D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Hussar]

I'm saying that it was not the most common style and so no one, including those who did play that way, should be so shocked that a focus there didn't go well.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?408712-What-are-the-Roles-now/page39#ixzz3PsSbqQgD

As far as I can see though, no one is actually arguing that. No one is arguing the merits of roles. What's being argued is the point you've already conceded - that roles have always existed in the game.

 

[Minigiant]

I hear what you're saying, but I also see that you're saying something different than 4E. Would you say, "I know, but my definition is better" or "You're wrong about the 4E definition" or "Actually, this is the same as the 4E definition"?

4th edition PHB pg 16

"Defenders have the highest defense is the game and good close-up offense. They are the party's frnt line combatants, wherever they're standing, that's what the action is. Defenders have abilities and powers that make it difficult for enemies to move past them or to ignore them in battle."

I'd say my definition matches the book's.

The wiki is missing info.

EDIT:

Notice this

"Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the gam. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack."

See that last sentence.

Many people forget that strikers are not all about damage. The striker has to be able to dodge tough enemies and get to enemy's VIP.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In your whole reply you are trying to have it both ways. You embrace the "if you don't like 4e you are a H4TER camp" rhetoric of "everything is the same" and critical comments are not opinions but "hurtful" things, and then you say you should not be grouped.

no, I address what you say with you and what someone else says with them... the exception is as a post gets longer since I am bad with names (even in real life not just internet) I do sometimes confuse mult arguments on the same point... that is an error I assume is ok, since we all make mistakes.

I pointed out (and went out of my way to) that "If you don't like 4e you are a h4ter" is wrong... The same way I hate being grouped with pathfinder haters is the same reason I don't group people... because you can not like something and still not be a hater, you can even point out why you don't... as long as you do so with respect and don't dismiss others...

"Everything is the same" is a slogan, a role if you will, that isn't stating anything but the basic montra of the actual haters... if you have a problem state it, not the slogan.

You also blow off critical comments of 4E by saying "same for me for Pathfinder", but you completely miss the point that YOU are the one calling these comments "hurtful" when they are aimed at 4E.

My whole "Same for me with pathfinder" is finding common ground... aka we both feel that way about a D&D... you in no way mean the same thing when you say things about 4e... The funny part is you accuse me of saying things are 'hurtful' when I was using them to try to build a dialog.

And, again, the debate is over.
4E lost the market.

and yet sooo many 4e things are hidden in 5e... and 4e (through ddi) is the only edition in history to have a income stream after the books went out of print...

well I guess 3e, and 2e, and 1e, and basic, and the orginal... and everything else lost too... so 4e is in good company at least.

 

[dd.stevenson]

In Gygax's AD&D PHB, prospective players are told that choice of character class dictates the approach that will be taken to the game. So Gygax seems to have thought that classes corresponded in some sense to roles.

In his DMG, in the rules for level advancement, he spells these roles out in a bit more detail, though primarily in negative terms (describing poor play): a fighter played in a cowardly fashion who shirks battle; a magic-user who fails to use magic items and who seeks out melee; a cleric who refuses to heal and provide support; a thief who passes over the opportunity to steal loot - these are all put forward by Gygax as examples of poor play, to be penalised when it comes to level advancement.

Those are roles, although not exactly the same as 4e's roles which deal only with combat. (In 4e non-combat is mostly, though not solely, the province of the skill system and ritual system, which are class-independent to a large though not exclusive extent.)

To my mind, these differences (darkly) mirror the differences between early and late World of Warcraft roles. At every point in the game's life cycle, roles have been a critical part of the way WoW is played. But big changes in presentation and focus very much changed how the game was played and how it felt to play.

At the beginning, players were given three talent trees and asked to construct their own character a la carte. Some classes and some talent trees corresponded to some roles--but not all did, and even the most focused trees had its sore thumb talents.

Gradually the game began moving towards a roles-first design philosophy. From my perspective, the key moment in this transformation was at the beginning of the cataclysm expansion, when the design team rejected multi-role trees. I remember that point in the transformation clearly, because it marked the point when I lost interest in World of Warcraft.

Why? I'm not 100% sure. I suspect that for me self-discovery had been an important part of the character/player arc. Previously I had been allowed the journey of negotiating my character's role; and then the designers took that journey away. The (arguable) fact that the journey's endpoint remained the same was no comfort at all.

Coming back to D&D, it was the "roles" section of the 4E PHB where I stopped reading and gave up on wotc, because they were clearly aping the then-current language of WoW devs, and they appeared to be going further down the "roles first" path then even WoW had at the time. (In marked contrast to earlier D&D, which was IME primarily about player characters negotiating their own roles.)

But since I never so much as touched a 4E product again, I'm willing to concede that this overwhelmingly strong impression might not have been borne out in play.

TL;DR: Yes, roles were always there--but that doesn't mean one wants them in the character premise, or even guaranteed during character development.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

4th edition PHB pg 16

"Defenders have the highest defense is the game and good close-up offense. They are the party's frnt line combatants, wherever they're standing, that's what the action is. Defenders have abilities and powers that make it difficult for enemies to move past them or to ignore them in battle."

I'd say my definition matches the book's.

The wiki is missing info.

I'll consider that a "you're wrong about the 4E definition," thank you. I only played 4E three times and then quit (more DM issues than system issues--I didn't like his gamist mentality) so it's not that surprising I'm wrong. Thanks for the rules quote/clarification.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

and 4e (through ddi) is the only edition in history to have a income stream after the books went out of print...

well I guess 3e, and 2e, and 1e, and basic, and the orginal... and everything else lost too... so 4e is in good company at least.

What you said about 4E things in 5E is true, and I honestly think 5E is stronger for it, but what I quote is not true.

3E still has a revenue stream, and in fact has kept a steady revenue stream ever since WotC shut down production of their products for it. It's just not WotC that sees the revenue.

 

[PaulO.]

Sorry to derail this wonderful discussion on what exactly the definition of a "role" is, but I'd like to go back to the original post.

Following on from the discussion about clerics in another thread, people were discussing how it is more important to simply cover roles than have a particular class. This got me thinking, what are the actual roles in 5e now? In 4e they were blatant and we seem to assume they are the same in 5e, but I doubt that is the case.

Is Defender a role now? Paladins, Bear Barbarians and Fighters can do it, but even then only really with a feat. How important is it? Are they tough enough to warrant wanting to direct attacks at them?

How necessary is the Healer? Short of an emergency heal, most healing seems to be done out of combat, something that some feats and medial expertise can deal with to an extent. Can it be viewed as a sidenote of a class, or do we need a dedicated Healer roll?

Is Striker a unique enough set of skills to call it a roll? It seems that many classes can do good damage these days. Sorc, Warlock, Evok Wizard, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, Monk all compete for great damage. Is it fair to say that damage dealing is also a bit of a given these days, not worthy of a dedicated roll?

Despite the way I have phrased the above questions, I don't have much of an opinion on the topic.

I would say that when creating a party, I tend to want certain rolls covered. Just for interest I'm trying to put them in priority order.

1. A sneaky guy who can pick locks and disarm traps.
2. Somebody with social skills.
3. A meat shield of some sort, need not be a dedicated defender.
4. Some healing, need not be a dedicated healer.
5. Area effect damage
6. Arcana skills
7. Outdoor skills
8. Hold person or some other way to remove people from a fight non-fatally.

So really, for me it comes down to wanting to see:
1. A dex based guy
2. A guy with good charisma
3. Somebody with decent AC

The rest we can get by with using backgrounds, spells and feats. Sure I want more than that, but at a pinch we can get by.

What do you think the roles that need covering are?
And how would your priorities them in a small group?
I am more interested in roles than which specific characters are best, but feel free to include your small group dream-team if you like.

I like your list. I haven't gotten too far in my 5E games, but I would make a similar list:

Primary
1. Damage.
2. A meat shield of some sort, need not be a dedicated defender.

Secondary
3. A sneaky scout, need not be a dedicated sneak.
4. Somebody with social skills.
5. Some way to deal with strong magical enemies (those with resistances, nasty spells, etc).
6. Some healing, need not be a dedicated healer.
7. Area effect damage.
8. Other skills (outdoor, knowledge, disarm traps, etc), can be spread out among the group.

I would say the first two are gotta-haves, and the rest are nice-to-haves and can be secondary roles (or jobs, or occupations, or contributions to the party).

The character-optimizer in me immediately started trying to form a character that could do as many of these as possible, but I think that takes away from the enjoyment from the rest of the party. I think it is best to not make a character that does too many of these well, unless you have party of wallflowers. Might be better to pick just a few and do those really well. Specialize with style and flair, instead of trying to be a master of everything and shutting out the rest of your party from the spotlight.

 

[pemerton]

within the 4E paradigm, the valid question is, "What role is Bob the Magus?" The idea that he might not act as a striker/controller/defender/leader never occurs (maybe he's a scout), or that he might fit one of those labels now and another in ten minutes and another tomorrow, or that he might fit two or more simultaneously (5E fighters are strikers + defenders simultaneously).

This looks like an empirical claim. What is your evidence?

I haven't done any sort of survey of 4e players. So I can only talk about my own experiences. In my 4e game we have a character who is a defender/controller - a polearm fighter. He also has a dash of leader (good self-heaing via Dwarven second wind plus a bit of party healing also). We have a character who is a leader/striker - a hybrid ranger-cleric. We have a character who is an AoE striker with strong secondary control (mostly via forced movement) and leader (a sorcerer with various sorts of party buffs resulting from Demonskin Adept plus multi-class bard). We have a defender who also provides leader abilities - buff, debuff and healing (a CHA-paladin with Eye for and Eye and similar encounter power responses to attacks against fellow party members).

We also have a character who according to the label is a controllers (invoker with wizard multi-class) but who is generally the weakest character in combat (though he does have some nice AoE debuff when he pulls it out), and whose main function in the party is to be the skill monkey, linguist and ritualist.

So based on my experience, I don't give much credence to these claims about a "4e paradigm" in which characters can't be conceived of except as operating within certain singular roles.

your character could determine the shape of the battlefield depending on where he stands, who he attacks, etc. Move into the center of the enemy forces and split them, now your allies can attack one set together. Stand in a doorway and allow your ranged and spell casters to fire past you.

<snip>

with 4e roles, we are talking about characters designed and built to fulfill certain combat tactics every time.

With a doorway, you might act as a controller. Without it, you might action surge and be a striker. You are absolutely right that a thief might decide to hold the doorway and be the controller. Or a wizard might buff his AC and hold the door while you fire or jab with a reach weapon past him.

<snip>

But once delineated in the rules and mechanics of the game, you can't play without them.

More empirical claims. What is the evidence?

What, in 4e, stops a sorcerer from buffing up and holding a doorway? Nothing! - and the sorcerer in my 4e game is known for moving into the thick of things from time-to-time.

If we move the focus from playing the game to building PCs, what do you mean by "delineated in the rules and mechanics of the game"? The action resolution rules of 4e don't make reference to roles. Nor do the PC build rules - the roles are labels that serve as guidelines for players who are wondering what their PC might be good at. They are not part of the build mechanics.

In mechanical terms, playing a class labelled "striker" means having build options that tend to support damage dealing and mobility. The "controller" label signals build options that tend to support condition-imposition and forcing movement. The "leader" lablel signals build options that tend to support healing and buffing, as well as perhaps debuffing enemy attacks and/or defences.

"Defender" is discussed in more detail below, but the basics of being a defender in 4e is being able to endure attacks (good AC, good hit points - this has been the fighter for the whole of D&D's history) and about being able to lock down opponents in melee. In 4e being a defender does not of necessity imply low-damage. Fighters are not particularly low-damage. Nor is the paladin in my 4e game. Swordmages often tend to be.

In AD&D achieving melee lockdown did not depend upon build options, but rather was achieved via punitive rules for withdrawing from melee. In 4e lockdown is achieved by more intricate rules around marking and other condition imposition (eg prone, dazed), forced movement, and OAs/interrupts, and access to these mechanical optoins is achieved via fetures of PC build; classes labelled "defender", in particular, provide build options along these lines. (The borderline between "defender" and "controller" is therefore very blurry - in my experience, a high level fighter with access to multiple encounter power AoEs and solid feat-driven debuff with the mobility to get where s/he needs to be is equally well described as a controller as a defender.)

Lewis Pulsipher, one of the leading figures in the late 70s and early 80s British D&D scene (he wrote frequently for the White Dwarf of that period) had an essay in which he set out possible roles for the D&D character classes. For thief this incuded "commando" (= striker, in 4e parlance) and for wizard this included artillery (= AoE striker, in 4e parlance) and anti-personnel via charms, hold etc (= controller, in 4e parlance). He had more roles than the 4e ones, because he mixed-and-matched combat and non-combat functions, whereas in 4e the language of "role" pertains almost exclusively to combat function. (Not completely exclusively - striker, in particular, tends to imply a reasonable degree of mobility, which then tends to imply a scout/movement capability for non-combat exploration.) But it was clear to him that the framework of character classes with varying class features and abilities means that some classes are more easily built to perform certain functions than other classes.

5e still has mechanical build options, and hence there are still some characters who do more damage than others (compare a fighter with a two-handed sword compared to a longsword); some characters who have more access to healing than others (compare a champion fighter to a cleric); some characters who have more access to condition-imposition (compare most wizards to a champion fighter). Furthermore, choice of class continues to be an important factor in framing these choices (eg wizards get more choices for debuffing, clerics and bards get more choices for healing).

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.

A description (I think "label" is actually a better word) doesn't change the thing labelled. You can label a 5e fighter whatever you want - but how does a 5e fighter built per the Basic PDF act as a controller in open terrain - eg where are the AoE debuff options? Or as a healer of any significance? By labelling the class "striker" I indicate that, if you build your character along the lines set out in the PDF, what you will get is a PC whose main ability is to deal damage, but whose ability to force movement, impose conditions/debuff, or heal, is pretty limited.

And I think that would be a rather accurate label for a Basic PDF fighter.

"Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time,"

I don't know where you got this from, but I don't think it has much bearing on 4e. For instance, the PHB2 labels the sorcerer as a striker (and correclty so, in my experience of seeing a sorcerer in play), and a sorcerer can be built with mostly AoE attacks.

The ranger in my 4e group is a single target striker. He plays pretty differently from the sorceer. (Including getting into the thick of things much less often.)

So does that mean you are right and the DnD4 wikia is wrong? "A character with the defender role primarily focuses enemy fire by making it difficult for enemies to move past, and punishing enemies who attack other party members." Because your definition implies that the defender must have the highest offensive output in the game or else a way to make enemies behave irrationally. Where does your definition come from and why should it be preferred?

If Dnd4 wikia is where you got your definition of "striker" then it is not very good. Who wrote it?

I don't know how familiar you are with 4e, but have you actually looked at how 4e defenders work, mechanically?

As others have pointed out upthread, the 43 fighter, for instance, has the following features:

*good AC and hit points, which means that being in the thick of melee is not a hindrance in the way that it is for a wizard or thief (this is true to fighters right back to the origins of D&D);

*a bonus to hit with OAs, which also end the movement of a moving target (this is part of the lockdown, which replicates in 4e the stickiness of melee that in AD&D was achieved via punitive withdrawal rules - 3E was the edition of D&D which, via the 5' step, lost the stickiness of melee);

*the ability to impose a mark on any target who is attacked (whether or not the attack hits) that lasts for one round (a mark is a debuff - it imposes a -2 penalty to attacks that don't target the fighter who imposed it - I think there may be similar mechanics in 3.5, but not in 3E or AD&D);

*the ability to take an immediate action (= 5e reaction, roughly) attack against a marked target who makes an attack that doesn't target the fighter who imposed the mark, or against a marked target who tries to withdraw from the fighter via 5' step (this has a more technical definition using 4e mechanical vocabulary, but I've given the gist of it).​

The fighter doesn't "focus enemy fire" in any literal sense - given that "fire" means "ranged attacks", the more the enemy has "fire" the less impact the fighter has on the ingame situation, because s/he has rather limited ranged attacks and hence can't impose marks against targets at range - and even if the marks are imposed, they can't be enforced via immediate actions, because these are triggered only via an adjacent enemy. Using the language of 4e encounter design, if the GM wants to build an encounter that will reduce the impact of the fighter, s/he would include a high proportion of artillery creatures.

The way the fighter in my 4e game plays is by moving into the middle of the enemy combatants (he has a skill power called Mighty Sprint to help with this) and then laying into them with AoEs (these have no AD&D equivalent, but in 3E terms resemble Whirlwind Attacks). By marking the creatures, the fighter makes it very hard for them to break out of melee: if they try and move, they take an OA which if it hits, stops them; if they try a 5' step as their movement option, they take an attack from the fighter (sometimes called "punishment for mark violation" or "mark enforcement") and have to then choose between forfeiting their attack to move again, or else being not very far away from the fighter but (if the fighter hit with the free attack) being somewhat lower in the hit point department.

At a high level of description the dynamic, in play, is roughly similar to AD&D melees in which, once you go in, only the last person comes out alive - but with much more granular resolution than AD&D, played out via the movement rules, the mark rules, the immediate action rules, etc.

As other posters have indicated upthread, other defenders have different styles. For instance, the paladin has the hit points and AC of a fighter, but uses a different mechanic for marking which makes it harder to mark multiple opponents, but inflicts damage directly on an enemy (without needing to roll an attack) if that enemy makes an attack that doesn't target the paladin.

A paladin also has trouble maintaing and enforcing marks at range, so it would be inaccurate to say that a paladin encourages "focus fire". A paladin's strength is single-target melee lockdown. THis is, overall, weaker defending than a fighter (in my view) but the paladin has other class features to make up for it, like healing and limited buffing.

that also misses 80% of the Hulk concept, which is everything related to the manner in which he does that damage: by smashing people's faces in with raw strength.

As you are using it here, "concept" seems to mean something like "fictional trappings". In the language of roles, fictional trappings are not very relevant. For instance, the fighter controller in my 4e game uses a polearm. The invoker and sorcerer use magic. These differences within the fiction are relevant to various aspects of play, and of resolution, but don't bear upon the role of the character, which is about function and effect rather than fictional means.

Because almost none of them actually play the defender role. Superman is the sole one who typically plays it.

Thing? Colossus? Hulk? These are not defensive characters.

It's a long time since I've thought about, or read, the FF - but Colossus absolutely plays a defensive role, in the sense that he powers up and soaks gunfire while other X-Men take cover behind him.

It is hard to compare this directly to 4e, though, because 4e (consistent with earlier versions of D&D) tends to treat melee as the true heart of combat. I think quite a bit of work would be needed to build rules for 4e that centred ranged attacks as the core of the game's combat.

I think the OP may have missed a few, including:

Summoner: the guy who can generate disposable minions when needed (e.g. fighting undead with level drain).

Diviner: the guy who can uncover arcane knowledge via scrying and Speak With Dead. Invaluable when solving murders.

Hacker: the guy who can penetrate/shut down/take control of enemy defensive systems. Not a stereotypical D&D activity but this is basically what Abjurors with Counterspell/Dispel Magic are doing

If anyone has told you that these sorts of activities are not feasible objects of specialisation in 4e, you've been misinformed.

Generating disposable minions in 4e is strictly limited, because of the possibility for action economy rorts (which 3E illustrated with its animal companion-basd classes), but various PC builds have various capabilities to do this (eg the invoker/wizard in my game can summon an imp familiar). There are a number of pathways to this in 4e PC building - most of them go under the controller label, but that is not the only way to do it.

A diviner is an out-of-combat role. In 4e this is about ritual capabilities, and so is mostly independent of class, although a few classes (eg invoker, wizard, cleric, druid, psion) get a head start.

A "hacker" in your sense straddles out-of-combat and in-combat. In 4e this is about having good skill checks in apposite skills. A fighter will often struggle a bit with this, as may a ranger (they don't have good skill/stat synergies for the knowledge and social skills this involves) but there are many, many viable pathways. In my 4e game the invoker/wizard is the one who principally serves this function.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

It's a long time since I've thought about, or read, the FF - but Colossus absolutely plays a defensive role, in the sense that he powers up and soaks gunfire while other X-Men take cover behind him.

A lot of the depictions I've seen him in tend to treat the defensive capabilities of Colossus as a secondary ability, with him more capable at attacking or aiding with attacking. That suggests a primary striker, secondary defender.

However, just because he can defend doesn't mean he is a defensive character. The Hulk is also quite capable of playing defensively.

 

[pemerton]

The point remains that you used very different (virtually opposite standards) for your two evaluations.

How so?

I pointed out that, in 4e, role labels serve the purpose of guidelines. They tell a prospective player of a class what sort of class features/build options they can expect to choose from in building a PC of that class.

In AD&D, there are advancement rules that expressly penalise players who play their PCs in a way that differs from Gygax's conception of the relevant class role.

There aren't any evaluations there, just descriptions.

Equating "damage dealing" with the concept of 4E roles is not even remotely fair to the conversation.

Why not?

In AD&D, if I want to play a character who can reliably deal significant amounts of damage in melee, I will choose a fighter. This is a mechanically-driven choice - fighters have good hit points, good AC and (especially if weapon specialisation is in play) good rates of attack with good chances to hit for good amounts of damage.

(If the game is very low level, and weapon specialisation is not in play, a cleric can also be a reasonable choice to play this role (comparable hp, comparable AC, comparable to hit and damage in a low-level, non-specialisation play environment. But this is not really evidence of flexibility so much as of oddities in the AD&D approach to class balance.)

other systems could be played in a manner that emphasized roles and therefore people who had been playing this way would likely be big fans of 4E's full-on embracing of this approach. I'm not challenging the existence of this or the merit of it.

I'm saying that it was not the most common style

I have no idea what you think a "role" is. Nor, therefore, what you think it means to "emphasise roles".

If you mean "having regard to the mechanical capabilities of the PC", then I have never encountered an RPG in which this is not relevant - after all, they nearly all have rules for building PCs whose mechanical abilities vary.

If a player describes, or conceives, his/her PC as a miracle working healer, but mechanically has no ability to restore hit points, remove debilitating conditions like blindness/deafness, etc, then what am I meant to make of that description/conception?

Once a character, in building his/her PC, has regard to the link between mechanical features of PC build and capabilities in the fiction, and notes that (in a class-based game) that distribution of features is neither random nor identical across classes, how is s/he not "emphasising roles" ie noting what the general mechanical thrust and capability of the various classes is?