How many roles should there be?

[Mokona]

If roles were separated from classes, how many are there?

It's possible to make a rules engine where different fighters can choose between being built as a controller, defender, leader, or striker depending on their build. It's also possible to make a system where, depending on the tactical situation, a fighter acts in one of the different possible roles throughout the day (perhaps using stances).

But did Wizards of the Coast identify the correct roles in 4th edition? Did they shoehorn roles into a set of four (4) because there are four traditional D&D classes?

Is dealing "damage to multiple foes at once" inherently in the same role as weakening (handing out debuffs), confusing, or delaying your foe? Or is this just a mish-mash of "things wizards do"? Traditionally, wizards engage in ranged combat. Is there a melee controller in 4e that stands toe-to-toe with enemies and does those things?

Is having the "highest defenses in the game" necessarily restricted to those roles that "make it difficult for enemies to move past them or to ignore them in battle"?

Is inspiring and aiding (granting buffs) tied to healing? In many games the class that buffs allies is also the class that debuffs enemies but in 4e that's sometimes (but not always) separated between controllers and leaders. Does it make sense to have this arbitrary distinction?

Who doesn't want to be a striker? In 4e they moved towards all classes getting to attack without giving up the ability to do other things (thus healing is mostly a minor action). I would argue that the striker role should be excised because landing the killing blow is fun so why specifically give that role to only one or two characters at the table.

Should "I'm really hard to kill" be a separate fifth role (a Juggernaut concept)?

Are there more roles that Wizards R&D forgot or rolled into the "four" roles but shouldn't have? What list of roles can you identify in Dungeons & Dragons?

 

[Minigiant]

4e's combat roles were not as simplistic as people claim they are. The 4e roles are actual combinations other roles.

DEFENDER
Meatshield -take melee damage
Puller - hold enemies
Warrior- have a good basic melee attack

LEADER
Healer- heal damage at low cost
Buffer- grant bonuses
Chessmaster -grant actions and movement

STRIKER
Damage Dealer -deal heavy damage
Hunter -be able to damage any enemy on the battlefield
Escape artist -escape from/survive hostile matchups

CONTROLLER
Crowd control -hamper groups of enemies
Blaster -damage groups of enemies
Lockdown -remove a single target from the combat for a period of time

 

[Mattachine]

I would like the following roles, if not defined, then explicitly discussed:

Defender, Leader, Striker, and Controller (as above)

Soldier (melee controller)
Beacon (ranged/area leader)
Artillery (ranged striker)
Guardian (area defender)

Expert (does best in non-combat, skill-based tasks)

I understand that the last role can be overlayed on others, too.

Again, each class doesn't have to be tied to a particular role--what would be ideal for me if there was even a little discussion of how each class can fulfill different roles, maybe with some starter advice for 1st level PCs. Anyone remember that part of the 3.5 PHB2? I loved it.

 

[Aeolius]

Zero.

Role playing does not mean being shoehorned into a role.

 

[Hassassin]

As many as you want, depending on your definitions. In combat at least light infantry (high mobility and fast attacks), heavy infantry (high attack and defense) and artillery (glass cannon) are useful categories. Out of combat at least the social role and scout are probably needed in all campaigns.

Most characters shouldn't be solidly in one role, but switch from one to another at least between combats if not round to round. The lines between roles should be intentionally blurry (e.g. light, medium and heavy infantry). Characters should be able to handle at least one combat and one non-combat role well.

Strikers should be out. (The following are baseline "usual roles".) A rogue is light infantry with situational artillery power. A barbarian with a greataxe is medium infantry with high attack and high mobility. A bow ranger is artillery; a TWF ranger is light infantry.

Healing should be an out-of-combat role, but that doesn't mean no-one can have in combat healing - they just do something else most of the time. Leaders can be any role, e.g. light (bard), medium (cleric), or heavy infantry (paladin).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Roles are not something that need to be addressed mechanically period.

In a given session a character might:

Protect another party member
Solve a tricky puzzle
Kill a few foes
Find the hidden catch to open a secret door
Serve as chief spreader of bullsh to an angry barbarian chieftain
Decide to sound the retreat from a powerful foe
Gather some crucial intel from the flirty barmaid

Based on the activities I would assign the character the role of adventurer.

 

[Dausuul]

First off, "combat role" is a design tool, not a game mechanic. That design tool has been used by every D&D designer from Gary Gygax on down. Just sayin'.

That said - I would like to move away from the concept of "roles," and instead describe "functions." For instance, looking just at the combat aspect:

• Beatdown: Deal lots of damage.
• Heal: Restore allies' hit points.
• Soak: Absorb tons of punishment.
• Control: Constrain enemy movement and limit their access to juicy targets.
• Movement: Enhance allied movement and increase their access to juicy targets.
• Debuff: Apply conditions that reduce enemies' fighting ability.
• Buff: Apply conditions that boost allies' fighting ability.
• Obfuscation: Conceal the true nature of the battlefield from your enemies.
• Clarification: Expand your knowledge of the battlefield. (Given that "secret information" plays a limited role in D&D combat, this is mostly used to counter obfuscation and counts for less than the others.)
• Summon: Create more allies.

Then assign 2-3 primary functions to each class. Something like:

Assassin: Beatdown, obfuscation.
Barbarian: Beatdown, soak.
Bard: Buff, obfuscation.
Cleric: Buff, heal.
Druid: Summon, control.
Fighter: Soak, control.
Illusionist: Debuff, obfuscation.
Monk: Movement, buff, clarification.
Paladin: Soak, heal, clarification.
Ranger: Beatdown, movement.
Rogue: Movement, obfuscation, clarification.
Sorceror: Beatdown, movement.
Warlock: Debuff, summon.
Warlord: Buff, movement, clarification.
Wizard: Control, movement.

Classes can of course dabble in other functions; the wizard is a notorious dabbler. But a class should always be among the best at its primary functions, and distinctly second best at the others.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Each class should have three builds that fit into each role: a support class, a defender class, and a controller class. Striker damage should be rolled into each. Maybe future splatbooks could introduce a "generalist" build that is more versatile.

At least in combat. In the other two pillars I don't know how you'd do a take on them. But everyone in combat should be balanced. None of this "Hey this guy is a combat expert so when the DM calls for a social encounter he has to be bored for an hour." or vice versa.

 

[Herschel]

The four combat roles have always been there so keeping them is probably the best way to go as they're not "straightjackets" as some edition warriors try to tell us because for one things, the roles aren't "pure" for any class and you can build classes towards different goals/roles. Just look at the Fighter:

A Great Weapon Fighter can pump out the damage.

A Brawler or Polearm Fighter can control a large swath of ground.

A Sword & Board Fighter can better protect nearby allies.

 

[Aeolius]

First off, "combat role" is a design tool, not a game mechanic. That design tool has been used by every D&D designer from Gary Gygax on down. Just sayin'.

The four combat roles have always been there so keeping them is probably the best way to go as they're not "straightjackets" as some edition warriors try to tell us ...

I always thought the older designations, "meat shield", etc., were mainly jokes, not game mechanics. Granted, I have never considered any of my characters to have "combat roles".