D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd again just like to point out the nuance here.

For some players, what 4e did with explicit roles was kind if inevitable and obvious and useful (because now you knew what you had to do!)

For some other players, what 4e did with explicit roles came out of left field and didn't seem like anything that they had experienced in the game before.

D&D is diverse. 4e absolutely did not "invent" its roles, and they are based in how D&D was played....by some people. Not everyone exposed to 4e had played with anything like them before.

witch is fine, but just saying "4e isn't real D&D" or "They made that up just for 4e and it is in the past" or almost anything else that dismisses other peoples play style and fav edition is very insulting

 

[Sacrosanct]

yes, when you spread false info like "4e created X whole cloth" when even the creaters can tell you they based it on D&D games that came before...

I did? I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything like that at all. And I don't see where he/she said it either. Do you have a link somewhere?

I am getting very sick of this whole "Your edition lost, go away" vibe I get from a lot of people around here... I played 2e,3e,and4e and am starting my first 5e campaign tonight... I have already talked to my group about roles...just like we did with Myth an Magic... there is no reason that you can't use the combat role lables in ANY edition...
.

If you're getting that vibe, perhaps you wouldn't get it so strongly if you didn't look to be offended where there isn't any offense there. Saying "4e is a departure from traditional D&D" isn't an attack on 4e. It's an objective fact. If you get upset about a statement like that, that's on you, not the speaker.

Another objective fact is the popularity and vernacular of MMOs in the 2000s, particularly WoW whose popularity was skyrocking during the time 4e was being developed. WoTC trying to capitalize on that by designing a game where an MMO player new to TTRPGs would have some familiarity isn't unusual at all, nor is it some sort of insult.

Yeah, I fully get that some people have used the comparison as a way to take a dig at 4e. But these are objective facts that are perfectly legitimate in a discussion. Your implication that any sort of mention of 4e's departure from tradition or it's similarities to MMOs is edition warring and therefore forbidden to speak of strikes me as advocating for some sort of type of whitewashing and/or censorship. Because as I said above (and others reinforced), those statements make no claims to how good or bad 4e is, just how different. Plenty of people view those claims as a very good thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

witch is fine, but just saying "4e isn't real D&D" or "They made that up just for 4e and it is in the past" or almost anything else that dismisses other peoples play style and fav edition is very insulting

Agreed!

I think when I see a post talking about how roles are an "invention" of 4e, it helps me to remember that this is that person's perspective -- they never saw roles like 4e presented before they saw 4e. They're ignoring others' play experience, but it's not a criticism of 4e as much as it is an ignorance of D&D's diverse player-base. It's not about "4e isn't real D&D," it's about "4e doesn't feel like the D&D I'm used to." The latter's just a more precise and less polemic version of the former.

 

[SteveC]

Man it's good to see that 4E is still on everyone's hate list.

To answer the question: the roles are pretty much the same as they've always been, it's just that they've gone away from talking about them. The toughest role to fill from what I've seen is really the defender, since it's pretty difficult to keep monsters from getting around you in this edition.

The most recent 5E game I was in had a player (a teenager) say "get behind the meat-shield," which made my curmudgeonly old heart happy , as I was saying the exact same thing in the late 70s.

Was that player explicitly thinking of his role as a defender? Of course not, but he realized that the wizard was squishy, but also able to end the combat immediately with his spells if he could only stay alive. And the cleric was the only one who was going to keep everyone on their feet through all of the battles. Yep, pretty much roles, same as in the 70s.

 

[ceiling90]

I don't get how anyone can say there are no roles in any edition save 4th - because they have always been there and quite frankly were refined for ease of use in a mostly static and controlled digital world, ie MMOs.

The 4 main roles have always been a variant on the Warrior - high HP, High AC and can be hard hitting, the Rogue - Sneaky, skillful, and is a glass cannon, the Cleric - heals, has pretty good durability, and the Wizard - uses spells to control the battlefield and hit multiple targets.

Which in MMO terms is Tank/DPS/Healer - and the Controller is so much harder to balance and quantify that it's rolled up and put away or is in parts of other classes, but in 4e has become the defacto Wizard.

4e basically took at look at DnD's intellectual great great great grand children, looked into some modern game design theory, and decided that maybe it was easier to split the idea that rules are for combat, and RP was supposed to rules lite. It was okay, and worked mostly - but really since combat was a such a huge deal in 4e, it bled a lot into the RP, cause you can't use your nifty cool blasting powers cutting down trees or what not.

So it's inarguable that these "roles" haven't been in the game or aren't now - because they still are. In 5e, instead of it being closely tied to class like it was in previous editions, it is instead tied to functionality of archetypes and options. Let's take the Fighter:

Champion archetype - the definitive "hit'em hard, hit me harder!" warrior archetype and is your basic DPR Tank role. Can easily dish it out while taking a whole lot of damage and not going down. Can be very much changed to a tank role with feats like Polearm Master and Sentinel.

Battlemaster - it's a martial controller, not a leader just yet. Has multiple abilities that can change how the fight works, from trip, fear, ally movement; and deals a great amount of damage. DPR and Controller.

Eldritch Knight - It's a hybrid with the ability to cast spells - and it's the definitive heavy armored caster for now. Which is definitely controller with their focus on abjuration and evocation spells, but let's no forget that many of those same spells love to blowup multiple targets, so it's not losing out on its DPR.

So in the end, the Fighter is fulfilling three out of our 4 "roles" or playstyles, but still embodies a single main theme - of a heavy armored, staunch, hard hitting guy.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

It did not enforce roles - roles were descriptive it was no more necessary to cover all the roles than it is in 5e. I concur they were new to D&D. Previously roles had been classes and they were balanced around their combat & out of combat function. 4e took the view that everyone had to be balanced in combat so the role system allowed them to design characters that were strong in different ways.
(EG 2e fighters are both the most resilient and hardest hitting but limited out of combat & one dimensional in it. In 4e some of that combat power has to give)

In prior editions and in 5E, there isn't that much stopping the fighter from focusing on being a pure damage-dealer who doesn't just absorb damage. In fact, the fighter wasn't even the best class for absorbing damage as of 3E; that was the barbarian. That damage absorbing ability of the barbarian was only enhanced by Pathfinder, making using the teleport spells to turn the barbarian into an orbital weapon a viable strategy. And, yes, my group actually has dropped barbarians on dragons from orbit a few times (falling damage + melee weapon damage = one severely injured dragon). But just because we did it doesn't that there should be an "orbital weapon" role in DnD. But by WotC's logic, they should have added an orbital weapon role.

So, it didn't enforce roles by mandating that you needed certain roles, but by forcing each class into a particular role when, previously, most classes were just fine crossing the boundaries of roles that 4E set up with ease.

I disagree while the frontline protection fighter with sentinel feat & a shield will do about half the damage of a great weapon style great weapon master one. Provided his allies can kill stuff he engages he can survive fine, he can dodge if he really needs to. (a party with a defender needs more team work then a load of strikers ) (FWIW I would always be the great weapon guy)

You're comparing a very high damage build to a high damage build; naturally, the second one is going to do less damage because it is focused more on defense. That doesn't mean that the fighter is a defense-focused class under one build; it's not. Notice the Action Surge special ability they get at second level? That allows a fighter to two two Attack actions. At fifth level, that means the typical fighter can, in a single combat, attack four times. Five if wielding two weapons. So while they will be doing less damage than wielding a two-hander, they will still be doing an epic crapton of damage.

 

[doctorhook]

To me, 4E looks like a natural extension of the developments in 3E and 3.5E... it just happened to extend in a direction that turned out to be unpopular (in part because of the major fluff-changes bundled with the system).

4E's strength was that it codified everything clearly and mostly unambiguously; its weakness was that unambiguity made the rules very rigid compared previous editions. 4E certainly didn't invent combat roles (they were talked about a lot in 3.5E), but it did distill them down to only four and then formalized them.

 

[Blue]

so your fighters never took a hit for the casters (defender) your fighters never dished out tons of damage (striker) your clerics never focused on healing and buffing (leader) and your wizard never tried to control the battlefield and lock down enemies with save or sucks (controller)???

