Imaro
Legend
I think the contention is whether the roles (striker, leader, defender and controller) 4e categorized the classes into and semi-enforced are the same roles that the game has always had...
D&D 5E What are the Roles now?
- Thread starter Unwise
- Start date
I think the contention is whether the roles (striker, leader, defender and controller) 4e categorized the classes into and semi-enforced are the same roles that the game has always had...
Combat roles are just groupings of related combat activities, and they are not unique. For example we could call an archer and a great weapon using barbarian strikers or we could call the archer artillery and the barbarian a brute or a 'Sturdy Brawler'. Either is completely correct, it is just which set of rules we want to use to divide the set of combat activities. The identification particular groupings of combat activity, that is, the identification of roles, is simply in the eye of the beholder.
If 4e was the first time 'Striker,Leader,Defender,Controller' was codified as a set of roles, it is correct to say that those roles were invented in 4e and it is also just as correct to say that those roles were always in the game. There is no need to argue.
If 4e was the first time 'Striker,Leader,Defender,Controller' was codified as a set of roles, it is correct to say that those roles were invented in 4e and it is also just as correct to say that those roles were always in the game. There is no need to argue.
Indeed. Take the rogue. The idea that "You need a rogue" does indeed go back way before 4E; but what were the stated reasons for needing a rogue? I don't recall anyone ever saying the party needed a rogue to deal lots of damage. By far, the most common reason I heard for needing a rogue was to deal with traps.
With clerics and fighters, the 4E roles stand on firmer ground. Everyone agreed you needed a cleric to heal (Leader role), and a heavy melee warrior to provide a tough front line (Defender role). As far as wizards, I don't recall there ever being a single well-defined rationale for needing a wizard. The wizard's role was "Do all the stuff only wizards can do," which covered quite a lot of territory*.
I think it's more productive to view D&D classes in terms of functions. A class can have more than one function. For example, the 5E fighter's functions include the traditional "tough front line" and also "deal lots of damage." An assassin rogue has "deal lots of damage" as well as "skill monkey." A thief rogue deals less damage in exchange for being a better skill monkey.
[SIZE=-2]*Though, come to think of it, that fits quite well with 4E's Controller role. I've never seen a cogent explanation of what Controllers do, either. The 4E designers couldn't seem to make up their minds whether it meant blasting, debuffing, battlefield control, or what.[/SIZE]
And I suppose that depends on how nitpicky each person is about the things that make up each "role" and how much do you need of it for it to be considered "new" or "always there". If they're saying the four roles as catagorized as 'defender', 'striker', 'leader', and 'controller' didn't exist before 4E, then sure they're right. 4E invented those terms. If they even say that the role of say the defender didn't exist before 4E because the game mechanics invented for the 'defender' role (marking and the like) never existed before 4E (and thus ipso facto the 'defender' didn't exist), then sure, again those people could say they were right.
But at the same time, if someone sees 'defender' and equates that merely with "heavily armored guy that tries to interpose himself between the enemies and the squishies" or more colloquially "the tank"... then those that say that the concept of defender has always existed would also be right (because that was certainly a facet of the fighter that's been played up since the beginning, and is the entire reason why the concept of "the tank" came into existence in the first place.) By the same token, if someone sees 'leader' and equates that to the guy that helps keep the rest of their party buffed and on their feet... that's also an idea that's been in the game since the beginning and has been used by many tables since the start of the game. We didn't call that character a 'leader' obviously, we called it 'the cleric'. But what 'the cleric' did in the game for a lot of tables has never been in dispute.
So it really all comes down to how closely are you parsing the terms themselves that are determining whether you think the roles have existed in the game before 4E. If you are only looking at the conceptual idea of what the roles tried to accomplish, then yeah, you'd think those concept have always been in the game. But if you are looking more in the micro and the rules, mechanics, and definitions that were given to the 4E classes to be and do those roles, then you also are right in that they didn't realize exist in of themselves until 4E codified them.
