D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[FormerlyHemlock]

So on and so forth. Roles are descriptive. The problem is that in 4e, the books were written with a voice that was far too strong and far too authoritative and people took that to mean that roles were prescriptive. ONLY fighters can be defenders goes the refrain, which simply isn't true. It's just that fighters, out of the box, make the best defenders.

This seems to be the opposite of what Manbearcat is saying, which is that Defender is a role which is inductively defined by Fighters and other Defender-classified 4E builds. I gather that you play(ed) 4E? If so there seems to be confusion even within the 4E community as to what these words mean.

Fortunately there isn't any confusion what the OP in this thread was asking for, which is clearly "functional roles" in 5E. In particular, functional roles which aren't part of baseline competency for all PCs.

 

[Imaro]

I would have hoped that the purple pants and the green skin with freakishly bulging muscles bit came off clearly as a little levity to lighten things up Obviously a 4e Fighter (Defender) doesn't have that overlap with the Hulk.

No worries, that came across fine...

However, I'm a little confused here. Are you guys saying that the other parts of what I wrote aren't how a Fighter manifests in play in 4e? I have no idea how much (if any) 4e (with a Fighter especially) you've played SirAntoine. However, I know you've played some Imaro (maybe 6 months?) and probably saw a Fighter in action.

I can't speak for SirAntoine, but no, that wasn't what I was saying... I was saying the characteristics came across so broad that they could fit about 90% of the physical based superheroes regardless of whether their main role would have been Defender... On the other hand IMO they're also to narrow to apply in general to the Defender role (as opposed to the specific Fighter archetype) in 4e....

 

[yakuba]

This seems to be the opposite of what Manbearcat is saying, which is that Defender is a role which is inductively defined by Fighters and other Defender-classified 4E builds. I gather that you play(ed) 4E? If so there seems to be confusion even within the 4E community as to what these words mean.

Part of it that these Role definitions evolved with the edition itself. The Striker role is a good example. In PHB1 we get the (paraphrasing) 'lots of damage to single target' and 'sneaky, mobile,ways of getting out of trouble' definition. All of the PHBX Strikers do have lower survivability and defenses compared to Defenders. Most of them are also single target focused, excepting the Sorcerer. When Essentials came out we got the Slayer and Blackguard. These were strikers, but they have Defender level hit points and defenses and they lack mobility and sneakiness. Essentially, the designers grew more comfortable with a wider definition of the role. So the oft-quoted PHB1 definitions cannot really be considered definitive, although is still certainly indicative.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I can't speak for SirAntoine, but no, that wasn't what I was saying... I was saying the characteristics came across so broad that they could fit about 90% of the physical based superheroes regardless of whether their main role would have been Defender... On the other hand IMO they're also to narrow to apply in general to the Defender role (as opposed to the specific Fighter archetype) in 4e....

to be honest games are very different from fiction and games... and I mean that in a good way, I would hate to play through such a scritped set of events...

 

[Imaro]

Part of it that these Role definitions evolved with the edition itself. The Striker role is a good example. In PHB1 we get the (paraphrasing) 'lots of damage to single target' and 'sneaky, mobile,ways of getting out of trouble' definition. All of the PHBX Strikers do have lower survivability and defenses compared to Defenders. Most of them are also single target focused, excepting the Sorcerer. When Essentials came out we got the Slayer and Blackguard. These were strikers, but they have Defender level hit points and defenses and they lack mobility and sneakiness. Essentially, the designers grew more comfortable with a wider definition of the role. So the oft-quoted PHB1 definitions cannot really be considered definitive, although is still certainly indicative.

I wonder at what point do the roles become so wide and encompassing of so many different traits that they essentially become kind of meaningless as reference points? That is what I have been saying about 5e, IMO there is so much customization that trying to match a class with a definitive role as was done in 4e is kind of pointless. Note i never said anything about 4e being less customizable than 5e... or anything else about 4e. The only thing I said was that I didn't agree that the roles of 4e (and by that I mean their entire implementation) are in 5e. Of course that set off cries of edition warring...

 

[Imaro]

to be honest games are very different from fiction and games... and I mean that in a good way, I would hate to play through such a scritped set of events...

I don't disagree with this but I also wasn't the one who chose the example. IMO, it seems like the definition, as well as how 4e fans view roles in 4e in this thread has been all kind of nebulous and full of variation...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't disagree with this but I also wasn't the one who chose the example. IMO, it seems like the definition, as well as how 4e fans view roles in 4e in this thread has been all kind of nebulous and full of variation...

the part your missing is we can see inspiration from those character traits (aka role) we also DO see them as kind of nevulous and full of variation...

 

[yakuba]

I wonder at what point do the roles become so wide and encompassing of so many different traits that they essentially become kind of meaningless as reference points? That is what I have been saying about 5e, IMO there is so much customization that trying to match a class with a definitive role as was done in 4e is kind of pointless. Note i never said anything about 4e being less customizable than 5e... or anything else about 4e. The only thing I said was that I didn't agree that the roles of 4e (and by that I mean their entire implementation) are in 5e. Of course that set off cries of edition warring...

I think it's more a question of design intent. If, as in 4e, your goal is for each class to default to one particular combat role, then, of course, you will have a set of classes which can be easily classified by its default role. In 5e the design intent for classes is not based on having each class default to a certain role. The 5e designers were agnostic on this point (I'd note at this point that the design goals for the 5ePHB classes were made public and discussed during the design process.) As a result some classes default strongly to a particular 4e role, like the monk and rogue, and others don't default to any particular 4e role like Paladin or the Wizard or the Fighter. Different design goals lead to different results.

As to your actual point of 4e roles in 5e. I'd disagree with you. Roles are ways of organizing activity. If you want you can see the 4e roles in the 5e classes, because that's one way of dividing combat compentencies. OTOH, I can see the 4e DMG roles. I can also see all characters divided into those which can act at range and those which can't, and these sets would be disjoint from the 4e role set. The thing is that generally no set of roles is actually the definitive of roles. What would be true is that the 5e classes do not have a specific 4e role that they default to.

 

[Imaro]

the part your missing is we can see inspiration from those character traits (aka role) we also DO see them as kind of nevulous and full of variation...

But we weren't talking about inspiration, the claim was made that the roles were in 5e... same as 4e. My assertion was that 5e has so much customization within a class that the roles as defined in 4e don't really exist anymore. My Fighter's main purpose doesn't have to be a defender... my Wizard isn't necessarily best at being a controller and my rogue can be built outside the boundaries of being mainly a striker. can I take feats and options that make my fighter a defender? Sure but I can also take stuff that makes him more similar to a Warlord/Leader or a more damage focused character... or a myriad of roles that I could make up that aren't in 4e but could be expressed with 5e choices as illustrated previously by other posters.

 

[Imaro]

I think it's more a question of design intent. If, as in 4e, your goal is for each class to default to one particular combat role, then, of course, you will have a set of classes which can be easily classified by its default role. In 5e the design intent for classes is not based on having each class default to a certain role. The 5e designers were agnostic on this point (I'd note at this point that the design goals for the 5ePHB classes were made public and discussed during the design process.) As a result some classes default strongly to a particular 4e role, like the monk and rogue, and others don't default to any particular 4e role like Paladin or the Wizard or the Fighter. Different design goals lead to different results.

As to your actual point of 4e roles in 5e. I'd disagree with you. Roles are ways of organizing activity. If you want you can see the 4e roles in the 5e classes, because that's one way of dividing combat compentencies. OTOH, I can see the 4e DMG roles. I can also see all characters divided into those which can act at range and those which can't, and these sets would be disjoint from the 4e role set. The thing is that generally no set of roles is actually the definitive of roles. What would be true is that the 5e classes do not have a specific 4e role that they default to.

I think perhaps now I'm not communicating clearly because I feel like the bolded part is exactly what I and others have been saying about 5e. When you tell me that the 4e roles are in 5e... I am assuming that you are saying the classes are mostly defined by and map to particular roles as in 4e... that is why early on in this discussion people asked those who thought this to define what they meant by roles... if you mean subjectively I can categorize certain builds into 4e roles... well duh, you can do that for any number of roles one could make up... what exactly is your point unless when you say 4e roles you mean the implementation specifically? If all we're saying is that I can come up with a way to classify certain character builds... then yeah, I would agree but IMO, that's so obvious as to be a no-brainer... with the caveat being... if that's how it had been expressed.