A Different Take on Roles

[Dausuul]

So, 4E introduced the idea of explicitly defined "combat roles." (The concepts existed previously, but 4E codified them.) The focus of 4E's combat roles was on giving each character an assigned task, so to speak. The striker's job is to dish out damage; the defender's job is to keep the enemy at bay; the controller's job is to shape the battlefield; the leader's job is to support and heal. I think 4E was far too dogmatic about turning these into rigidly defined mechanics, but the basic idea--make sure every class has something it can do well--was sound.

It occurred to me today that D&DN, with its shift toward adventure rather than encounter focus, might profit by taking a different approach. Instead of assigning each class a job to do, combat roles might assign each class a time to shine. For instance, using 3E classes as examples:

Champion. The Champion is most effective when fighting a tough, hard-hitting foe, such as a giant or dragon. They can take a lot of hurt and dish it right back. Examples: Barbarian, fighter, paladin.

Stalker. The Stalker is most effective against "glass cannon" foes such as mind flayers or spellcasters, who pack a heavy punch but can't take a hit well and must rely on allies, mobility, or magic to survive. A Stalker can bypass those defenses to deliver a killing shot. Examples: Rogue, ranger, monk.

Destroyer. The Destroyer is most effective against large numbers of weak foes such as goblins, orcs, and skeletons. Examples: Wizard, sorceror, druid.

Exorcist. The Exorcist is most effective against "cheaty" enemies who rely heavily on special abilities, such as undead that use energy drain or drow with poisoned crossbows. The Exorcist may counteract those abilities or even turn them against their users. Examples: Cleric.

Specialist. A secondary role that can be layered on top of the others, the Specialist is extra-effective against a specific class of foe. Examples: Cleric (undead), paladin (evil enemies), ranger (favored enemies).

There are obviously some parallels with 4E's combat roles, but also some notable differences. For instance, the Stalker's defining attribute is not damage output but evasion. A Stalker's targets of choice don't have a lot of hit points, so big damage is not required, but the Stalker absolutely must be able to reach and engage those targets. Likewise, the Exorcist must be able to counter enemy special abilities but doesn't need to heal or buff allies.

Thoughts?

 

[hafrogman]

I think defined roles were an important step in the development of D&D, they represent a very different way of approaching class design from previous editions. Up until that point classes were designed haphazardly based on a mixture of literary influences, highly specific archetypes, and occasionally the need to fill in a perceived gap. For the first time classes were given a functional role first, and the rest was fit around that.

But that doesn't mean that they're something that needs to be a permanent addition to D&D. They have one fundamental flaw in that nobody can agree what class should fit into what role. When you approach the system from one direction and pick a role and then a class to fit, it works well. But D&D comes with a huge amount of baggage that can't be discarded without discarding the game itself. As a result people want to pick a class based on their history with the system, and if the assigned role doesn't match their personal notion of the class, major friction results.

I think that roles still have a role to play in D&D, but entirely disassociated from class. The 5/16 chat mentioned the idea that "defender" type mechanics might show up in themes. I think this is the best way to approach it. Pick a class and what you want to do with that class. The roles don't even need to be clearly defined, they just need to be in the designers' heads when they make themes.

 

[concjo]

I don't really like the idea of roles. When I hear that, I start thinking WoW and DPS. Your role is what you want to accomplish with your character and how that fits in with the group. There may be 2 sneaky characters, but your character is the scout. Not because he's better, but maybe he's crazy or eager to die alone..

You know that the guy with full plate and a shield is the "tank" but I don't really need someone to tell me what that is. Besides, maybe he ditches the shield at times and goes with a 2handed sword. Does his role now change to striker? If it does, who cares and what is the purpose? It sounds like a limiting factor and pushing towards a certain play style.