Respectfully, I think the question isn't "did a character ever act in a role" but "does a character primarily act in a role". I know in AD&D 2ed and 3.x (going back further is too murky) we had characters covering multiple of the "defender/striker/leader/controller" role definitions. Casters often did multiple rolls, from striker (single target and multi-target like 4e Sorcerer), controller and leader. Sometimes even tank with clerics in heavy armor or wild shaped druids. With AD&D multiclassing (and dual-classing) we'd also see characters that shifted between roles often based on the needs of the particular encounter.

The idea of roles is a useful tool to discuss, but many versions of D&D used classes for niche protection instead of roles, and any particular build could cross several of the 4e definitions of roles. This isn't putting down those roles - they worked well for the edition they are associated with, but don't have the same catch-all quality in 5e because it doesn't put up the same solid dividing lines. In 4e my runepriest can't do half the damage the ranger or thief in the party do regularly, and they can't buff and heal. But the a single 5e paladin may do some leader roles (lay on hands, granting saves), some defender roles (heavy armor, good saves and HP) and some striker roles (with divine smite and bonus to attack rolls) before even breaking out feats.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

yes, when you spread false info like "4e created X whole cloth" when even the creaters can tell you they based it on D&D games that came before...

Being a defender wasn't a fighter's role; it was a tactical consideration. In fact, during 3E days, the fighter really wasn't even good at being a tank; the paladin and barbarian were simply better at it, due either to capacity to self-heal or simply having more hit points. When you start considering dropping someone from orbit onto the enemy simply because they'll not only survive the fall, but still be capable of battle... that's when you know you've got a class that is capable of taking some serious damage. And I understand the idea of teleporting the party into orbit to kill them mostly faded away with 3E because classes like the barbarian could survive reentry.

So, yes, for saying "X is a role that must exist as a player choice from character creation, and class Y must do X" 4E did invent roles. Which isn't a bad thing.

I am getting very sick of this whole "Your edition lost, go away" vibe I get from a lot of people around here... I played 2e,3e,and4e and am starting my first 5e campaign tonight... I have already talked to my group about roles...just like we did with Myth an Magic... there is no reason that you can't use the combat role lables in ANY edition...

2e had it as warrior/priest/magic user
3e and 4e were very similar, except 3e hid it and 4e labled it.

3E didn't hide it. Take a look at the class options. You still have your warriors (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger). You still had your priests (cleric, druid, some say bard goes here). You still had your magic users (sorcerer, wizard, some say bard goes here). It was pretty much codified and expanded, and Pathfinder simply codified and expanded it further.

However, must a particular magic user act as a controller or a striker? No. Must a particular martial class act as a defender or striker? No. Each class was capable, though player choices, to adjust their tactics to a particular role. Some classes were inherently better at it than others, but that didn't mean you had to go that route. And, with quite a few, you could shift between which role you were playing. A lot of the powergamers of 3E didn't shift roles, but that doesn't mean they had the best way to play. 4E kinda made it a point to codify that a particular class must fit a particular tactical consideration by assigning it that consideration. Was that bad? No, it wasn't.

witch is fine, but just saying "4e isn't real D&D" or "They made that up just for 4e and it is in the past" or almost anything else that dismisses other peoples play style and fav edition is very insulting

Please read this entire section before you react. I state some things pretty bluntly, but that is just my nature. By the end, I believe you will see what I truly mean when I state them.

If you are getting the vibe that saying "they made that up for 4E" is dismissing your playing style... then, yes, you are playing DnD wrong. Because you have made it so personal you cannot accept anything that you see as criticism without taking it as an attack on your playing style. I've been there and I know what it is like; that's when you must take a step back, as it is becoming a barrier between yourself and others due to your extreme investment in it.

For me, that game was 3.0E. I was heavily invested in it when it hit, and involved in some very nasty flamewars when 3.5 came out. And, in fact, when 3.5E ended and 4E was announced, I was one of the people dancing, celebrating, and rubbing it in the face of 3.5E fans. For me, 4E was victory over those who had repeatedly attacked my playing style. So, yes, I was part of the problem that helped create the divide within the DnD community which ultimately killed 4E.

Years later, looking back, I have had to eat a massive amount of crow. Because, I recognize something important: A lot of the criticisms about 3.0 were, well, right. And a lot of items I took as attacks on my playing style were not, but were simple statements of how 3.0 was. And I had to accept that some of the things I bitterly defended as being tradition because I believed what WotC said were, in fact, things created just for 3.0; that didn't make them bad or good, just different.

So, yes, I was playing DnD wrong. And now I play Pathfinder. And play 5E. And Savage Worlds. And Numenera, when I can find a game (it seems 5E is killing Numenera, from what I've seen; games are massively harder to find since 5E came out).

In any case, I think you are too personally invested right now, like I was. That is why you are taking offense to statements that are not intended to be offensive or dismissive at all. In fact, if you'll look throughout my posts, you'll notice I try my best to be supportive and make it clear I am not dismissing your play style.

I don't get how anyone can say there are no roles in any edition save 4th - because they have always been there and quite frankly were refined for ease of use in a mostly static and controlled digital world, ie MMOs.

The 4 main roles have always been a variant on the Warrior - high HP, High AC and can be hard hitting, the Rogue - Sneaky, skillful, and is a glass cannon, the Cleric - heals, has pretty good durability, and the Wizard - uses spells to control the battlefield and hit multiple targets.

Which in MMO terms is Tank/DPS/Healer - and the Controller is so much harder to balance and quantify that it's rolled up and put away or is in parts of other classes, but in 4e has become the defacto Wizard.

4e basically took at look at DnD's intellectual great great great grand children, looked into some modern game design theory, and decided that maybe it was easier to split the idea that rules are for combat, and RP was supposed to rules lite. It was okay, and worked mostly - but really since combat was a such a huge deal in 4e, it bled a lot into the RP, cause you can't use your nifty cool blasting powers cutting down trees or what not.

So it's inarguable that these "roles" haven't been in the game or aren't now - because they still are. In 5e, instead of it being closely tied to class like it was in previous editions, it is instead tied to functionality of archetypes and options. Let's take the Fighter:

Champion archetype - the definitive "hit'em hard, hit me harder!" warrior archetype and is your basic DPR Tank role. Can easily dish it out while taking a whole lot of damage and not going down. Can be very much changed to a tank role with feats like Polearm Master and Sentinel.

Battlemaster - it's a martial controller, not a leader just yet. Has multiple abilities that can change how the fight works, from trip, fear, ally movement; and deals a great amount of damage. DPR and Controller.

Eldritch Knight - It's a hybrid with the ability to cast spells - and it's the definitive heavy armored caster for now. Which is definitely controller with their focus on abjuration and evocation spells, but let's no forget that many of those same spells love to blowup multiple targets, so it's not losing out on its DPR.

So in the end, the Fighter is fulfilling three out of our 4 "roles" or playstyles, but still embodies a single main theme - of a heavy armored, staunch, hard hitting guy.

I think you're looking at roles the wrong way.

Pretty much, the issue with roles prior to 4E isn't that they didn't exist... but that they were defined more by class. Were you a martial fighter? A divine caster? An arcane caster? A thief? Could you do the job well compared to the standard version? Those were the considerations of what a role was before 4E. Items like defender, controller, striker... these were not roles; these were tactical choices, and the same character could shift between them as the situation warranted. So, prior to 4E, there was no need to classify a character via striker, defender, controller, leader... because any particular class could potentially fill any of those roles at any moment.

Also, you're thinking about it wrong from the issue of 5E classes. What's to stop an Eldritch Knight from acting as a striker? It comes down to which spells they pick, as quite a few evocation spells work more for the striker role than for controller (in fact, evocation in 5E kinda sucks for the controller role). What's to stop the Battle Master from acting as a striker or a leader? What's to stop the Champion from acting as a hit-and-run specialist instead of a tank?

You can point out how the abilities lend themselves to a certain way to play those based on how 4E did it... and I can tell you that I can see ways to play them in roles outside of what you said, without losing effectiveness, under 5E rules. It all comes down to strategy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

WotC flat-out lied when they said that

We need to tone down this rhetoric. If you can't presume good intentions, and instead believe that it is a "lie," you're escalating needlessly.