D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[MechaPilot]

But under no circumstances should roles like striker or controller be explicitly supported by WotC for 5e (though I have no problem with character choices that provide options. If your table wants to use these feats to specialize, I'm glad they are available for you). But 5e is not and should not be in the business of formalizing roles and encouraging build specialization. These mechanics preclude the kind of fun that happens at my tables (one reason I and my friends are leaving Pathfinder for 5e). So 5e's absence of explicit roles is a good thing for us.

You're saying that WotC shouldn't create ways to enable specific roles, but feats and character choices that do so are okay? If you meant it that way, you're basically saying "you can have the options you want, but only if you or a 3rd party publisher makes those options," nevermind the fact that we don't know if a license that allows third party support without individual negotiation truly is coming.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

It's interesting that you say this, because that's also indicative of 4e's roles.

4e's implementation of role provides a mechanical benefit that makes you better at that role, the same way the barbarian's damage resistance in 3e makes them better at absorbing damage. A defender role also doesn't prevent a character from focusing on damage-dealing, just as the barbarian's damage resistance doesn't force it to focus on being a defender. However, having the defender role does mean that out of all of the roles you will be the most effective at that one.

I talked earlier about how presentation affects judgement and how that was probably 4E's biggest weakness.

Also, I'll note that, from looking at 5E, defender isn't a combat role that seems to exist anymore. And prior to 4E, I can't recall it actually existing much; it seemed to be a combat role you took when everything was going horribly wrong and sacrificing your character was preferable to the other possible outcome. From what I and a lot of players I talked to saw, prior to 4E being a defender in combat probably meant you were going to die. With 5E, it looks like playing a defender means you'll probably die.

Now, the interesting thing about prior editions... there were a number of classes that, mechanically, would be equally good in every combat role. 4E kinda did away with that through the focus on primary effectiveness. It's not to say it couldn't be done, but that it was a lot harder. Of course, 4E also made some classes actually effective at combat for once, so this isn't a bad thing.

The resulting change in how people talk about tactics in DnD that 4E caused also isn't a bad thing; they're now more aware of the tactical considerations of some decisions and what the primary tactic types are for use in combat. Even if all class can do all combat roles equally, people are now more likely to be aware that they're actually choosing a particular combat role for the situation at hand. This, in turn, means more effective communication between players as to what their characters are actually doing. So if the wizard says they're going striker for this round and they need a leader to back them, the player who is focusing more on a leader-type role can immediately know that they need to stick to the wizard. And instead of the normal twenty minutes this could sometimes take in prior editions, with 4E and now 5E it can take two sentences. This, in turn, helps speed up combat even further because the players are spending less time being OOC to explain the IC.

 

[MechaPilot]

4e clearly and explicitly defined what classes fit what roles, and what each of the roles were.

While that's true, it also points to the fact that many people who complain about roles are really complaining about their implementation. In essence, a role has two parts:

1) The mechanical benefits
2) The implementation of choosing and gaining those benefits

I don't think that anyone will really argue with characters gaining a mechanical benefit to be better at their chosen role. That's the mechanical benefits part of the roles.

Where the bulk of the argument comes in is that each class was tied to a specific role. While this didn't mean that you couldn't act in other roles, it did mean that you were given benefits for a default role even if you preferred another role. Ironically, I think 4e's roles would have been more palatable to fans of older editions if they had been MORE like the roles in WoW; for anyone who is unfamiliar, WoW characters can generally choose from two or three roles (one is usually damage).

 

[MechaPilot]

No, but, KM, I imagine when you heard the term healbot, you instantly recognized the meaning. It's not like it's some bizarre, rarely seen event that a group has someone fall on the cleric grenade at chargen in most versions of D&D. "Who's going to play the healer" is a pretty common refrain from a lot of different tables. Or, if you were the last guy making your character, I've seen more than a few times that that last guy got stuck playing the cleric.

Now, me? I liked playing the cleric, so, it was no skin off my nose, but, I know that when I DM'd, it was almost always a negotiation at the table to get someone to play the cleric.

I mean, there's a reason that wands of cure light wounds became such a common thing in 3e - and it's not because healing wasn't needed.

The cleric is actually one of my favorite classes, with one of my favorite characters having been a cleric. However, there was a time when that wasn't true.

I've had the experience of playing the cleric when no one else wanted to. I was genuinely willing to give it a shot because I hadn't played it before then. But, the class very quickly became a burden when the other players berated me for doing anything other than healing them. I didn't touch the class for a year after that.

 

[MechaPilot]

OK, I'm not following. You're implying that the striker was in 2e, but your example is not from 2e. I'm assuming 5e? How does a 5e example prove that a thief was a striker in 2e?


Because in my experience, a thief wasn't a striker in 2e. He/she was a skill monkey. Master of exploration (a full 1/3rd of the game). Occassionally they could do significant damage with backstab, but that was pretty rare in the context of total combat rounds. Nothing like 5e where they can apply sneak attack damage pretty much every attack.

In TSR D&D, you didn't play a thief because you wanted to be one of the highest damage dealers. You played one because you wanted utility. The ability to get in, get out, find stuff, disappear when needed, without needing to rely on highly limited magic. You played one if being a spy, scout, or scoundrel appealed to you.

The backstab feature is the 2e example of the thief being a striker because 4e's roles refer strictly to roles in combat and skill-monkey isn't a combat function. The bulk of the 2e thief's special class skills relate to exploration: MS, Hiding, and FARTing (Find And Remove Traps). However, Hiding and MS also pair very well with Backstab for a high-damage opening round. Additionally, if I am recalling correctly, Backstab merely required that you be stabbing the enemy in the back to apply the damage multiplier. That encourages the mobile character who moves around to try to maintain her offensive advantage by being able to stab enemies in the back.

 

[KarinsDad]

The thief's role in combat as a damage dealer is clearly exemplified by the backstab/sneak attack ability.

I disagree a bit on this.

The 1E/2E thief rarely got backstab damage in due to the facing rules. It was really difficult to get in behind a foe unless the thief was invisible, in darkness, or something similar. Backstab is even called out in 1E as a secondary ability. A thief was all about locks, traps, listening at doors, and hiding. Not damage. And thieves did not have the best to hit tables, fighters did.

3E upped the frequency of extra damage by allowing sneak attack if the foe was flanked or lost Dex bonus, but again, not the best chance to hit.

4E upped the frequency again with combat advantage due to how many effects (including flank) resulted in combat advantage (including allowing combat advantage in the very first round against some foes by a rogue) and equalized the chance to hit.

And 5E is even easier since both advantage and having an adjacent (not necessarily flanked) ally. This greatly improves ranged sneak attacks as well.

In each edition, the chances of backstab/sneak attack damage occurring in combat increased.

As to the amount of damage, it was upwards of 5x damage in 1E/2E, 3E was +1D6 per two levels max +10D6, 4E max +5D6 (but synergies from powers and feats blew this out of the water), and then 5E went back up to 3E levels of damage, but most of the 4E synergies disappeared.

So a Rogue was a striker in 4E because he did considerably more damage than non-strikers and had better chances to hit than in any earlier edition (and often had a better to hit than even other 4E PCs with feats and an at will designed for that). Previous to 4E, he wasn't really that much of a damage dealer. Even in 3E. Yeah, he could do some damage, but often not as much a fighter with an additional attack per round that had a 25% better chance to hit and more feats that could boost damage (bonus damage, extra attacks, etc.).

In 5E, the rogue is at best on par with a fighter (except maybe a Champion since those are weak sauce) because 5E fighters do so much more damage than 1E to 4E fighters. Although it's easier for a 5E rogue to do more damage than 1E to 3E rogues, he doesn't really shine as a damage dealer (compared to fighters or rangers) as much as he used to (granted, the 4E ranger outshined most PCs at damage). The 5E rogue is more of a damage dealer than some other martial PCs, but even there, he usually only outshines them at real high levels due to spell and special abilities synergies (e.g. compared to a Ranger: Hunter's Mark and Extra Attack and Colossus Slayer and Whirlwind attack, etc.).

Fighters and Rangers and even Paladins can do as much or more damage than a Rogue in 5E, that he cannot be considered a major damage dealer per se. Doing decent (but not necessarily great) damage is only one of the things he brings to the table in combat. Others things like uncanny dodge, disengage, evasion, etc. and hence not needing to be healed as much is nearly as important. Even the assassin is not that great of a damage dealer compared to some of the other martial types until level 17 and then at most once per encounter.


So, the 4E rogue was a major nova damage dealer, but the other editions, not as much, at least not until higher levels.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I disagree a bit on this.

The 1E/2E thief rarely got backstab damage in due to the facing rules. It was really difficult to get in behind a foe unless the thief was invisible, in darkness, or something similar. Backstab is even called out in 1E as a secondary ability. A thief was all about locks, traps, listening at doors, and hiding. Not damage. And thieves did not have the best to hit tables, fighters did. *snip*

Yeah, backstab was nearly impossible to get. The AD&D2 PHB even make a big point about the fact that an enemy who is surprised still can't be backstabbed if he had even the faintest warning before the attack struck home. Even when backstab happened, it wasn't usually enough to kill anyone.

If you didn't play AD&D, just imagine the Thief as a 5E Assassin with a weaker Surprise Ambush ability and zero Sneak Attack dice using a Str-based weapon, and that's pretty much the 1E Thief in combat.

To be fair, the AD&D fighter was also pretty low-damage in combat--or at least, I think he would have been if I hadn't been a munchkin back then who refused to play any PC that didn't have 18/00 or higher Strength.

 

[MechaPilot]

I disagree a bit on this.

The 1E/2E thief rarely got backstab damage in due to the facing rules. It was really difficult to get in behind a foe unless the thief was invisible, in darkness, or something similar. Backstab is even called out in 1E as a secondary ability. A thief was all about locks, traps, listening at doors, and hiding. Not damage. And thieves did not have the best to hit tables, fighters did.

3E upped the frequency of extra damage by allowing sneak attack if the foe was flanked or lost Dex bonus, but again, not the best chance to hit.

4E upped the frequency again with combat advantage due to how many effects (including flank) resulted in combat advantage (including allowing combat advantage in the very first round against some foes by a rogue) and equalized the chance to hit.

And 5E is even easier since both advantage and having an adjacent (not necessarily flanked) ally. This greatly improves ranged sneak attacks as well.

In each edition, the chances of backstab/sneak attack damage occurring in combat increased.

As to the amount of damage, it was upwards of 5x damage in 1E/2E, 3E was +1D6 per two levels max +10D6, 4E max +5D6 (but synergies from powers and feats blew this out of the water), and then 5E went back up to 3E levels of damage, but most of the 4E synergies disappeared.

So a Rogue was a striker in 4E because he did considerably more damage than non-strikers and had better chances to hit than in any earlier edition (and often had a better to hit than even other 4E PCs with feats and an at will designed for that). Previous to 4E, he wasn't really that much of a damage dealer. Even in 3E. Yeah, he could do some damage, but often not as much a fighter with an additional attack per round that had a 25% better chance to hit and more feats that could boost damage (bonus damage, extra attacks, etc.).

In 5E, the rogue is at best on par with a fighter (except maybe a Champion since those are weak sauce) because 5E fighters do so much more damage than 1E to 4E fighters. Although it's easier for a 5E rogue to do more damage than 1E to 3E rogues, he doesn't really shine as a damage dealer (compared to fighters or rangers) as much as he used to (granted, the 4E ranger outshined most PCs at damage). The 5E rogue is more of a damage dealer than some other martial PCs, but even there, he usually only outshines them at real high levels due to spell and special abilities synergies (e.g. compared to a Ranger: Hunter's Mark and Extra Attack and Colossus Slayer and Whirlwind attack, etc.).

Fighters and Rangers and even Paladins can do as much or more damage than a Rogue in 5E, that he cannot be considered a major damage dealer per se. Doing decent (but not necessarily great) damage is only one of the things he brings to the table in combat. Others things like uncanny dodge, disengage, evasion, etc. and hence not needing to be healed as much is nearly as important. Even the assassin is not that great of a damage dealer compared to some of the other martial types until level 17 and then at most once per encounter.


So, the 4E rogue was a major nova damage dealer, but the other editions, not as much, at least not until higher levels.

I don't entirely disagree with you; I bolded the parts where I agree with you. However, the bulk of a 2e thief's skills are not combat skills (PP, OL, FART, MS, HIS, HN, CW, and RL), and the 4e roles are a combat-oriented construct. To evaluate what any character's 4e role would be requires that one focus on those elements related to combat because that's what those roles focused on.

With regard to the difficulty of getting to make Backstab attacks in 2e, it's really a strategy and DM adjudication issue given that it relies on the DM's subjective interpretation of what a given creature is aware of. At the very least, a thief is probably getting in one good Backstab per fight. The thief is also likely to act before an enemy (high Dex, plus a good weapon speed on daggers), and getting to deal damage first can be life and death stuff.

Again, for the record, I wish 4e's roles had been implemented such that you could pick them separately from class. I'd love to see the tactical combat module for 5e include mechanically supported roles with each character being able to choose a single role.

 

[aramis erak]

Yeah. I strongly and completely disagree.

Bits and pieces can be pulled off of 2E and shown to match a bit or piece of 3E. But 2E was a mess of bits and pieces.

The way skills and feats were built into 3E resembles GURPS or HERO vastly more than it does 2E.

We can quibble over details all day. And if you disagree then so be it.

But looking at the game as played at the table and 3E is a whole new beast.

The Skills and Powers book makes that transition in late 2E; it was, in many ways, a 2.5E... If one's actually familiar with the Player's Option books, 3E is a simplification of them, not a reinventing of the wheel.

 

[Ashrym]

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.

Class Acts are in the archive from 2004 at the WotC website with some more functions and roles. This is from the 3.5 PHB

Pg 24 "Role: A barbarian’s typical primary role in a group of adventurers is as a front-line combat specialist. No other character can match his sheer toughness. He can also serve as a good scout, thanks to his speed, skill selection, and trap sense."

Pg 27 "Role: The bard is perhaps the ultimate generalist. In most adventuring groups, he works best in a supporting role. He can’t usually match the stealth of the ranger or the rogue, the spellcasting power of the cleric or the wizard, or the combat prowess of the barbarian or the fighter. However, he makes all the other characters better at what they do, and he can often fill in for another character when needed. For a typical group of four characters, the bard is perhaps the most useful fifth character to consider adding, and he can make a great team leader."

Pg 31 "Role: The cleric serves as a typical group’s primary healer, diviner, and defensive specialist. He can hold his own in a fight but usually isn’t well served by charging to the front of combat. The cleric’s domains and spell selection can greatly affect his role as well."

Those are 3 classes with roles listed just by going in order in the 3.5 PHB, and predate 4e planning by years. Each class had an entry for role.

That should demonstrate my position better, but whether WotC was working on 4e or not isn't relevant to the previous link because it was in regard to 3.5 at the time, and also specified from the start of the game such roles existed. Future development beyond that point being the reason for that article and claiming the article was incorrect in it's statement regarding previous editions is jumping to a conclusion after the fact and implying deceitful intent, which is not a safe assumption as a point in the debate. When that article did come out there was no 4e to which it could be applied and therefore it must have applied as written to existing editions.