 

[Umbran]

I think you could design roles like that, Dausuul, but I'm not sure I'd want to play that way. Essentially, it foregrounds a PC by the encounter type - when that encounter type comes up, everyone else is implicitly told they'll be taking a back seat, and I'm not sure that's a dynamic I want. I think I'd prefer a combat role be good for pretty much any encounter, not only for a select type. But that's just me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Stalker. The Stalker is most effective against "glass cannon" foes such as mind flayers or spellcasters, who pack a heavy punch but can't take a hit well and must rely on allies, mobility, or magic to survive. A Stalker can bypass those defenses to deliver a killing shot. Examples: Rogue, ranger, monk.

Stalker. Heh.


I got it? Ben. Ben, I gotta hand it to you pal. Haha. You got the whole network in an up roar. Why, they're shipping bi-carb to the justice department in crates. So that's why this little call is just between you and I. It's not going out on the air. Listen very carefully Ben, how would you like a three year contract, guaranteed, a Cadre credit line and a beach-front condo? Sound impossible? That's the standard deal for a network stalker. And I know real talent when I see it Ben, and I'd just hate to see you get cancelled tonight when you could go the distance. Say the word Ben, and you could be the one doing the stalking. What do you think?

 

[underfoot007ct]

I don't really like the idea of roles. When I hear that, I start thinking WoW and DPS. Your role is what you want to accomplish with your character and how that fits in with the group. There may be 2 sneaky characters, but your character is the scout. Not because he's better, but maybe he's crazy or eager to die alone..

You know that the guy with full plate and a shield is the "tank" but I don't really need someone to tell me what that is. Besides, maybe he ditches the shield at times and goes with a 2handed sword. Does his role now change to striker? If it does, who cares and what is the purpose? It sounds like a limiting factor and pushing towards a certain play style.

The idea of roles in video/MMO games came from D&D. I found that when stating a new game or a pick-up game at a store/con, saying "I am a fighter or cleric was not enough info. Many times we played with NO front line, no tanks etc. Our cleric was really wizard3/cleric1 (in robes), our fighter was an archer etc.

I learned to ask other players what they "role" was years before 4e ever codified them. Even 4e's roles lack a little, "striker" still needs a descriptor of melee or ranged. A party of all ranged chars lacks a front line char ie tank.

If you have ever said "who is playing the cleric" then you have asked who is our healer/leader role.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Most of the 4E roles sound as though they're getting rolled into Themes. They already mentioned the Guardian (ie the Defender), the Slayer (ie the strong Melee Striker), the Skirmisher (ie the agile Melee Striker), the Sharpshooter (ie the Ranged Striker) and the Leader (ie the Leader). So those players who specifically want to take on those roles in combat can choose to do so. No one has to take them on if they don't want to... but they're there for those who do.

 

[SLOTHmaster]

I agree that the specific roles is probably good behind the scenes, when designing a class, but I think it's too limiting when you begin explicitly giving the classes roles.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I've had enough designed-in pigeon holes. Let players decide based on their choices and roleplay what role the character plays in the party, rather than having it pre-defined by class mechanics.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, 4E introduced the idea of explicitly defined "combat roles." (The concepts existed previously, but 4E codified them.) The focus of 4E's combat roles was on giving each character an assigned task, so to speak.....
It occurred to me today... Instead of assigning each class a job to do, combat roles might assign each class a time to shine.

Thoughts?

Just as 4e took a reality of how D&D had been played all along and formalized it into 4 'roles' for classes, you're taking a reality that has also existed through most of the game's history - imbalance - and formalizing it. From AD&D on, classes had their 'time to shine' - the fighter when cutting down hordes of less-than-1-HD monsters, the Ranger when slaughtering giants, the paladin when smiting evil, the cleric when turning undead, the thief when opening doors and chests, and the wizard when obviating any or all of the above with the right spell at the right moment.

Even if you weren't to formalize such a thing, it'd still be happening (it still happens in 4e, in spite of its excellent attempts at better class balance), so formalizing it might make sense. Formalizing it as a way of minimizing it might work out better than trying to amplify the effect intentionally. :shrug: