D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Aenghus]

Some things that were agreed upon earlier in the thread were
- some people could always see the 4e roles in earlier editions of D&D going back to 1st Edition AD&D
- some people could not see the 4e roles, or indeed, any trace of them, before 4e

How do you reconcile those two positions? It's wrong to just say the 4e roles were always in D&D, but it's still right to say for some people they were, only the mechanics 4e developed weren't before. This is to say that I can agree the 4e roles, even with their mechanics, were "organically" grown from earlier editions, as Hussar said, but those roles are still exclusive, to me and many others, to 4e (and to the tables and players who saw them in the game before). The designers apparently tapped the game's earlier editions as much as invented anything new in making the 4e roles and their supporting mechanics, but the philosophy underpinning these roles is also a problem to me and perhaps to others. In other words, I am merely contending that these roles are not the quote-unquote "roles" or the "be-all roles" of D&D.

Is this a change in your position? Before you said there were no roles at all in pre-3e D&D, not just 4e roles?

4e combat roles apply to 4e and emerge out of its design and explicit effort to support those roles.
Other D&D editions suggest somewhat different roles, depending on the exact rules and houserules being used. In most cases IMO there are some similarities to the 4e roles, but differences as well.

For instance in early D&D character generation was often random, as was magical item generation. Players could by prevented by this from playing their desired role if they didn't get the right stats or items to support it. In early D&D strikers were the the fighters and fighter subclasses lucky enough to get high strength and/or magic weapons. Fighter types lacking these, particularly sword and board, were defenders by comparison, with high defence and lower offence, though lacking much supporting mechanics. (I never played in the older "gp give xp, looting is king, fighting is failure" style of game).

Given a particular party has individual strengths and weaknesses it makes sense tactically to make maximum use of those strengths and minimize the weaknesses. Thus high AC fighter types in the front to make a battle line, other high AC types such as conventional clerics in support and squishier classes in the rear. When you say "no roles at all" all I can see is fighters cowering in the rear, and wizards fighting in front, which is something I have seen in games, briefly, and it didn't end well.

To me ignoring RPG roles means trying to ignore your characters strengths and weaknesses, going "La la la I can't hear you", and using the PC as you want even if it's trying to force a square peg in round hole.

The roles witnessed by the players also depend on the particular campaign, player tastes and in particular the DM. Some DMs always make monsters attack the fighter types first, some the weakest party members first, some divide them evenly etc etc. If wizards all get killed at low level you will never see a high level PC wizard and what they can do. Ditto rogues, bards etc. Lots of traps probably favours high hp classes and classes that can find or have advantages evading traps.



Depending on the optional rules in play, even before houserules which were very common in older games, knowing just a PC's class tells you something about the character but it's not necessarily useful. For a long time now you need to see the PC's full character sheet to get a full idea of their theoretical capabilities.

 

[SirAntoine]

Is this a change in your position? Before you said there were no roles at all in pre-3e D&D, not just 4e roles?

4e combat roles apply to 4e and emerge out of its design and explicit effort to support those roles.
Other D&D editions suggest somewhat different roles, depending on the exact rules and houserules being used. In most cases IMO there are some similarities to the 4e roles, but differences as well.

For instance in early D&D character generation was often random, as was magical item generation. Players could by prevented by this from playing their desired role if they didn't get the right stats or items to support it. In early D&D strikers were the the fighters and fighter subclasses lucky enough to get high strength and/or magic weapons. Fighter types lacking these, particularly sword and board, were defenders by comparison, with high defence and lower offence, though lacking much supporting mechanics. (I never played in the older "gp give xp, looting is king, fighting is failure" style of game).

Given a particular party has individual strengths and weaknesses it makes sense tactically to make maximum use of those strengths and minimize the weaknesses. Thus high AC fighter types in the front to make a battle line, other high AC types such as conventional clerics in support and squishier classes in the rear. When you say "no roles at all" all I can see is fighters cowering in the rear, and wizards fighting in front, which is something I have seen in games, briefly, and it didn't end well.

To me ignoring RPG roles means trying to ignore your characters strengths and weaknesses, going "La la la I can't hear you", and using the PC as you want even if it's trying to force a square peg in round hole.

The roles witnessed by the players also depend on the particular campaign, player tastes and in particular the DM. Some DMs always make monsters attack the fighter types first, some the weakest party members first, some divide them evenly etc etc. If wizards all get killed at low level you will never see a high level PC wizard and what they can do. Ditto rogues, bards etc. Lots of traps probably favours high hp classes and classes that can find or have advantages evading traps.



Depending on the optional rules in play, even before houserules which were very common in older games, knowing just a PC's class tells you something about the character but it's not necessarily useful. For a long time now you need to see the PC's full character sheet to get a full idea of their theoretical capabilities.

I never saw a player do anything of the kind, but I believe people who say they saw it, so I say there were roles for some people. I wouldn't want the game to tell players what the combat role of the characters of a given class is, though. Even if it's useful strategic advice, it should be presented that way instead of with a label. When you talk of roles now, people think of the 4e roles, but the word, role, is too central to the game. The only thing that comes close to that is class, but even then it's just class. The role is the character you are role-playing in any RPG. This is an individual.

I think it would be beyond the scope of this thread to further comment on the 4e roles in particular, but suffice to say, no one needs the same strategic advice to play 5th Edition.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think it would be beyond the scope of this thread to further comment on the 4e roles in particular, but suffice to say, no one needs the same strategic advice to play 5th Edition.

except my player that I used as an example 90 or so pages ago... the player who wanted to make a non combat thief and focus on social aspects that was floored when he realized that he had the second best AC, the second best attack in the party and a very close second best damage on anyone who he an another player was attacking... he like you said there are no roles, but could not figure out why his rogue was so combat focused, especially damaged focused by default...

 

[BryonD]

except my player that I used as an example 90 or so pages ago... the player who wanted to make a non combat thief and focus on social aspects that was floored when he realized that he had the second best AC, the second best attack in the party and a very close second best damage on anyone who he an another player was attacking... he like you said there are no roles, but could not figure out why his rogue was so combat focused, especially damaged focused by default...

The bounded system is going to play some role in this.

The great lack of published options for 5E is going to tend to force this situation (depending, of course, on who the other characters in the party are).

So, I certainly believe this happen. As-is it really doesn't require much evidence, it will flow pretty naturally from the rogue options.

Of course if you truly want to make a social / non-combat rogue, you stick with Dex 12, Chr 16 or 18. The AC, hit frequency and damage output will drop off. Again, the published content of 5E doesn't support this all that well. But it could be easily remedied. But when you say this rogue had a top tier AC, what was the DEX?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean everything should be decribed under character classes, with no combat roles labeled or summarized. The strategic ideas encapsulated particularly by the 4e roles should also be presented only as one possible formulation.

I guess I just don't understand why this matters. Unless a class can do everything, and it sounds like you expect them not to do everything, there are by nature things they will be good at and things they won't, not without serious overhaul (which is possible even in 4e--it just takes time and resources). If you know every class will have areas of high and low performance, I fail to see why it is bad to (a) recognize it, (b) work to make sure they're effective, and (c) let the player know about it. From there, the only distinction is whether or not you admit that there is some kind of categorization system, however loose or tight.

[sblock]4e's isn't even perfectly tight--for example, Striker can be very clearly divided into "melee" and "ranged," and some classes straddle that line while others don't. (Storm Sorcerers, for instance, lean very heavily on the ranged side due to their Soul-specific features, while Dragon Sorcerers lean heavily melee, mostly due to the perks they get from specific powers as a result of having the Dragon Soul; contrast, say, Barbarians who AFAIK are melee-only.) Some classes very clearly merge two roles, like the Paladin--it's a Defender, but between Channel Divinity and Lay on Hands, it's already half a Leader and can become essentially a full Leader with the right advancement choices (Heal skill + Leader MC feat + Hospitaler PP). These things are no more meant to be a straightjacket than alignment was; they're primarily descriptive, and only prescriptive in the sense that there are certain mechanics that members of a certain role will share, e.g. Marking and punishment for Defenders, a "Healing Word" equivalent for Leaders, etc.[/sblock]

The four core classes make a separate point, like every other class will share basic similarities with one of them. They are a traditional guide to the different areas of knowledge characters can have.

Okay, let's build off that. Things that share similarities with the Cleric are going to heal/support, right? Like, that's pretty clearly the core shtick of the class, independent of all campaigns and playstyles (the anti-undead stuff being far more variable). I don't really see how "Leader" doesn't communicate "shares basic similarities with the traditional areas of Cleric proficiency." Similar arguments can be made for Defender ("Fighter" may not mean "meatshield," but out of the four core classes, "meatshield" essentially means "Fighter," especially when Clerics are more like their 2e Priest version) and the same goes for Rogue/Thief (Sneak Attack and traps/locks are its two core deals, so "hits crazy hard" isn't beyond the pale if we're only considering battle utility; "has exploration benefits" wouldn't be hard to add to the Striker role anyway).

 

[SirAntoine]

I guess I just don't understand why this matters. Unless a class can do everything, and it sounds like you expect them not to do everything, there are by nature things they will be good at and things they won't, not without serious overhaul (which is possible even in 4e--it just takes time and resources). If you know every class will have areas of high and low performance, I fail to see why it is bad to (a) recognize it, (b) work to make sure they're effective, and (c) let the player know about it. From there, the only distinction is whether or not you admit that there is some kind of categorization system, however loose or tight.

[sblock]4e's isn't even perfectly tight--for example, Striker can be very clearly divided into "melee" and "ranged," and some classes straddle that line while others don't. (Storm Sorcerers, for instance, lean very heavily on the ranged side due to their Soul-specific features, while Dragon Sorcerers lean heavily melee, mostly due to the perks they get from specific powers as a result of having the Dragon Soul; contrast, say, Barbarians who AFAIK are melee-only.) Some classes very clearly merge two roles, like the Paladin--it's a Defender, but between Channel Divinity and Lay on Hands, it's already half a Leader and can become essentially a full Leader with the right advancement choices (Heal skill + Leader MC feat + Hospitaler PP). These things are no more meant to be a straightjacket than alignment was; they're primarily descriptive, and only prescriptive in the sense that there are certain mechanics that members of a certain role will share, e.g. Marking and punishment for Defenders, a "Healing Word" equivalent for Leaders, etc.[/sblock]



Okay, let's build off that. Things that share similarities with the Cleric are going to heal/support, right? Like, that's pretty clearly the core shtick of the class, independent of all campaigns and playstyles (the anti-undead stuff being far more variable). I don't really see how "Leader" doesn't communicate "shares basic similarities with the traditional areas of Cleric proficiency." Similar arguments can be made for Defender ("Fighter" may not mean "meatshield," but out of the four core classes, "meatshield" essentially means "Fighter," especially when Clerics are more like their 2e Priest version) and the same goes for Rogue/Thief (Sneak Attack and traps/locks are its two core deals, so "hits crazy hard" isn't beyond the pale if we're only considering battle utility; "has exploration benefits" wouldn't be hard to add to the Striker role anyway).

Only you can know if any strategic advice is useful at your table. The reason a label would be a mistake is because so many people rejected the notion. Too many fans do not want one. Even if they were designed sensibly, I suspect they'd still reject them for the same reasons. People don't want to be told what to do.

The 5th Edition game makes no distinction between any character class, as to which is which.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Find me a single dictionary definition of "leader" that includes the act of healing or "supporting" others. Leader means leading others, giving orders and directions, telling them what to do. No one EVER (in my 35+ years playing this game) referred to the "role" of a cleric as a "leader" before 4e. Clerics might have been called healers, front-liners, or even undead-handlers. But they were not leaders, any more than any other character was. Their class defined their combat role, inasmuch as there were some things that a cleric could do that other classes couldn't. But beyond the ability to turn or heal, a cleric could be as much of a tank as a fighter.

Semantics matters. Terming something a combat "leader" (even if you then invent your own definition of leader) does nothing but limit the role, not describe it. The primary complaint against 4e roles in 5e is not that you can't use them, but that they are not necessary and only serve to artificially limit what a player might do with a particular character in play. Roles are only useful in games where intricate character building is part of the mechanics, because the bonuses in play radically limit the possibility of success for characters behaving out of build. 5e's bounded accuracy minimizes this mechanic, leaving many more options open for characters. So roles become tactical choices that vary from situation to situation or even round to round in 5e.

 

[SirAntoine]

And everyone also knows the combat involves both offense and defense. To call the fighter a defender is to make them choose between the two, and the rogue has no business at all being called either. The rogue is a back-up character, and a sneaky character who sometimes tries to backstab for extra damage. The wizard, meanwhile, doesn't really control anything.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Some things that were agreed upon earlier in the thread were
- some people could always see the 4e roles in earlier editions of D&D going back to 1st Edition AD&D
- some people could not see the 4e roles, or indeed, any trace of them, before 4e

How do you reconcile those two positions?

Generally by asserting that they're both inaccurate to some degree. More on this in a bit.

It's wrong to just say the 4e roles were always in D&D, but it's still right to say for some people they were, only the mechanics 4e developed weren't before. This is to say that I can agree the 4e roles, even with their mechanics, were "organically" grown from earlier editions, as Hussar said, but those roles are still exclusive, to me and many others, to 4e (and to the tables and players who saw them in the game before).

I agree that it's wrong to say 4e's roles, in an exacting (and particularly "precise mechanics") sense, have always existed forever. I disagree that they never existed at all, nor that they existed only for some people and not for others. Fighters have always had high health, skill with weapons and in particular skill with the best armor and shields available, and features intended to increase their durability. They were also often (either overtly or as a side-effect of the aforementioned things) good at dishing out attacks, whether to enemies that tried to pass, or low-level enemies. Clerics have always been the source of healing, buffing, and force-multiplication. The Rogue and its antecedents have, to the best of my knowledge, always had Sneak Attack and been (as a result) good at hitting really hard, when they hit. Wizards could do practically anything (except heal), to be sure, but the vast majority of spells that aren't "kill stuff dead" are tricksy-clever things, of the Stone to Mud/Passwall/Glitterdust variety, things that change the nature of the battlefield.

I don't see how you can say that these roles are thus "exclusive" to 4e. Being explicit about them isn't even exclusive; plenty of 3e material talks about precisely this sort of thing. Did you ever see any of the "X with Class" articles? They clearly recognize the existence of roles, more or less as 4e does, just with loquacious terms rather than single-word ones--and this is back in 2004. E.g. Cleric-types are referred to as "divine spellcasters," Rogues are the "stealth expert" (which includes Monk and Ranger despite them having...no real bonuses to stealth!), Fighters are the "front-lines," etc.

The designers apparently tapped the game's earlier editions as much as invented anything new in making the 4e roles and their supporting mechanics, but the philosophy underpinning these roles is also a problem to me and perhaps to others.  In other words, I am merely contending that these roles are not the quote-unquote "roles" or the "be-all roles" of D&D.

...well, they aren't, and they were never intended to be. They're combat roles. They tell you what a class has been made to be good at in combat. That's all. They don't tell you the kind of personality you should have, they don't tell you "how to play your character" as a person. If you've been thinking of these as doing anything even remotely close to that...well, again, I think you've just been trapped by conflicting senses of the word "role."

Would you have preferred they be called "specialty"? Or "focus," or maybe "mission" or "job"? All of these things are hitting the same point: the "role" tells you, only and exclusively, what the designers made the class to be good at doing. It informs the player, "This is where the natural in-combat strengths of this class lie." It has nothing whatsoever to do with the persona you act as when you role (persona) play (act).

Find me a single dictionary definition of "leader" that includes the act of healing or "supporting" others. Leader means leading others, giving orders and directions, telling them what to do. <snip> Semantics matters. Terming something a combat "leader" (even if you then invent your own definition of leader) does nothing but limit the role, not describe it.

So you dislike the name. That doesn't mean it "limits" the role. The role does what it does. "Leader" is just the name the devs thought was fitting. It doesn't actually determine any part of what the role does. You're making a baseless assertion to the contrary. Yes, semantics matters, and it's unfortunate that you so strongly dislike the name. Presumably, the devs wanted to avoid a clinical-sounding name like "support," hence why in the books they go to great length to discuss why the role is named "Leader," but doesn't actually say anything about the personality or interpersonal influence of the character. Leaders "lead the attack," metaphorically speaking--they make other people better at combat. Again: 4e roles should not be interpreted as personality traits. As I understand it, Leader (much like Striker and Defender) actually come pretty much directly from football/soccer terms; I'm not sure if "Controller" also does, but it might.

The primary complaint against 4e roles in 5e is not that you can't use them, but that they are not necessary and only serve to artificially limit what a player might do with a particular character in play.

Okay...how do they "only server to artificially limit what a player might do with a particular character"? Again, from a player standpoint, the only function a 4e role serves is telling you what the designers made [Class X] to be good at in the field of combat specifically. It tells you nothing about the aesthetics of the class (generally unique to each class), nothing about the manner in which they perform their actions (generally that's stuff like Martial, Divine, etc.), and nothing about the non-combat abilities a particular class brings to the table (Warlords, Clerics, and Bards are all Leaders, but they have vastly different non-combat elements).

Roles are only useful in games where intricate character building is part of the mechanics, because the bonuses in play radically limit the possibility of success for characters behaving out of build. 5e's bounded accuracy minimizes this mechanic, leaving many more options open for characters. So roles become tactical choices that vary from situation to situation or even round to round in 5e.

...I...what? How on earth can a Wizard actually protect anybody, other than blowing a spell slot (which they've always been able to blow on doing something protective--even in 4e, as I understand it)? Bounded Accuracy has nothing to do with whether a Rogue can heal or ameliorate negative effects (they straight-up can't, not without feats AFAIK), nor with whether a Fighter can cast Teleport (I don't believe there are any EK spells for that?) As always, when this "people can do whatever they want!" card is thrown out, I'm left confused--no, people really can't do whatever they want round-to-round, unless they overtly invest training and character resources into doing so...which was completely possible in 4e as well, so there's no difference there.

And everyone also knows the combat involves both offense and defense. To call the fighter a defender is to make them choose between the two, and the rogue has no business at all being called either. The rogue is a back-up character, and a sneaky character who sometimes tries to backstab for extra damage. The wizard, meanwhile, doesn't really control anything.

Actually, it's...really not, on any of those.

Fighters, in 4e, are widely recognized (by fans) as the most damage-dealing of the Defenders (Martial characters in general are very high-damage, colloquially considered to have Striker as a common sub-role). Although this is admittedly implicit, Fighters have a lot of Striker-like powers and features. They Defend by mashing face, most of the time. So...I don't really think it's true that Fighters have to choose. They can have their offense and their defense, too.

Rogues are still characters that do the things you describe. They need to sneak around, or get distractions like an ally adjacent to their targets, in order to get their Sneak Attack (or is it Backstab? I don't recall) stuff. That's...pretty clearly offense, I'm not sure how you can call it anything else. They also still get skillmonkey stuff.

I'm noticing a distinct pattern here: instead of using the terms as defined within the context of 4e, you're taking the general terms, asserting that they must mean what they generally mean, and then concluding that the game does horrible things because the general meanings conflict with basic sense. "Controller" = "Manipulates the battlefield (and does lots of area damage, usually)." This is something Wizards have always been good at: Sleep, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Grease, Color Spray, Ray of Enfeeblement, Expeditious Retreat, and most of those are just the 1st-level spells (Fireball and Lightning Bolt being 3rd)--you also have things like conjurations, walls of fire/earth/force, etc. Even things like Invisibility are a manipulation of the battlefield, manipulating the information available to the enemy (though, admittedly, some of this blurs at the edges with support abilities).

In a world where terms can't have a specific meaning within a game, sure, the roles are bizarre, limiting, and so forth. But just like "Paladin" doesn't mean "one of Charlemagne's head knights" in the context of D&D, "Leader" as a role doesn't mean "person at the top of the party chain of command" in 4e.

 

[SirAntoine]

Generally by asserting that they're both inaccurate to some degree. More on this in a bit.



I agree that it's wrong to say 4e's roles, in an exacting (and particularly "precise mechanics") sense, have always existed forever. I disagree that they never existed at all, nor that they existed only for some people and not for others. Fighters have always had high health, skill with weapons and in particular skill with the best armor and shields available, and features intended to increase their durability. They were also often (either overtly or as a side-effect of the aforementioned things) good at dishing out attacks, whether to enemies that tried to pass, or low-level enemies. Clerics have always been the source of healing, buffing, and force-multiplication. The Rogue and its antecedents have, to the best of my knowledge, always had Sneak Attack and been (as a result) good at hitting really hard, when they hit. Wizards could do practically anything (except heal), to be sure, but the vast majority of spells that aren't "kill stuff dead" are tricksy-clever things, of the Stone to Mud/Passwall/Glitterdust variety, things that change the nature of the battlefield.

I don't see how you can say that these roles are thus "exclusive" to 4e. Being explicit about them isn't even exclusive; plenty of 3e material talks about precisely this sort of thing. Did you ever see any of the "X with Class" articles? They clearly recognize the existence of roles, more or less as 4e does, just with loquacious terms rather than single-word ones--and this is back in 2004. E.g. Cleric-types are referred to as "divine spellcasters," Rogues are the "stealth expert" (which includes Monk and Ranger despite them having...no real bonuses to stealth!), Fighters are the "front-lines," etc.



...well, they aren't, and they were never intended to be. They're combat roles. They tell you what a class has been made to be good at in combat. That's all. They don't tell you the kind of personality you should have, they don't tell you "how to play your character" as a person. If you've been thinking of these as doing anything even remotely close to that...well, again, I think you've just been trapped by conflicting senses of the word "role."

Would you have preferred they be called "specialty"? Or "focus," or maybe "mission" or "job"? All of these things are hitting the same point: the "role" tells you, only and exclusively, what the designers made the class to be good at doing. It informs the player, "This is where the natural in-combat strengths of this class lie." It has nothing whatsoever to do with the persona you act as when you role (persona) play (act).



So you dislike the name. That doesn't mean it "limits" the role. The role does what it does. "Leader" is just the name the devs thought was fitting. It doesn't actually determine any part of what the role does. You're making a baseless assertion to the contrary. Yes, semantics matters, and it's unfortunate that you so strongly dislike the name. Presumably, the devs wanted to avoid a clinical-sounding name like "support," hence why in the books they go to great length to discuss why the role is named "Leader," but doesn't actually say anything about the personality or interpersonal influence of the character. Leaders "lead the attack," metaphorically speaking--they make other people better at combat. Again: 4e roles should not be interpreted as personality traits. As I understand it, Leader (much like Striker and Defender) actually come pretty much directly from football/soccer terms; I'm not sure if "Controller" also does, but it might.



Okay...how do they "only server to artificially limit what a player might do with a particular character"? Again, from a player standpoint, the only function a 4e role serves is telling you what the designers made [Class X] to be good at in the field of combat specifically. It tells you nothing about the aesthetics of the class (generally unique to each class), nothing about the manner in which they perform their actions (generally that's stuff like Martial, Divine, etc.), and nothing about the non-combat abilities a particular class brings to the table (Warlords, Clerics, and Bards are all Leaders, but they have vastly different non-combat elements).



...I...what? How on earth can a Wizard actually protect anybody, other than blowing a spell slot (which they've always been able to blow on doing something protective--even in 4e, as I understand it)? Bounded Accuracy has nothing to do with whether a Rogue can heal or ameliorate negative effects (they straight-up can't, not without feats AFAIK), nor with whether a Fighter can cast Teleport (I don't believe there are any EK spells for that?) As always, when this "people can do whatever they want!" card is thrown out, I'm left confused--no, people really can't do whatever they want round-to-round, unless they overtly invest training and character resources into doing so...which was completely possible in 4e as well, so there's no difference there.

No. If you want to insist on using the 4e roles as you do, fine. But that doesn't change the facts. I also won't excuse the terrible names given to what the 4e roles were supposed to encompass. The designers shouldn't have tried to pick single words to encompass them.