D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Manbearcat]

I don't think so.

I don't think so either.

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] suggests that the fighter is the paradigm of the defender (I agree).

That is what I was saying. I was trying to say it in two ways in fact:

1) Thematically, this is a major swath of his portfolio and the AD&D Fighter mechanics and punitive withdraw rules back that up; "hold the line, lock down the enemies, control the melee, tear through the mooks, survive the punishment, and dish it out two-fold".

2) Mechanically, 4e brings these thematics roaring to life, writ large, with robust synergies and interesting tactical decision-points married to the combat engine.

And I find the Hulk (specifically in a team - The Avengers - setting), Colossus, and The Thing hew pretty closely to this paradigm. You can see it in the suites of abilities in their respective MHRP data-files and it translates to the fiction of a properly run game. Well, I haven't run an X-Men or FF game, but I have run an Avengers game with the Hulk. The Hulk's datafile and the game's mechanics certainly produce an unstoppable force holding back the infantry (Defender) of the Kree Empire while the Black Widow/Hawkeye (ranged Strikers) pick guys off and Cap (Leader) does his thing. Only had 4 players so no Iron Man (et al)!

 

[SirAntoine]

The Hulk is as close to a berserking barbarian as you can get. At least he is when I have seen him. He isn't going to the front line to be a defender, but to attack. He has no fear, and he can endure hits but he'd go even if he couldn't. He just wants to smash, or throw the enemies out the window or across the room.

The other characters might benefit from this as a distraction, but to say the Hulk's role is defender is to suggest that is what he is trying to do. And mechanically speaking, 4e gave the fighter new abilities which enabled him to lock down enemies and "control the melee".

Generally speaking in D&D, I think it's fairer to say the fighter is "the fighter". He goes to the front line "to fight", without delay, and he is capable of so doing without "buffs" even though he often may want them first. The fighter who uses a bow is no less a fighter, he just doesn't have to move as close to the monsters, and the party can't use him to block corridors in the same way.

Anyone can block the corridor if they're given enough support. You can put the thief in that role, for example, and keep healing him or protecting him with spells like stoneskin. The fighter could hold the corridor for longer withous support, but how he is made use of should not define his role. And the wizard can create walls to block it. The fighter remains the fighter for being able to engage in combat so well, and for his contribution and the bravery required, he often deserves to be called the leader. By comparison, everyone else is in a support role, including the wizard even though his spell diversity lets him do anything. The fighter is the guy who goes out there and takes the biggest risks, and the rest of the party is expected to support him if he is being attacked by a lot of enemies. The party is in it together. No one character has the role of defending the rest of the group so they can do their thing.

My two cents.

 

[pemerton]

Anyone can block the corridor if they're given enough support.

Sure. And anyone can cast fireballs and charm enemies, given enough support (eg magic items, like the UA wand of fireballs, that don't have a class requirement for use).

What distinguishes a "defender" is that s/he can hold the corridor by drawing primarily on his/her own resources rather than by being propped up by others. That's a matter of degree, but then so are many interesting distinctions in other areas of life too!
[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], upthread, said "f by roles you mean any grouping or label one comes up with for a grouping of whatever one may consider "competencies"... then yeah roles exist". In my post to which this was a reply I said that "The question of roles, for me, is whether the build mechanics tend to channel PCs into one of an identifiable suite of default competencies." If the suite of competencies is not identifiable, and is not a default, then I don't think you have roles except by way of post hoc labelling. That's not roles in the 4e sense.

The default competencies exist as a function of the class build rules. By default, a fighter can withstand being attacked, and hit, in a way that a wizard cannot. This has been a feature of the game since it was originally published - fighters are defined by their high AC and high hit points, wizards by their low hit points and lack of armour, and hence their vulnerability.

That the suite of default competencies be identifiable is something I see as a distinct constraint. Competencies become identifiable relevant to perceived needs. Because combat is an almost universal component of D&D play, and a not-insignificant component of a large amount of D&D play, healing is a widely-felt need and hence an identifiable area of competence. And by default some 5e classes possess this capability while others don't, at least not in substantial measure.

Is blocking corridors an identifiable area of competency, in virtue of widely-felt need? 4e is built on the assumption that combat encounters will take place, and that when they do they will often occur in spaces large enough that mobility is a relevant consideration. This is part of the context which defines the roles of "defender", "striker" and "controller". Change that context and those roles become less salient - for instance, if most encounters happen in narrow corridors or small rooms, then "defending" becomes simply a matter of blocking the corridor, melee striking and defending cease to be interestingly different functions (or at least the interesting difference between them narrows), and ranged striking will start to look like just another mode of control (that specialises in imposing the "dead" or "dying" conditions).

Resolution mechanics also matter here. In both AD&D and Rolemaster, withdrawing from melee tends to be punitive. So every melee character becomes a "defender", in the sense of being able to lock others into melee. Under these circumstances, the difference between a high AC, lower damage melee character and a lower AC, high damage character simply becomes one of rounds required for victory. And the holy grail of melee becomes the combination of high AC and high damage.

4e is closer to 3E in its generic treatment of melee: melee is not, by default, especially sticky. This mechanical context helps underwrite the distinction between defender and striker. A fighter and a rogue in 4e don't differ just in their AC and damage output, but also in their stickiness. Fighters lock down enemies. Rogues are hard for enemies to lock down. These mechanical differences, combined with the fictional context noted above - an assumption that combats will occur in relatively large spaces - help underpin the identifiably different roles of defender and melee striker.

When someone asks "What are the roles now?", part of what I would think is being asked about are what are the default assumptions about play - eg what are the expectations about the fiction - and how do the mechanics interact with them, so as to create identifiable areas of competence to which different class builds might tend to default.

So far, it seems pretty clear that 5e has an identifiable area of competency in "healing" - it comes up in thread after thread - and that there is some interesting differences around holding the line in melee combared to mobile skirmishing, given the frequency of discussions around movement, the circumstances in which a rogue can hide in melee, etc. The significance of condition-imposition/debuff, something which is absolutely fundamental to combat in 4e, is less clear to me.

 

[Imaro]

The default competencies exist as a function of the class build rules. By default, a fighter can withstand being attacked, and hit, in a way that a wizard cannot. This has been a feature of the game since it was originally published - fighters are defined by their high AC and high hit points, wizards by their low hit points and lack of armour, and hence their vulnerability.

See examples like this confuse me... Just because a wizard doesn't withstand being attacked and hit the same way as a fighter... doesn't mean he doesn't have those as default competencies (otherwise the shielding swordmage and fighter in 4e wouldn't both be defenders since their methods of defending are totally different). His spells, school, etc. are his default competencies so if he can do things in 5e like pick Abjuration as his school and/or cast defensive spells on himself like Shield, False Life, Mage Armor, Stoneskin, etc. how is he not now withstanding being attacked and hit in a similar (if not the exact same manner) as the fighter?

EDIT: In fact I'd argue the simple fact that one uses magic and the other uses relatively mundane means is exactly why they shouldn't operate the same even if they have similar capabilities.

 

[pemerton]

So again we're using Essentials (A new set of core books whose whole purpose was to break with the original design tenets in 4e ... we might as well be talking about a separate edition) as the example for 4e not matching class to role. Like I said earlier essentials was designed to break from 4e in a last ditch effort to try and emulate the feel of previous editions... Let's at least try to be upfront here... is it or is it not true that for the majority of 4e's run that class directly corresponded to a role and the books specifically called this out?

I don't really get your argument. I don't see how Essentials is not relevant to a discussion of 4e - it is a major line of books for the edition. I don't see the point of your claim about unity of roles - as soon as the PHB for 4e was released practically everyone noticed that paladins ca be built to be secondary leaders as well as defenders, that multi-class feats permitted a degree of role-bleeding, that fighters could be built to deliver striker-level damage, that the Fey warlock in particular was not much of a striker but (if played with a high degree of technical skill and flair) could be a potent single-target controller.

If anything Essentials shows that WotC was finally realizing most people don't want to be pigeonholed in the manner that the majority of 4e's run promoted.

The stuff about pigeon-holing strikes me as essentially a red herring (to mix animalian metaphors).

No one describes the fact that a fighter, in 5e, cannot be the party's main healer as "pigeon holing". The fact that a fighter, in 4e, is likely to be less mobile in combat than a ranger or rogue is no pigeon holing either. Anyone class-based game is going to allocate different abilities to different classes, otherwise there is no point in having class distinctions.

If the complaint is a lack of options for character types - for instance, the lack of a "bruiser" type who is a non-mobile, not particularly sticky damage dealer - then I think it is more helpful to state the complaint clearly. (If the complaint is that it is impossible to build a non-combat capable character, then I think the complaint is mostly unwarranted - 4e makes it relatively easy to build characters who are not terribly competent in combat, and I have one in my group.)

There is a reason why 4e doesn't, by default, have a bruiser type. It is connected to some basic features of the game's action resolution.

In AD&D melee, by default, is sticky (due to extremely punitive rules for anyone who disengages). In 3E, by default, melee is not sticky, due to very generous rules for the 5' step.

4e is closer to 3E than AD&D when it comes to the default stickiness of melee. When designing a fighter for 4e, therefore, a choice has to be made: do we replicate the stickiness of an AD&D melee specialist, by building in class features that will replicate it? or do we duplicate the bruiser-iness of an AD&D melee fighter, by building in class features that will replicate that? Or do we give the fighter both?

The designers went with option 1 rather than option 2. (A strong version of option 3 was off the table, because they decided that being sticky and dealing the highest amounts of damage in the game would be areas of potential trade-off in build, between "defending" and "striking".) That is, they decided that the stickiness of the fighter, rather than its bruiser-iness, was the core feature of the class that they wanted to replicate within this different, 3E-influenced mechanical environment.

The slayer is 4e's version of option 2 - easily-obtained high damage but not very sticky.

A skilled player can build and play towards option 3, but - relating back to [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION]'s remark upthread - this requires a degree of system familiarity and technical mastery that not every player wants to develop or engage with.

Taking your example above what "role" is the archer fighter? Is it Striker? Is it ranged combatant? Is it lightly armored dex-based fighter? If it can be all of them and even more we are essentially getting to a point where trying to create roles for the classes is just added terminology towards what point when at least everyone can agree upon the competencies of the fighter and even those of a particular subclass... what benefit do I get from roles unless they are defined and hardcoded (at least to a minimum) within the game. And it gets even worse when a class has enough options, spells, maneuvers, choices in equipment, etc. open to it that it isn't channeled towards any particular default suite of competencies... Which IMO, is exactly what 5e does for the most part.

The idea that 5e classes are not channelled towards default suites of competence I don't agree with. Monks are channelled away from ranged combat, for instance, towards melee skirmishing. Fighters and rogues cannot be healers.

What role is the archer fighter? To me it looks like a ranged damage dealer - a striker. If there is mobility and a secondary ability to do some skirmishing melee (via DEX-based weapons and a DEX boost to AC) then we have a striker who can operate at range and in melee, like some 4e rangers and the sorcerer in my 4e game.

The archer fighter typically won't have the AC (lack of the heaviest armours, in order to achieve mobility) of a melee-specialist fighter. Nor the melee damage output (finesse weapons rather than the heavier STR-based weapon). Or the melee specialist can go for the lighter STR weapons and pick up a shield, which the archer typically won't be using.

Are those differences of capability worth noting? If a character wants to build a ranged, skirmishy-character are there distinct pathways that produce character that identifiably serve this function (say, fighter, ranger, warlock)?

If the answer is yes, then the roles terminology can be useful, and if the game designers don't produce it others will, and its usage will probably become more common.

If the answer is no, then the roles terminology will not be useful.

In 4e, part of what produced a "yes" answer was that the game was deliberately designed to highlight differences of function and make them extremely salient in play. This is probably not as big a feature of 5e, but it may be a bit early in the life of the game to be sure.

 

[pemerton]

See examples like this confuse me... Just because a wizard doesn't withstand being attacked and hit the same way as a fighter... doesn't mean he doesn't have those as default competencies (otherwise the shielding swordmage and fighter in 4e wouldn't both be defenders since their methods of defending are totally different).

I don't really understand the comparison between a wizard and a swordmage. A swordmage has high AC and high hit ponts. A wizard - in AD&D, in 3E, in 4e - by default has poor AC and poor hit points. The B/X and AD&D rulebooks expressly call this out as a feature of the wizard. Are you saying that in 5e this has changed?

In fact I'd argue the simple fact that one uses magic and the other uses relatively mundane means is exactly why they shouldn't operate the same even if they have similar capabilities.

By "operate the same" it seems that you mean the mechanical sub-system used to generate outcomes.

I see that as pretty orthogonal to roles. Of all editions of D&D, 4e probably has the least amount of sub-system difference based on magic vs mundane - powers can be martial or magical, depending on character and class; and likewise for skill use. But it nevertheless has characters who perform rather distinct functions.

if he can do things in 5e like pick Abjuration as his school and/or cast defensive spells on himself like Shield, False Life, Mage Armor, Stoneskin, etc. how is he not now withstanding being attacked and hit in a similar (if not the exact same manner) as the fighter?

If the wizard is staying alive but not actually doing much else (eg not degrading the enemy) then I don't see it as being the same as the fighter.

If the wizard can essentially replicate the fighter's role - say, use spells to boost AC and mitigate hit point loss and then dish out damage via the equivalent of 4e close attacks (in 5e that would be a spell that is auto-hit or triggers a saving throw rather than relying on an attack roll) - then I don't see the point of class differences. That would be very same-y, wouldn't it? (And a bit broken too, given that the wizard character has utility options that the fighter has no way of replicating.) For me, at least, the fact that this same outcome is produced by twiddling slightly different mechanical dials doesn't seem very significant.

 

[Imaro]

I don't really understand the comparison between a wizard and a swordmage. A swordmage has high AC and high hit ponts. A wizard - in AD&D, in 3E, in 4e - by default has poor AC and poor hit points. The B/X and AD&D rulebooks expressly call this out as a feature of the wizard. Are you saying that in 5e this has changed?

The comparison is that the swordmage and fighter "defend" mechanically in totally different manners and yet are both considered defenders...right? You're moving goalposts, and I'm sure you know I'm not claiming that hit points and AC changed for Wizards in 5e. My point is that AC and ht points are not the only competencies of a class that could be used to create a defensive chatacter... you don't get to pick and choose which class competencies are valid and which aren't. If I can accomplish similar outcomes (in a broad sense like the swordmage vs. fighter) then what difference does the how make?

By "operate the same" it seems that you mean the mechanical sub-system used to generate outcomes.

I see that as pretty orthogonal to roles. Of all editions of D&D, 4e probably has the least amount of sub-system difference based on magic vs mundane - powers can be martial or magical, depending on character and class; and likewise for skill use. But it nevertheless has characters who perform rather distinct functions.

If the mechanical way something operates is orthogonal to roles then why are you specifically calling out high AC and hit points as the Defender characteristics? Shouldn't you be looking at the classes as a whole? And if so why can't the wizard's abilities naturally funnel towards defending the party?

As to the rest of what you wrote... I don't want to get into a discussion of whether I feel 4e character's performed rather distinct functions (though I will note that I find it interesting that on the one hand it's argued that 4e classes have a vastness of flexibility and crossover potential most don't realize yet on the other hand they perform distinct from one another).

If the wizard is staying alive but not actually doing much else (eg not degrading the enemy) then I don't see it as being the same as the fighter.

Why would the wizard not be doing anything else?

If the wizard can essentially replicate the fighter's role - say, use spells to boost AC and mitigate hit point loss and then dish out damage via the equivalent of 4e close attacks (in 5e that would be a spell that is auto-hit or triggers a saving throw rather than relying on an attack roll) - then I don't see the point of class differences.

Thematic differences, different fictional grounding (with their own unique drawbacks, challenges and advantages), different mechanical systems which can be more or less fun for a particular player and so on.

That would be very same-y, wouldn't it? (And a bit broken too, given that the wizard character has utility options that the fighter has no way of replicating.) For me, at least, the fact that this same outcome is produced by twiddling slightly different mechanical dials doesn't seem very significant.

Nice try with the samey comment I thought that was one of those comments that was taboo with 4e fans. To answer your question outside of the differences cited above, no. Ultimately (and this IMO is one of the greatest strengths of 5e) neither the fighter or the wizard is, by default, a defender-like character but either can easily step into the role if need be... along with numerous other roles throughout the span of a campaign or even a single adventure... like the controller fighter I talked about earlier or a striker wizard.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No one describes the fact that a fighter, in 5e, cannot be the party's main healer as "pigeon holing". The fact that a fighter, in 4e, is likely to be less mobile in combat than a ranger or rogue is no pigeon holing either. Anyone class-based game is going to allocate different abilities to different classes, otherwise there is no point in having class distinctions.

Uh, yes he totally can, if he wants to. Fighters get enough bonus feats to be pretty good at it too: Healer, Inspirational Leader can both be applied per short rest. A fighter with both those feats winds up healing far more effectively than an AD&D cleric, and arguably better than a bog-standard 5E cleric.

A strong version of option 3 was off the table, because they decided that being sticky and dealing the highest amounts of damage in the game would be areas of potential trade-off in build, between "defending" and "striking".

And the Hulk is not "sticky." Quite the opposite. So clearly, Strong Guy != Defender by that definition of "defending," and if he's a defender by some other definition then we have two incompatible meanings of "defender". So why try to import a muddled definition into the superhero paradigm when there is already a clear trope of "Strong Guy" to cover the concept?

Monks are channelled away from ranged combat, for instance, towards melee skirmishing.

Oh good, we're back on 5E. In 5E, monks actually make surprisingly good ranged combatants between their ability to hold the range open, their non-reliance on shields for AC (so they tend to have the best AC in an archery duel), Patient Defense when needed, and their ability to negate enemy ranged attacks. A monk would never be my first pick as a dedicated archer, but archery should probably be a monk's first approach to killing most monsters he encounters. What's better, 2 attacks per round at zero risk, or 3 attacks per round at moderate risk?

 

[Scow2]

I've always thought the classic D&D roles are:
1. The Soldier. In combat, his role is to hit hard and take hits. He's the 'anchor' of the party on the battlefield, and is the guy who provides a strong foundation everyone else builds from, and serves as a 'fortress' for everyone to fall back to. He's a straightforward combatant. Outside of combat, he's 'muscle' - Packmule, anchor, stepstool, test subject, and wrecking ball. The Fighter is the most iconic, but the Barbarian and Paladin also fill this role, and sometimes a well-built Ranger, Monk, or Cleric can fill the role.
2. The Specialist. In combat, he's usually a Skirmisher or :urker - a dynamic force on the battlefield that is usually mediocre in performance, but his effectiveness is greatly increased through technical expertise and tactical mastery. Out of combat, he tends to be the Scout, Trap Specialist, Athlete, and Guinea Pig. The rogue is the most iconic, with Rangers and Monks also filling it with different takes, though Barbarians, Bards, and Warlocks can fill it.
3. The Support Caster. In combat, he supports his allies either pro- or reactively - healing and buffing are usual. Out of combat, he's capable of using certain magic items, keeping the party alive and providing limited supernatural solutions to problems. The most iconic is the Cleric.
4. The Offensive Caster. In combat, he hinders enemies - either through battlefield control spells, or judicious use of powerful blasts. Out of combat, he provides magical solutions to the party, though doing so reduces his effectiveness in other situations. Wizard is most iconic.

However... there's also another way to classify the roles:
1. The guy who can use all the arms and armor the party finds.
2. The guy who can use all the Arcane Scrolls and Caster Items the party finds
3. The guy who can use all the Divine Scrolls and Caster Items the party finds.
4. The guy who can use all the bizarre, highly situational, tactically limited, and seemingly-pointless items the party finds where they're most effective.

 

[Imaro]

Oh good, we're back on 5E. In 5E, monks actually make surprisingly good ranged combatants between their ability to hold the range open, their non-reliance on shields for AC (so they tend to have the best AC in an archery duel), Patient Defense when needed, and their ability to negate enemy ranged attacks. A monk would never be my first pick as a dedicated archer, but archery should probably be a monk's first approach to killing most monsters he encounters. What's better, 2 attacks per round at zero risk, or 3 attacks per round at moderate risk?[/COLOR]

I was actually thinking along similar lines, but instead of ranged was thinking the monk is actually one of the most rounded (between ranged and melee) classes in 5e... especially since monk weapons include spears, javelins, handaxes, light hammers and daggers... all of which he can use Dex for in combat. I also noted that the description of his martial arts ability doesn't differentiate between ranged or melee for the first attack which means he can attack ranged, move and attack unarmed in melee. This goes to 2x ranged plus unarmed at level 5. If anything it seems like the classes base abilties are supposed to be what entices you against being a purely ranged combatant, they even out the playing field somewhat. I'd also note that the spellcasting abilities of the Way of the Four Elements monk gives even more ranged options through granted spells.