D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Minigiant]

wow where were you page 1... that is the best list of roles I have ever seen (still want the name leader taken out back, and I see some overlap...and don't get body in social) it is far from perfect, but if we could go back and start with this...we could have a much better progressive talk...

Body is the one bought for their looks. Look strong. Look pretty. Look stupid.

"Do what I say or Oleg gives you a big hug."
"Do what I say and maybe I can hook you up with Oleg."
"You think Oleg and I stole it? We could never. I gotta watch him all the time. Could never sneak into... Oleg? Oleg? No buddy, don't touch that chicken. You See. Let me see your finger."

I didn't say roles didn't exist until 4e, I said the roles that 4e invented didn't exist until 4e. You say "people have been playing with these roles," but now you're talking about the 4e roles in particular, not roles of some kind. The roles 4e recognized and codified were nonexistent before 4e. 4e invented them.

If there were tables using the roles from 4e before 4e, that does not mean 4e didn't invent them to the general knowledge of all of us in the public. Okay, you may have used them before, but the thing is, you and others are trying to say "there are four roles" that have always been in the game, the same roles 4e recognizes and codifies. I would contend there have always been roles, the number of those roles has always been more than four, and the four recognized and codified by 4e were unique to that edition of the game and they represent, in fact, a departure from tradition. Both in the sense of so specifically laying out only those four like they are all that matter, and to exaggerate their significance as a concept. The roles I recognize from all editions of the game are quite different, and they are more numerous. I find the 4e roles to be effectively irrelevant to discussions of 5e and pre-4e editions. It's confusing advice that has little bearing on actual play, or on play in the past. 4e sets up the four roles it does with new abilities and rules, so in 4e, those rules flourish. In 4e, discussions of these four roles are indeed highly pertinent and beneficial. There is nothing wrong with thinking of the game in this way, either, that these four roles were in every edition, it is just a point of view that is tied to one's appreciation of the 4e roles from 4e. I have no bias against 4e.

The 4e roles were just grouping of the pre-3e roles.

A "leader" was the "healer", the "buff dispenser", the "stabilizer/rescuer", the "secondary warrior", and the 4e original "action granter" rolled into one.

Pre-3e and 5e just had them ungrouped and not reinforced.
Order the food separate an not as the meal.

 

[Eirikrautha]

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.

No. I said that I don't care if WotC creates feats that allow a player who wants to specialize for the role they envision to be able to. I do care if WotC makes such specialization a default expectation of the rules. This is not a difficult concept.

Have you played 3.5 or, more recently, Pathfinder? Try to grapple an opponent. If you have not consciously built your character (including selections of feats and archetypes) for grappling, you will inevitably fail. If you have built your character for the role of "grappler,"
you will frequently do so with absolute ease. But if you encounter an enemy immune to grappling? Enjoy sitting out the fight, as you will be useless (as the cost of specializing in grappling means you cannot do anything else effectively).

So, 3.5 and PF both encourage role specialization, both in the mechanics of the game and informally in the game's expectations. 5e's bounded accuracy prevents this from being as much of an issue, because a character can do many things without their bonuses (or lack thereof) overwhelming their ability to succeed. For this reason, 5e should never, either through rules, mechanics, or even informal description, introduce the concept of combat roles as features of class or character build (beyond that of class abilities... which is fundamentally different than combat role). It is placing limits where there should be none.

Describing 5e's choices in terms of 4e's roles (striker, controller, etc.) would be a step backwards, because the construction of the game makes such roles dependent on circumstances, NOT character build! Any 5e character can be a striker... and then a controller in the next encounter. So such conceptual descriptions would be regressive if applied to 5e.

 

[MechaPilot]

No. I said that I don't care if WotC creates feats that allow a player who wants to specialize for the role they envision to be able to. I do care if WotC makes such specialization a default expectation of the rules. This is not a difficult concept.

Sorry if I offended (tone is hard to tell online), but your post's wording was confusing as to what you meant; I just wanted some clarification.

Have you played 3.5 or, more recently, Pathfinder? Try to grapple an opponent. If you have not consciously built your character (including selections of feats and archetypes) for grappling, you will inevitably fail. If you have built your character for the role of "grappler,"
you will frequently do so with absolute ease. But if you encounter an enemy immune to grappling? Enjoy sitting out the fight, as you will be useless (as the cost of specializing in grappling means you cannot do anything else effectively).

So, 3.5 and PF both encourage role specialization, both in the mechanics of the game and informally in the game's expectations. 5e's bounded accuracy prevents this from being as much of an issue, because a character can do many things without their bonuses (or lack thereof) overwhelming their ability to succeed. For this reason, 5e should never, either through rules, mechanics, or even informal description, introduce the concept of combat roles as features of class or character build (beyond that of class abilities... which is fundamentally different than combat role). It is placing limits where there should be none.

I have played 3.5, but I have not played PF. I have heard numerous people say that PF is basically 3.5 with only a tiny smattering of minor differences. I have no real reason to doubt the people who've said that, and I had no incentive to get involved in PF when I still had my 3.5 books, and when I was already enjoying 4e.

Regarding specialization, I agree and disagree. Specialization in grappling isn't role specialization. Grappling is a means to fulfilling a role, not a role in itself.


Also, you are using that same wording that confused me before when you say the following:

For this reason, 5e should never, either through rules, mechanics, or even informal description, introduce the concept of combat roles as features of class or character build (beyond that of class abilities... which is fundamentally different than combat role).

Wouldn't optional feats, classes, subclasses, and subclass/class features constitute 5e introducing "rules, mechanics, or even informal description?" That's part of what confused me in your first post.

Describing 5e's choices in terms of 4e's roles (striker, controller, etc.) would be a step backwards, because the construction of the game makes such roles dependent on circumstances, NOT character build! Any 5e character can be a striker... and then a controller in the next encounter. So such conceptual descriptions would be regressive if applied to 5e.

I disagree with this for a few reasons:

1) If there is a choice that makes a character better at achieving a given role, I see no reason to actively avoid saying so.

2) Choosing to focus on dealing damage for one encounter does not make a character a "striker" (a striker is a character who excels at dealing damage over performing the other combat roles), and choosing to attempt to fulfill a different role is not something that couldn't be done in 4e (you would just never be as good at fulfilling that role as you would be at fulfilling the role you receive enabling mechanics for).

3) People come into RPGs from a variety of different sources. Role-indicating language facilitates players who come into 5e from 4e, MMOs, and tactical wargames.

 

[Hussar]

Goodness gracious.

Folks, the concept of roles is not new. 1961. Fantastic Four #1. Mr Fantastic = Leader. Human Torch = Striker. Invisible Woman = Controller. The Thing = Defender.

Real world military organizations use tactical roles, and have since before the ancient Greeks!

When you have individuals with different tactical strengths, roles are a natural fallout. Being largely specialized is usually the smart way to go in a time-critical, dangerous situation. Everyone knows what they are supposed to do, by role, without having to discuss actions at length before someone starts shooting or trying to stab you.

The game, having the base 4 classes since at least AD&D has had the concept of combat roles for decades already. 4e is only the most tightly designed and explicitly stated, and has the greatest focus on those roles.

I tend to think that the issue is not about roles, but about classes. Players have a tendency to define the character by their class, instead of *using* the class to implement the definition of the character. Then you get sentences like, "I want a Fighter that can be a Controller!" Why? That is putting the class definition before the character definition. Turn it around, and say, "I want a martial character that can be a controller!" Then you pick what class combinations will get you that result. If some of it is Fighter, that's great. But if more of it is Warlord or Rogue, why do we care, so long as the character has suitable abilities?

Your loyalty should be to the character concept, not to the class definitions. Yes, the classes are not infinitely flexible, so you cannot create any and every concept imaginable. This will be an issue with any classed system. Unclassed systems are also imperfect, but in different ways. No game is perfect. Do not make perfect the enemy of good.

Heh, I used to read X-Factor a while back. I remember when they first introduce the new line up along with their code names. "Every team has a strong guy!"

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Good point. "Strong Guy" != "Defender".

 

[Leatherhead]

I think a case about gamism and narrativism might be made on 4e, but *not* because of the roles. As you said, the roles were already there. And, despite your statements, I think folks did think in terms of, "I'm the big guy in the armor, I'll take the front line." - so, they were really thinking about their combat roles. So, ultimately, I don't think it is an issue of gaming agendas.

I would have to disagree, the 4e player roles are constructs that exist to intentionally exploit game mechanics. While those mechanics are largely due to the nature of HP and glitches of that kind of system, and have "always been there" because HP has always been there, I don't believe the tactics they promote were not intended, but rather fell back into so that people could win some battles they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. Then once more people started adopting them, it created a kind of arms race between the players and developers where the glitched tactics were evolved and exaggerated to the point where they were finely made the norm in an attempt to get them under control.

 

[Eric V]

Heck, the FF even have 4e secondary roles

Ben: Striker (especially if you played the RPG by Jeff Grubb)
Sue: Defender (the force fields can shield others ala Shielding Swordmage)
Johnny: Controller (Wall of Fire, anyone?)
Reed: Controller (when he uses his gadgets)

That people think there was role-less D&D before 4e is astounding to me; it sounds more like people don't like the roles being spelled out, for reasons I don't personally understand.

 

[Hussar]

No. I said that I don't care if WotC creates feats that allow a player who wants to specialize for the role they envision to be able to. I do care if WotC makes such specialization a default expectation of the rules. This is not a difficult concept.

Have you played 3.5 or, more recently, Pathfinder? Try to grapple an opponent. If you have not consciously built your character (including selections of feats and archetypes) for grappling, you will inevitably fail. If you have built your character for the role of "grappler,"
you will frequently do so with absolute ease. But if you encounter an enemy immune to grappling? Enjoy sitting out the fight, as you will be useless (as the cost of specializing in grappling means you cannot do anything else effectively).

So, 3.5 and PF both encourage role specialization, both in the mechanics of the game and informally in the game's expectations. 5e's bounded accuracy prevents this from being as much of an issue, because a character can do many things without their bonuses (or lack thereof) overwhelming their ability to succeed. For this reason, 5e should never, either through rules, mechanics, or even informal description, introduce the concept of combat roles as features of class or character build (beyond that of class abilities... which is fundamentally different than combat role). It is placing limits where there should be none.

Describing 5e's choices in terms of 4e's roles (striker, controller, etc.) would be a step backwards, because the construction of the game makes such roles dependent on circumstances, NOT character build! Any 5e character can be a striker... and then a controller in the next encounter. So such conceptual descriptions would be regressive if applied to 5e.

Wait, what now? I'm playing a 5e crusader fighter. How in the world can I be a controller? I get no AoE attacks, none. I'm a sword and board fighter, so the ranger/rogue, with his bonuses to attack with a bow and sneak attack damage dice will almost always out damage me. Now, tank? Sure, I can do that. And since 5e doesn't really allow anyone to grant out of turn actions, Leader is largely out, but Striker or Controller? Nope, sorry, not happening.

 

[Hussar]

Good point. "Strong Guy" != "Defender".

Again, what? Look at the strong guy in virtually every single super hero group. They are the defenders. Thing, Colossus, Superman (and I mean the Justice League Superman, which is a bit different from other interpretations), Hulk. How are those not defenders? They are there to put a stop on the big bad guys and let everyone else do their thing.

 

[Leatherhead]

Again, what? Look at the strong guy in virtually every single super hero group. They are the defenders. Thing, Colossus, Superman (and I mean the Justice League Superman, which is a bit different from other interpretations), Hulk. How are those not defenders? They are there to put a stop on the big bad guys and let everyone else do their thing.

Actually, the Brick is there to take a few hits then Job in the fight so the Big Bad looks like a more credible threat for the team to face, but only if regeneration isn't on hand to do so first.

It's a common narrative device to ramp up the drama.