge (a quick conversation with some angry gate guards), he might be able to handle it himself in a die roll or three. The wizard, though, might struggle in the same situation -- she's not as great a Face -- though she has some sort of "baseline ability" that she can use, if she's smart and careful, along with other NPC's, to gain a victory.

If the conversation is a major challenge (a royal banquet with spies!), the cleric won't be able to handle it himself -- he'll need the help of even the less-fancy folks on his party. He'll use his own skill to help give the wizard and the thief and the fighter a leg-up, but he's clearly the vanguard of this royal banquet.

And if no one wants to play the Face or the Warrior, the players are giving the DM a subtle message: "We're not really interested in this part of the game. Omit it, or use it sparingly."

To make it mechanical, let's say there's the four skills that a character could be good in (Combat, Communication, Discovery, and Exploration). Every character has a starting skill of 0 in these "skills." DC's start at 10. Everyone gets to add their level to all skills. Your class gives you a "primary skill" that gets a further +2 bonus.

So if, in a big social event involving the entire party, the 1st level Barbarian (Combat primary) scowls, she's rolling 1d20+1 vs. DC 11. If the 1st level Bard talks (Communication primary) talks, he's rolling 1d20+3 vs. DC 11.

There'd probably be further options -- this is a very simplistic take on it. But the idea isn't exclusivity, it's strengths and weaknesses.

 

[mkill]

Today I read a post in a different forum where someone complained how roles create this straightjacket for classes.

On the next page, in a different post, the same guy describes how his 3rd edition party created this great system with a tank, say a fighter in the front, a damage dealer, maybe a ranger behind him, a wizard in the middle and another tougher guy, say a druid, to shield the back.
Uh, does this remind you of anything?

 

[billd91]

Today I read a post in a different forum where someone complained how roles create this straightjacket for classes.

On the next page, in a different post, the same guy describes how his 3rd edition party created this great system with a tank, say a fighter in the front, a damage dealer, maybe a ranger behind him, a wizard in the middle and another tougher guy, say a druid, to shield the back.
Uh, does this remind you of anything?

I think the guy's looking at how his 3rd edition party chose to arrange themselves in a tactical grouping that worked for them. I think there's a psychological difference between having a few roles to choose from as a character in a class class (druids, rangers, and fighters all have some mutually overlapping leeway here) and having the role's all assigned at the class selection level.

 

[fba827]

My thoughts on roles (not that it matters, but since you asked ...)

I like the idea of roles in that it makes it easy to identify what types of things a PC can do.. in essence, 'roles' is just a broader label what each class used to tell us in prior editions.

Having said that, i've seen roles become a straightjacket and some other players expect someone twinked out in just the perceived role of that class and consider it a waste if they aren't exactly their class-assigned role to a extreme.

As such, I'd like roles. but I'd like them to be more flexible such that you could pick which role you wanted (and thus get a group of role-associated features accordingly). So roles wouldn't be hardcoded into a given class as they are now.

Monster roles, on the other hand, are something i don't want to see go away at all. it makes it quick and easy for the DM, at a glance, to see the keyword and know how to run them on the fly since DMs don't get the 'research and build' time with a monster as the players do with PCs.

 

[Herschel]

If the Fellowship had been formed by asking the question "What are their jobs?" then they wouldn't have taken Pippin. Indeed, beyond having a leader (Thorin), you didn't see all those dwarves categorised into Roles like they are in D&D.

Moreover, I don't play D&D for the tactical motivation of being part of a team. I play it because I like the drama of playing characters different to myself. That is what I call "Roleplaying".

Then why are you trying to play a group game?

fyi: Pippin was taken along because he was going to follow Frodo and Co. regardless and all available roles were already filled so that analogy falls very flat.

 

[scruffygrognard]

I think that typical roles for each class should be described in the rules, along with notes on how and why to create a balanced party.
Beyond that I don't want class roles as hardwired into the rules as they were in 4th edition. I'd prefer flexibility to be built into each class, so that players could create a swashbuckling, agile fighter or a brutish thug of a thief.

 

[Herschel]

I've never had a cleric or a druid lead the party, in any sense of the word. If anything, they tend to be reactive followers, inside and outside of combat (regardless of whether they focus on healing or not; most of them don't).

Then you obviously misunderstand the term "Leader" in the game. The leader is the type of or suite of combat abilities in the game. It has NOTHING to do with the non-combat portion of the game. They heal, add buffs/de-buffs, etc. to make themselves and the party work better in combat. It's more involved than just healing so callin gthem a "Healer" would be too restrictive and carry more negative connotations than "Leaser". Whether or not they talk to the tavern keeper afterwards is irrelevent. That's where non-combat roleplaying comes in.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I hope roles in the way they are implemented in 4E are dropped from the game. The combat roles in 4E were an artifact of the intense focus on tactical combat the game had. I prefer my game less combat based and my combat less tactical.

In combat, in editions before the third, thieves weren't great; they rarely got a chance to backstab and in every measurable way were worse than fighters. But that's ok! They have other times to shine.

Wizards without spells? I've played low-level wizards who've run out of magic dozens of times, and I have a lot of fun trying to contribute in small ways without drawing too much attention. I got to shine at other times: my magic was rare but powerful.

Character's don't have to contribute equally to combat in a non-combat focused game; some characters (I'd say, Fighters) should be better in combat than everyone else. Everyone should be able to do something, but that something can be very small and doesn't need to be built into the mechanics (my level 1 wizard, carrying torches and reloading crossbows). Everyone needs a chance to shine, but not in combat, not necessarily.

The roles that existed back then came out in play dynamically, from the strengths and weaknesses of individual characters. The flaw in some classes (Monk, say) in 3e was not that they had no role, but that their chance to shine seemed to be in combat, but in reality, they often failed to match up to that.

To be honest, the whole concept of "combat roles" as an explicit part of class definition turns me off, and very much makes me think of MMORPGs. Let the roles, such as they are, come from play, not from the explicit design of the class.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally I would be happy to see roles disappear. I think they were an experiment that turned out to be unhelpful.

Although I see them rationalised as "always being in d&d, I can't shake the feeling that they really came from the mmo world, which is where I first heard of those roles being regularly called out.

I remember that the original point of class roles was so that every class had a role that they would be ok at no matter what way you built the class after that. Many forum posters and even designers seemed to lose sight of that goal, and only considered the nominal role when talking about classes. Roles also led to the dreaded "fill in the grid" classes. Ok, weve got primal on one axis and defender on another. What can we call that class? A warden? What classic archetype is that then? oh, a primal defender...

As others have said, in previous editions everyone was effectively a striker, as caring about doing a lot of damage was vital. The Leader role was probably named to make it more attractive than the Nurse role . The wizard should never have been a controller box, it should have been far more utility.

In 5e I hope for nicely designed classes which are full of flavour and which all have options to make them good at single foes/ good at multiple foes / good at helping their mates / etc, allowing any class to contain generalists or specialists in any of those areas.

Cheers