L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[SkidAce]

I think this is a perfect quote that illustrates why some groups feel the "need" for roles.

In my view however explicit roles that are used to tell players how to act have no use in D&D. The negative energy cleric is having fun playin a role in his head and the system is letting him, that is awesome. Another player could play a Paladin and we could roleplay the tension that might occur with that. Or the party can purchase some healing potions, or seek out some wands of healing, or they can choose to seek lower level challenges. Or the DM can modify encounters, or supply the appropriate magic items to help alleviate the problem, or an NPC could pop in now and then. Maybe the next adventure the party encounters a troubled magical creature in the woods and if they save them, a druid in the woods offers free healing every time they visit the grove (but perhaps not to the one who radiates negative energy).

There are plenty of solutions to this "problem" (which really isn't a problem because playing your character the way you want is the very nature of the game). The least acceptable solution to me would be forcing classes into specific roles.

I think this illustrates the different types of D&D people play. I have played in games where the DM shows the purchased module and says to the players "lets see if you guys can beat the module". These games usually devolve into tactile mini wargames with much less roleplaying and I can see the need for strict roles in this type of D&D. I have also been in games where DMs use modules as guidance and form their world according to the players choices (if a player chooses a barbarian they meet his tribe, if a player roleplays a warlock their sure to include some witching sites in the world, if no one in the group chooses a healer, the DM reacts to that too). I much prefer games with an active DM who doesn't blame things on the rules. I have DM'd an all Paladin party, and all gnome party, and parties with no magic users, I do not believe it should be too onerous to run a fun game with no healers in Pathfinder.

quoted because I can't XP it twice.

We need to be able to choose, not be limited by the system. If we want a "useless" party;

Bard (playing as sage-like thief)
Quarter Staff Fighter
Wizard (Alchemist)
Rapier Fighter (displaced nobleman)

then we should have the option and the DM and players adapt. Forcing a particular class to be good at a role is no good no good.

Players of other styles/opinions can develop their group as they see fit*

Fighter (Longsword/Shield)
Cleric of Fire and Holy Flame (oww it hurts when you heal us!!)
Sneaky Rogue
Wizard (Storms and Enchantments)

It's all good.



*both actual play groups in my campaigns

 

[Bobbum Man]

Well he used a false internet meme, suggesting that the role restricts the ability to role play his character to indicate that roles are only useful to beginners. I would call that using misleading statements and hyperbole to disparage other people's playstyle.

I'm still of the opinion that people are looking for insults where none exist and taking things too personally.

I think his arguments about roles go exactly in the wrong direction. If the fan base is allergic to spelling out a concept that has existed since the game was first played, then drop the names. Use the character description to explain what a character is good at without ever mentioning the terms. If we believe the SA, the designeres are already working hard to hide all 4ed influences.
But keep using roles internally as part of the design process to give each character focus and to avoid bad classes like the Monk, Bard, Hexblade, Spellthief, Soulknife, Duelist, Marshall, Healer (of the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more)

My theory is that roles will show up in D&DN, albeit in a more implicit or malleable form. They're too handy as a design guideline not to keep around in some manner.

 

[Klaus]

I don't know. This:

I'd much rather see roles cast as advice that highlights some basic strategies that players can follow. For instance, the advice for the cleric might explain how the class excels at healing. If you're playing a cleric and want some guidance on what to do, that advice can suggest some spells and abilities, along with tactics for use during the game.

..sounds pretty much just like how roles are today. "the cleric (...) excels at healing" and advice suggesting spells, abilities and tactics is pretty much the same as saying "the cleric is a leader-type, here's how to play a leader".

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well he used a false internet meme, suggesting that the role restricts the ability to role play his character to indicate that roles are only useful to beginners. I would call that using misleading statements and hyperbole to disparage other people's playstyle.

The idea that roles are restrictive isn't false. For some people, they are restrictive.

The idea that roles are mostly for beginners is actually Mearls saying something like, "We trust you, as a player of D&D, to make the character you feel is great. Beginners kind of need to know how to be great, but by the time you're a veteran, you know the system well enough that you don't need us to tell you that. So roles are advice, not mechanics."

I don't know that he mislead or used hyperbole or disparaged anybody's playstyle. No need to get up in arms!

 

[Balesir]

I don't know. This:

..sounds pretty much just like how roles are today. "the cleric (...) excels at healing" and advice suggesting spells, abilities and tactics is pretty much the same as saying "the cleric is a leader-type, here's how to play a leader".

Yes, but the roles also inform the class abilities that the cleric has. Decoupling the classes from the roles sounds to me like taking those class abilities and making them more generic, available-to-all-characters traits.

Which leads right back to my question about "what are classes for?"

 

[KidSnide]

I think the real problem with roles is that, for many classes, the class archtype is bigger than any one role. As such, assigning individual roles to classes makes them narrower than many players would like.

Fighter is a great example of this: many people wanted striker fighters and, while the two-handed fighter was more striker-y than the sword-and-board fighter, the marking mechanics still placed that character in the defender camp. Bard is another good example. At least in my experience, the appeal of a bard is to play a controller-style enchantment caster with a wide range of jack-of-all-trades abilities. A leader-bard seems like a reasonable interpretation of the class, but it excludes the type of bard that I would like to play.

But all this having been said, I'm sure roles will continue to exist -- quietly and behind the scenes as design considerations and party building advice. But I don't think roles will be assigned to classes as they once were. Instead, roles are simply methods of testing whether classes are balanced under different metrics. For example, fighters and paladins built to defend the party should both be able to hold attention and withstand attacks to roughly the same degree. It's just that the classes shouldn't be limited to builds optimized for that purpose.

-KS

 

[Minigiant]

But you aren't the only person playing D&D. Many of us want more from the game than combat focused characters.

That said, even if we accept your premise that D&D ought to be dungeon and cave dive focused, that doesn't mean every character should be built for combat. And historically it hasn't meant that. Thieves were not good at combat until at least 3E (they were good at thieving, detecting traps and sneaking around--backstab was a good bone to have in combat but didn't balance them out against other characters that ar exceeded their combat skills).

For me though the bottom line is this, treating D&D like a combat board game, where everyone needs to be good at something in combat limits my options and reduces my enjoyment of the game. Far better to open up the game to charcaters good at exploration or social situations, and have optional add-ons to make every good at combat if that is your goal. Ever since I started playing in the 80s, non combat charactes have been a feature of our games.

I understand D&D's tradition of noncombatant characters. It just never made sense to me being a base/core feature. The idea of a person actively entering situations where combat will happen over and over and having no method of helping the group survive just felt weird and silly.

If Johnny can't fight, what will happen when the goblins in room 7 attack the party. We don't send cooks on the front line unless they plan on helping us win.

I am for classes all having one of each of the staple role types an D&D adventurer would have by default. Then using modules and giving advice to switch them out.

 

[KidSnide]

Which leads right back to my question about "what are classes for?"

At the risk of stating the obvious, classes are for allowing players to play an archtype with a balanced and fun set of appropriate abilities. There are interesting arguments to be had about how broad/flexible classes should be and whether the archtypes overlap (e.g. paladins and melee-clerics), but that's what they are for.

-KS

 

[Mengu]

Classes are for game mechanics. Roles are for game mechanics. Everything in the system, is for game mechanics. The rule books don't role play for us. We do that at the table. All I need from the rule books are the rules for conflict resolution.

I don't have a problem with there being roles, or no roles. If it'll have a game mechanical impact, sure let's have roles. If you are a cleric with the defender role, maybe you have a marking mechanic. If you are a fighter with the striker role, maybe you are quicker and can attack more frequently. If you are a rogue with the defender role, perhaps you have a taunt mechanic, and are a swashbuckler. If you are a paladin with the striker mechanic, maybe you do bonus radiant damage.

Or if roles aren't going to have a game mechanical impact, ditch 'em. Whether a game mechanic comes from a role, a class, a feature, whatever, if the mechanic captures the flavor of the concept, we're good to go. Why do I care whether there are roles or not?

 

[billd91]

There's going to be a big backlash against this, I predict. All those people who don't want fighters doing things that aren't mundane are going to be furious that now fighters are going to be able to buff and heal. People who dislike rogues being able to throw daggers fast enough that they blast a group of targets, blinding them; they're going to be unhappy. Because after all, classes aren't going to be forced into a role, so all sorts of things will have to be allowed if you're going to have all classes able to perform in all roles.

As anything, it depends on how it's done. Soldiers make great medics in Star Wars Saga Edition, but it's based on a skill roll and use of some equipment so it doesn't feel out of place. Nobles inspire with leadership and that provides some buffing. I don't think most people would have too much problem with similar abilities for 5e fighters. Flavor does matter.