D&D 5E How would you like 5e to handle combat roles.

[Bedrockgames]

Technically, there weren't formal roles in early D&D. If you've ever heard someone say 'we need a cleric' (or fighter, or theif or magic-user), though, you know that roles existed, even if they weren't called that.
I?

That is a lot different from the way roles were used as a narrow measure during class design in 4E IMO. I think you end up with a very different final product that way, for good or bad. As an example a wizard was far more versatile in ad&d or 3e. They had "controller spells" (though honestly know one would have used that word to describe them) but they also had spells for doing lots of damage to a single target, for animating the dead, for teleportation, for creating illusions, etc. The role of a thief in previous editions was built almost entirely around non combat. Their backstabbing wasn't all that great to boot, so the striker thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The thief really wasn't much of a combat class. He was the trap guy, the climber, the theif, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's more a matter of the classes being balanced than roles. Fighters got a lot of new toys in 4e, because they'd never had many toys. Wizards got paired down substantially because they'd had far too much. Rogues got to be useful in combat, because being useless in combat really sucked.

Roles helped in class design, clearly, but they aren't solely responsible for the changes to classes - improvement in class balance was a major factor, too.

If 5e wants to return classes to more familiar forms it doesn't have to abandon formalized roles - which are a useful construct - to do so, it just has to use /different/ formalized roles...

... well, and abandon class balance.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's more a matter of the classes being balanced than roles. Fighters got a lot of new toys in 4e, because they'd never had many toys. Wizards got paired down substantially because they'd had far too much. Rogues got to be useful in combat, because being useless in combat really sucked.

Roles helped in class design, clearly, but they aren't solely responsible for the changes to classes - improvement in class balance was a major factor, too.

If 5e wants to return classes to more familiar forms it doesn't have to abandon formalized roles - which are a useful construct - to do so, it just has to use /different/ formalized roles...

... well, and abandon class balance.

Yes but the roles are why wizards are so narrowly defined.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes but the roles are why wizards are so narrowly defined.

No, that was going to happen regardless. When the decision is made that no class should be able to do everything, the class that could previously do everything is going to have its options curtailed and its definition narrowed. That's just how it is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, that was going to happen regardless. When the decision is made that no class should be able to do everything, the class that could previously do everything is going to have its options curtailed and its definition narrowed. That's just how it is.

That is an issue of roles not simply an issue of balance. They cold have made a balanced version of D&D that let wizards do everything every other class does, but balanced it out in some other way. The roles are there to establish balance through parity and specialization.

 

[Andor]

'Formal roles' is a distinction without a difference. There have been different classes with different roles throughout D&Ds history.

Yes, 3e first formalized them as iconic class roles, and 4e first formalized them independent of class. In between MMOs adopted formalized roles - in immitation of D&D!

Roles are nothing new, only the labels are new. To argue otherwise is absurd - and, really, whats the purpose of doing so, anyway? If you get role excised from the game, you'll still have characters who are tanking, healing, blasting, and so forth, anyway, it'll just be a tad harder to explain to new players, and require a little more circumlocution to pull a decent party together.

This whole thing smacks of rejecting a concept /only/ because it's found in 4e.

I disagree.

Early D&D had no roles except healer, blaster and meatshield. The thief was there to deal with enviromental hazards like traps and locks and was usually considered the most disposable 'role' in a party IME.

There was no explicit controller, although either the Mage or Druid could serve as one with the right spells. There was no explicit defender although a Fighter or Cleric could tank if needed. There was no striker at all, although a high level mage was unquestionably the big guns of the game. We called him a blaster.

There was no leader, that term did not exist until 4e invented it as a fig leaf to cover the term "healer".

3e formalized the Fighter, Wizard, cleric and rogue as the iconic 4 classes. That's not the same as roles. They upped sneak attack damage to make the Rogue more attractive which led to his serving as a striker, and led to later "Glass cannon" variants like the Ninja.

There was no such thing as a leader in the 3e lexicon. There was a non-critical job as a buffer. That role could be filled by a Cleric or Bard or possibly a Mage. Later the Artificer.

There was also a Healer. This was a Cleric or druid or maybe a Bard. Later there was the ... Healer.

3e design space was not constrained by roles and was richer for it. Totemists, Binders, Monks, Bards, Druids, Beguilers, Duskblades, Dragon Shamans, Warlocks, Sword Sages.

You could generate some pretty good arguments trying to pidgeonhole those classes into a 4e style role. Does that make them bad classes?

Again, the 4 explicit roles are straightjackets that suit one specific style of play under a specific set of circumstances. Outside of that "Kick-in-the-door" tactical map dungeon crawl they are nothing but a hindrance.

 

[Dausuul]

Early D&D had no roles except healer, blaster and meatshield.

Also known as "leader," "striker/controller," and "defender." This is a semantic quibble. Aside from splitting out striker from controller, 4E uses the exact same roles.

If you think early 4E's implementation of roles was far too dogmatic and rigid--I agree with you. Early 4E in general was far too dogmatic and rigid. But the idea that roles, and those specific roles, didn't exist previous to 4E is just wrong.

 

[Herschel]

What I don't want for example are three defender builds, or three controller builds. I want to be able to take a class and use it's options to build whatever I can think of with what I have. If I want an archer type fighter I don't want to be told I can play a ranger and flavor it to be a fighter.

Sure a fighter could pick up a bow and use it but why would you when you have all these other powers that enable you to do more damage, nevermind the fact that those powers are designed for melee and not archery.

Yet this is no different than before, see my example of my AD&D Ranger. He became a "fighter" after we started using UA and then when 2E came along, and had to remain that way in to 3E as when UA came out the Ranger became a dual-wielder. He was still the same character from edition to edition, some of his descriptive keywords just changed.

If you want to play an archer character, play the class that supports the character concept regardless of whether it's called a fighter, a ranger or a jackolantern.

Heck, for the vast majority of the game's history the Ranger is explicitely a specialized fighter.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Yet this is no different than before, see my example of my AD&D Ranger. He became a "fighter" after we started using UA and then when 2E came along, and had to remain that way in to 3E as when UA came out the Ranger became a dual-wielder. He was still the same character from edition to edition, some of his descriptive keywords just changed.

If you want to play an archer character, play the class that supports the character concept regardless of whether it's called a fighter, a ranger or a jackolantern.

Heck, for the vast majority of the game's history the Ranger is explicitely a specialized fighter.

I don't like those style of games I'm afraid. When I want to play an archer fighter I want to play an archer fighter like in 3.5/Pathfinder. When I want to play an archer ranger I will play an archer ranger.

 

[Herschel]

I don't like those style of games I'm afraid. When I want to play an archer fighter I want to play an archer fighter like in 3.5/Pathfinder. When I want to play an archer ranger I will play an archer ranger.

What "style of game"? Where you can play an armored archer character? My Two-Handed Sword-Wielding character was almost exactly the same from edition to edition.

I have an archer that I've played in 3 editions (did not play it in 3E) he's been a Fighter, a Ranger (specific subclass of Fighter) and a Ranger. He has the same personality, same armor, everything. Just a couple of keywords changed.

My dual-hammer-wielding Dwarven Fighter/Thief is still the same character but now he's a Ranger in 4E.