D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

Going back to the Roles.
In 4e Wizards were Controllers, says so in my 4e PHB. In 5e the same cannot be said.
In 5e a Wizard is someone who is able to read magic and cast arcane spells. Sure I could build the 5e Wizard into a 4e-like Controller easily, but that is up to the player not the designer. In 4e, the designer made that choice for you with the controller-designed powers they made you select from. I'm struggling to understand how you cannot see how the 4 Roles were very much part of the design process and how they bled into the system/mechanics.

In 4e, Roles define a character's Abilities. In 5e Abilities define a character's Role in the Party. It is a very different philosophy. Sure character roles exist, but not in the way you perceive them to.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Going back to the Roles.
In 4e Wizards were Controllers, says so in my 4e PHB. In 5e the same cannot be said.
In 5e a Wizard is someone who is able to read magic and cast arcane spells. Sure I could build the 5e Wizard into a 4e-like Controller easily, but that is up to the player not the designer. In 4e, the designer made that choice for you with the controller-designed powers they made you select from. I'm struggling to understand how you cannot see how the 4 Roles were very much part of the design process and how they bled into the system/mechanics.

In 4e, Roles define a character's Abilities. In 5e Abilities define a character's Role in the Party. It is a very different philosophy. Sure character roles exist, but not in the way you perceive them to.

The 4e roles came under attack many times in what have been called edition wars, so I guess GMforPowerGamers needs to defend them by saying "no one was forced to play that way in 4e but at the same time the same roles were in every edition".

They weren't in every edition as conceived of in 4e, or as much as in 4e, as I've tried to say. He may be trying to respond the people who used to say "4e is not D&D" or not "true D&D". I can see why he'd say what he has in that case.

What everyone should remember is that each new edition of D&D is already different, and it's okay if you want to keep playing a previous edition or bring rules from it into your home campaigns. In terms of what the official products will be, there are some gamers who have been hungry for some assurance that as little of 4e as possible will be in 5e. Nonetheless, I have suggested they do a couple optional rulebooks that bring in such things as encounter and daily powers. The design philosophy of 5e seems to be all-inclusive towards 4e and the preceding editions.
 
Last edited:

He may be trying to respond the people who used to say "4e is not D&D" or not "true D&D". I can see why he'd say what he has in that case.

I'm pretty sure he knows we are not saying that. From what I have seen the posts are civil and this is a healthy debate.

In terms of what the official products will be, gamers have been hungry for some assurance that as little of 4e as possible will be in 5e.

The design philosophy for 5e was lets make an all-inclusive edition not 'as little of 4e as possible'

Nonetheless, I have suggested they do a couple optional rulebooks that bring in such things as encounter and daily powers.

Encounters/daily powers already exist in 5e. Personally I think we have a number of 4e balanced mechanics in 5e, ample enough 3e customization without making it heavy (still early stages though), with the roleplaying philosophy/freedom of 2e and earlier editions, but again that is my take on it.
 

I'm pretty sure he knows we are not saying that. From what I have seen the posts are civil and this is a healthy debate.



The design philosophy for 5e was lets make an all-inclusive edition not 'as little of 4e as possible'



Encounters/daily powers already exist in 5e. Personally I think we have a number of 4e balanced mechanics in 5e, ample enough 3e customization without making it heavy (still early stages though), with the roleplaying philosophy/freedom of 2e and earlier editions, but again that is my take on it.

Yes, you are right about the design philosophy for 5e being an all-inclusive edition.
 

Roles have always existed. If a person disagrees then I'll jump to an example predating 2008 just to reinforce the idea.

"From the game's early days back in the 1970s to today, the D&D game has used four basic structures for characters. Nobody has ever given these structures formal names, so for purposes of this article we'll call them Sturdy Brawler, Stealthy Rascal, Arcane Spellslinger, and Divine Guardian. Each of these character types contributes to a party's success in a different way, and the most effective parties have at least one character to fill each role." Skip Williams

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061226

The only difference between 4e and other editions is that 4e specified roles for classes in the rules (which could be broken or circumvented) while other editions allowed players to specify roles for their PC's using classes that excelled within certain roles. Not a huge difference and largely that of perspective, but unassigned class roles seems more open to me too.

The character class archive lists various roles that predate 4e among the existing classes. Bards were listed as party multipliers, for example.

The following information is directly from the linked article:


Sturdy Brawler -- Physical combat is what these characters do best. When a party is on the move, these characters are the vanguard, boldly leading the way. Thanks to their position at the party's front, they're usually the first characters to witness an encounter unfolding. Their position at the front of a group on the march also leaves them in the best position to decide exactly where the party goes next when the group is exploring an unknown area.


In a fight, the party's sturdy brawlers generally are the first to attack the foe, usually by moving in and pinning down key foes with melee attacks. Once a battle is in progress, these characters form a fighting line that shields more vulnerable party members from attack. Their heavy armor and high hit points allow them to bear the brunt of the enemy's attacks.

Character classes that are well suited to the sturdy brawler role include the barbarian, fighter, and paladin from the Player's Handbook.



Stealthy Rascal -- These characters can take the fight to the enemy fairly well, but they often do better with a more subtle approach to adventuring. They generally have skills that allow them to serve as a party's eyes and ears. These characters also often have interaction skills that make them the most able negotiators in a party, which can prove handy when combat doesn't seem the best option.


Stealthy rascals often find themselves in the thick of that action during combat, especially if they've moved away from a group to scout the way ahead. Even if they take a more prudent approach, they do best when working in concert with the group's sturdy brawlers. Stealthy rascals can pair up with the group's more martial foes to set up flanking attacks or at least protect their allies' flanks. They're also mobile enough to bypass or penetrate the enemy line and attack leaders or spellcasters skulking in the rear.


Character classes that are well suited to the stealthy rascal role include the bard, ranger, rogue, and monk from the Player's Handbook.



Arcane Spellslinger -- These characters often serve as a party's heavy artillery, using spells that literally blast away massed foes. An arcane spellslinger's spells also can clear away or help circumvent obstacles that defy mundane assaults, reveal hidden information, and provide many other effects that expand a group's options for dealing with an encounter.


Character classes that are well suited to the arcane spellslinger role include the sorcerer and the wizard from the Player's Handbook.



Divine Guardian -- While divine guardians can hold their own in combat, their true power lies in the spells and granted supernatural powers they wield. Most divine guardian spells serve to protect, reinforce, or revivify allies, but they also have spells that can defeat foes or achieve other useful results.


In a fight, a divine guardian can serve on the front line fairly well. Depending on the spells the character has available, a divine guardian also can do fairly well by hanging back with the group's arcane spellslinger and launching spells at foes. This approach keeps the character close to the vulnerable arcane spellslinger in case that character needs quick healing or a bodyguard. It's also possible for a divine guardian to switch between these tactics from fight to fight or even from round to round within a single encounter. A divine guardian with ranks in the Concentration skill can use that rule for casting spells defensively and casting spells right from the front line.


When you're a divine guardian, everyone in a party looks to you for lifesaving healing, especially the group's sturdy brawlers, who tend to absorb considerable physical punishment. All the group's fighting characters can benefit from your presence in the front line in a battle. If nothing else, you'll offer foes an additional target and so dilute their efforts at least a bit. You also can fight in partnership with an ally, working to flank enemies while protecting the ally's flanks. If you travel in a group's rear or center, you'll usually be in the best position to rescue an ally who has fallen prey to an ambush or trap, either with a spell or literally by dragging the hapless character out of danger. As noted earlier, you'll do well to compare your spell selection with whatever the group's arcane spellslinger carries to maximize your group's magical potential.


Character classes that are well suited to the divine guardian role include the cleric and the druid from the Player's Handbook.


Generally, players sort out roles as melee combat, ranged combat, healing, skill specialization (typically stealth or social interaction), artillery (AoE and burst nuking), support, or lock-down / control. Sometimes other specialized perceived roles appear like summoning or general utility. Again, this is done by player perception and build instead of specific role designation. It also largely matches up the above in varying degrees with cross-over and shared design space. Spellslinger is the offense focused party spell caster, divine guardian is the support spell caster, stealthy rascal is the skill specialist, and sturdy brawler is the tank / defender.

My perception of classes that are good at covering roles are:

Melee combat -- barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger
Ranged combat -- fighter, ranger
Healing / Support -- bard, cleric, druid, paladin
Skill Specialization -- bard, monk, ranger, rogue (monk for some shadow monk abilities and good ability focus for skills)
Artillery -- sorcerer, warlock, wizard
Control -- bard, druid, sorcerer, wizard

Much of those are general opinion and exceptions exist. I think the design team still gave us 4 typical groupings:

Heavy combat -- barbarian, fighter, paladin
Skirmisher -- monk, ranger, rogue
Support -- bard, cleric, druid
Artillery -- sorcerer, warlock, wizard.



Hopefully we're back towards on topic discussion. ;-)
 

That was a great read from Skip Williams. He was chatting with Gary Gygax about the physics of fireballs and using miniatures long before most D&D veterans ever tried the game. I still would maintain the classes themselves are already as informative in this regard as we need, but it is fun to develop strategies. If nothing else, it could save your character somewhere down the line.

You added an intelligent breakdown yourself, Ashrym, which will prove useful.
 

I don't think it's all just a matter of opinion. The 4e roles were invented when that edition was published, in 2008 I believe. So for the first 34 years of D&D, they didn't exist yet.

"Invented" isn't an accurate word. You may not have seen the roles until then. But for a lot of tables, they had existed since the '70's.

"Enforced" may be more accurate. The 4e roles began to be enforced when 4e was published, and for the first 34 years of D&D, they weren't enforced.
 

"Invented" isn't an accurate word. You may not have seen the roles until then. But for a lot of tables, they had existed since the '70's.

"Enforced" may be more accurate. The 4e roles began to be enforced when 4e was published, and for the first 34 years of D&D, they weren't enforced.

You should read the roles Skip Williams and Ashrym invented above. The 4e roles were just a particular set the designers of 4e invented. Those particular roles were not in the game since the 70's. They are an outlier, and it will confuse a few people but overall it's just commentary on what combat can be like.
 

‘Roles’ may have been discussed in magazine articles, or possibly referred to, informally, around some game tables - but did any core rulebook prior to 4th Edition actually make mention of them?
 

You should read the roles Skip Williams and Ashrym invented above. The 4e roles were just a particular set the designers of 4e invented. Those particular roles were not in the game since the 70's. They are an outlier, and it will confuse a few people but overall it's just commentary on what combat can be like.

I don't quite grok how you can see the evidence of people playing with roles since the '70's and then say that roles didn't exist until 4e (and dub it an "outlier"). People have been playing with these roles since there were dungeons to crawl and HPs to whittle away. 4e recognized and codified these roles, but it certainly didn't invent them.

Now, any individual table may or may not have been playing with clearly defined roles, and so 4e's codification and enforcement can certainly seem like a novel thing to that table, but it's ignoring a tremendous swath of the D&D player base to suggest that the roles didn't exist until 4e created them.
 

Remove ads

Top