So there's really no point in arguing it, because we're not all going to agree with the starting point of the conversation.
Last edited:
Date-wise (late December 2006), this does not support your conclusion.
2006 was when WotC started designing 4E. Hence, the 4E concept of roles comes directly from Skip's thoughts in in this article.
All the article does is illustrate that at the beginning of 4E design, the designers were talking about roles.
If you show a similar Dragon article from 1976 or even 1986, then that would have a more concrete support for your POV here.
Imaro
Legend
I agree with your last statement, but to your other comments...
I think now the issue in this thread is that many feel there were classes that didn't actually fit any of the roles as described in 4e or were so versatile as to make claiming they had a "role" meaningless (I mean if I can be a defender, leader, striker or controller then I for all intents and purposes do not actually have a role as defined by 4e). Examples like the thief of earlier editions who really doesn't fit any of the roles... not even striker because of low damage output but still had skills and abiltieis you wanted in your party... or the wizard in some earlier editions who could fill all roles, and thus didn't have a role, are where people feel the roles as defined by 4e break down in other editions... including 5e.
EDIT: To clarify and be more succinct I think some feel what 4e did was either define a role around the traditional abilities of certain classes (Cleric... how exactly does Turn Undead fit into the leader space?) or modify classes to fit within the roles they had defined (rogue and blackguard I'm looking at you)...
Last edited:
One could argue that the roles are:
Melee
Ranged
Spellcasting
OR
Offense
Defense
Buffing
Roles is just a term that the 4E designers came up with to wrap PC job function up into a neat little package. Although the "roles concept" does a fair job at that, it is not a concept that was used by most players until 4E.
For example, the 1E thief was not a striker and the 5E rogue is not a striker. Neither one of these classes averaged more damage than their respective level fighter overall (the 1E one because 1E facing rules made it very difficult to get behind a foe, so back stabbing was infrequent and the 1E fighter had a better attack table; back stabbing was also considered a secondary function of the class). A DPR designed 5E fighter, on average, does more DPR than a DPR designed 5E rogue.
This being the case, how can one call a 5E rogue a striker? Or does one call a 5E fighter a striker as well?
Yes, the term role is now ingrained in our community collective consciousness. That does not mean that this was always the case, or that PC job function clearly equates to the roles chosen for 4E.
Sacrosanct
Legend
I agree with whoever said it upthread that this is no real big deal to argue about. Did roles exist prior to 4e? Sure. But the difference is that prior to 4e, the roles were largely defined by that particular gaming group, and a class was like a bucket, where the same class could contain one of several different roles.
4e, by contrast, clearly and explicitly defined each class with one role. Says so right there on page 16 of the 4e PHB.
That's what people mean when they talk about how 4e was stressing roles
4e, by contrast, clearly and explicitly defined each class with one role. Says so right there on page 16 of the 4e PHB.
That's what people mean when they talk about how 4e was stressing roles
Well, that again is just getting into the nitty-gritty and the goalposts of what constitutes or conceptualizes what a "role" is. And because no one can agree on where a prominent playstyle ends and a "role" begins... there's always going to be an argument.
There has always been a recognition in D&D that each class served distinct functions in a party and that it was important to make sure those functions were covered. But 4E roles go a lot farther than that. They assert that a) these functions can be grouped into four discrete bundles, b) each class can be slotted neatly into one of those four, and c) all four bundles contribute equally in combat.
As I pointed out above, while "defender" and "leader" line up pretty well with the traditional functions of fighters and clerics, D&D has not historically had a "striker" role, and "controller" is a nebulous, ill-defined concept that amounts to "We can't pin down what single function wizards perform, but we need to slap a label on 'em, so they're controllers."
As I pointed out above, while "defender" and "leader" line up pretty well with the traditional functions of fighters and clerics, D&D has not historically had a "striker" role, and "controller" is a nebulous, ill-defined concept that amounts to "We can't pin down what single function wizards perform, but we need to slap a label on 'em, so they're controllers."
Last edited:
