D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Eirikrautha]

The only roles worth studying are the character classes in 5th Edition. The kind of roles 4e set up are unique to that edition, and they represent what was a departure from tradition. Not that the latter is any great cause for concern, but 5th Edition has to recapture a certain amount of "the feel" of earlier editions, 3e and before, for the fans.

If someone claims they used the kind of roles 4e set up before, that doesn't mean those roles wouldn't be a mistake for other people.

Thank you for attempting to refocus the discussion to 5e. Outside of class-exclusive abilities, 5e has mostly tactics, not roles, based on the fact that the mechanics are bounded. I think we agree on this.

 

[Eirikrautha]

It was the example to which you replied, saying that 4e and AD&D approach it differently. What is the difference?

Between which two things?

Between AD&D and 4e, or between 3E and 4e, or between AD&D and 5e, or between 4e and 5e? I could list many.

I've listed some upthread. I'll do so again, just do with movement in combat.

In AD&D, melee is per se sticky, mosty due to the punitive rules for withdrawing from melee. Therefore no class has or needs any special ability to make melee sticky. Hence any PC who is able to hack it in melee - a fighter is the paradigm, but plenty of clerics are up there too - can play the role that, in 4e, is labelled "defender". It is not a distinctive class thing.

In AD&D, because melee is per se sticky, there is no skirmisher class. The only mechanic that gets close to that is the rather clunky thief-acrobat evasion ability. As a result, in AD&D there is no role comparable to the 4e melee striker (of which the ranger and rogue are the two paradigms).

A corollary of the above two states of affairs is that, in AD&D, as far as melee is concerned, there is no very robust striker/defender distinction. At mid-levels some approximation to it might emerge, as a cleric can "defend" - ie survive OK in melee - but not really "strike" - no multiple attacks. But a mid-level cleric also starts to emerge as a significant spell caster in his/her own right, and so tends to become somewhat less of a melee character overall.

In 4e, like 3e, melee is essentially unsticky, due to 5' step/"shift" rules. In 4e, some characters have the ability to use particular abilities to make melee sticky (via a combination of marking, forced movement and/or movement interruption). They are called "defenders" (or, if monsters/NPCs, "soldiers"). Because this is a useful ability, which allows the exercise of battlefield control while in melee, it is something that can be traded off against other abilities, much the same as spell-users in D&D have always had features that involve tradeoffs, and much the same as (say) the thief in comparison to the fighter trades off non-combat expertise against combat ability.

This is what then opens up space for a contrast with the "striker" role. The default non-stickiness of melee also permits the easy implementation of skirmisher/swashbuckler abilities (much more straightforwardly then something like the thief-acrobat ability in UA).

In 5e, melee is non-sticky by default, like the two previous editions and unlike AD&D. Furthermore, movement is much more easy to achieve than in 3E and 4e - which make movement part of a rigid action economy. Hence forced movement is less of a thing in 5e than 4e. This change in action economy is part of a larger goal, in 5e, of reducing mechanical minutiae, particularly those which encourage use of maps/grids to track position. One consequence of this is that "defending", in the 4e sense, is unlikely to be as big a thing in 5e. Using 4e language, 5e fighter abilities like attack interrupts and damage reduction fit into the "leader" basket as well, or better, than the "defender" basket.

Overall upshot: 4e has distincitve mechanical features - combining aspects of 3E's approach to movement in melee combat with a desire to recreate, at least in respect of fighters and some similar classes, the sticky melee of AD&D - which make "defender" a distinctive mechanical role in that edition. It is not present in AD&D, 3E or 5e in the same way.

That does not mean that those other editions don't have roles, however - they still rather detailed combat resolution mechanics, which interact in myriad and fairly pedantic ways with a range of abilities that are rationed by class. This is the sort of mechanical state of affairs out of which roles emerge.

If I think of RPGs without roles in the sense that 4e has them, I think of ones in which there are no classes (eg RQ), and so no pre-determined patterns of PC build that generate typical patterns of PC competence and non-competence; or of ones which lack the fine-grained mechanical resolution procedures in which those different competencies express themselves (eg Tunnels & Trolls, or for a more modern game Marvel Heroic RP).

This is a very productive response. It notes the difference in the mechanics of movement between various editions, and notes that 5e reduces the impact of these mechanics. Because of the difference between AD&D, the middle editions, and 5e, both 5e and AD&D had a similar wide expanse of characters who could be equally effective with defensive tactics, despite the fact that this is because of very different mechanics.

Much like the earliest editions, 5e is less dependent on build (unless the group WANTS it to be using options like feats), which leads to more tactical flexibility across the classes. This means that roles are no longer features of character builds as much as tactical choices based on the situation.

You can call the choices "roles" if you want to, but since these "roles" are chosen at "run-time" rather than built into the character during creation, it does not mean what roles did in other editions. So 5e has no roles independent of a few class specific abilities. Just tactics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Defender and healer have never been roles in D&D.

Stepping away from that terminology: Would you say "designed to be good at protecting fragile teammates" and "designed to provide support and healing" is something that has been in D&D? Alternatively, would you say that classes were not designed to do anything particular whatsoever? Both of these can be taken to have an appended "regardless of what actions a player actually chooses to take at the table," if that helps.

Also, it might be wise to specify particular editions. Because there absolutely is an edition of D&D that had those roles, explicitly.

Thank you for attempting to refocus the discussion to 5e. Outside of class-exclusive abilities, 5e has mostly tactics, not roles, based on the fact that the mechanics are bounded. I think we agree on this.

And I spent an entire post discussing why I think separating "role" from "class-exclusive abilities" is precisely the problem with what you're saying.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Stepping away from that terminology: Would you say "designed to be good at protecting fragile teammates" and "designed to provide support and healing" is something that has been in D&D? Alternatively, would you say that classes were not designed to do anything particular whatsoever? Both of these can be taken to have an appended "regardless of what actions a player actually chooses to take at the table," if that helps.

Also, it might be wise to specify particular editions. Because there absolutely is an edition of D&D that had those roles, explicitly.



And I spent an entire post discussing why I think separating "role" from "class-exclusive abilities" is precisely the problem with what you're saying.

And I don't find your response convincing or persuasive.

 

[aramis erak]

Defender and healer have never been roles in D&D.

Except in 4E.

Unless you're claiming D&D 4E wasn't D&D.

In which case... I disagree.

It wasn't a D&D I cared for, it may even have been a bad version of D&D, but it was D&D. Every bit as much as was the pre-supplement 1, only d6's and optional d20's.

 

[pemerton]

This is a very productive response.

Thank you. It's where I was trying to take the discussion about 1 or 2 hundred posts upthread.

I think roles are a result of the way the mechanics and fiction intersect. You can't talk meaningfully about roles without talking about mechanics; simply talking about the fiction won't do. Because in the fiction of Marvel Heroic RP there are skirmishers (eg Wolverine, or even morseo Spiderman and Daredevil) and there are "tanks" (eg The Thing, Colossus), but in the play of that game these characters do not occupy distinct roles because the mechanics don't distinguish between skirmishing and tanking at the level of mechanical minutiae. The distinction between them, rather, goes simply to colour and to fictional positioning for action declaration.

Because of the difference between AD&D, the middle editions, and 5e, both 5e and AD&D had a similar wide expanse of characters who could be equally effective with defensive tactics

<snip>

Much like the earliest editions, 5e is less dependent on build

<snip>

So 5e has no roles independent of a few class specific abilities. Just tactics.

I think this is where we disagree about AD&D, and perhaps therefore also about 5e.

In AD&D, in my experience, there are four Gygax PHB character classes who can be effective in melee: clerics, fighters, rangers and paladins. (Mid-to-high level monks also, perhaps, but I think there is relatively wide recognition that there are issues with the class design of monks.)

Thieves, assassins, MUs, illusionists are not very viable in melee. They default to poor ACs (unless at high level with a good item kit-out) and have poor melee attacks. Druids are something of an intermediate case, having the same AC issues but better hit points and to-hit.

In 4e, of the 8 PHB classes there are four who are perfectly viable in melee: clerics, paladins, fighters and warlords. Clerics and warlords will tend not be be very sticky, because of the default non-stickiness of 4e melee - in that respect they will resemble their 5e brethren. But they can play a tactical role every bit as important as that of a fighter or a paladin.

Rangers and rogues in 4e can be viable in melee if played with care - they can have good AC and do good damage but tend to be prone to fall over when hit too hard. (And don't have the self-buffing/healing options of a cleric or warlord.) They can play a defensive tactical role if required - I've seen this done by a sorcerer plenty of times, who as a primarily ranged striker is even less suited to this then a ranger or rogue - but they wouldn't be your first choice.

Warlocks are shakier again in melee, and wizards shakier still. In 4e, if your wizard is holding your defensive line by physical prowess then something has gone wrong. I think 5e is pretty similar in this respect. If the 4e wizard is holding the defensive line because concentrating on a zone or conjuration of some sort (in 4e concentration manifests itself by the requirement to use an action each round to sustain an effect) then that is of course a different kettle of fish, just as it would be in 5e.

Bounded accuracy has been mentioned.

4e is also fairly bounded, especially at heroic tier: the gap is 5 to 7, between an 8 or 10 stat and a 20 or 22 stat. A magic item might add another 2 to the gap. This is not very different from the gap in 5e between proficiency and an 18 or 20 stat, and no proficiency and an 8 or 10 stat.

The target numbers behave a little differently across the two editions. Typical AC in 5e ranges between (say) 12 and 19 - which gives success rates at the highest and lowest end of around 85% (+8 vs 12) and 5% (-1 vs 19). Matching up in the opposite direction gives success rates of around 40% (-1 vs 12) and 50% (+8 vs 19). In 4e, at 10th level typical defence is 23, which gives a success rate of around 10% (8 stat gives -1, +5 from level gives net +4) and 55% (22 stat gives +6, +5 from level gives +11, +2 from item gives +13). The variation in expected defences won't be as great in 4e as 5e - closer to +/- 2 rather than +/- 3 to 4.

It seems to me that the difference between 5e and heroic tier 4e isn't so much bounded accuracy as an overall drop in typical target numbers relative to typical PC bonuses, so that those who are strong come close to auto-success, and the 45-odd percentage point gap between the strong and the weak reduces success rates from near-auto to "a bit less than 50/50" - as opposed to 4e, where the strong have a success rate between one-half and two-thirds, and the similar gap reduces the weak to the neighbourhood of "natural 20 to succeed".

A further factor that I think hasn't been mentioned is that the default buff, in 5e, is advantage rather than +2. With percentage chances of success for the weak already higher than in 4e, rerolls have an even bigger affect. Eg +2 with a 10% chance of success takes it to 20% - you'll still probably fail. Whereas advantage with a 40% chance of success takes you to a 64% chance - you've got a real likelihood of success.

These changes to the maths open up certain viable options in 5e that are harder to activate in 4e or 3E (or AD&D, for that matter, where a MU's chance to (say) grapple effectively is mostly negligible). I still don't think that it means there are "no roles". I think the phrase "a few specific class abilities" is quickly glossing over a lot of fairly significant mechanical features of the game: healing and ranged AoE damage (the trad cleric and trad MU) being two of them.

 

[SirAntoine]

Except in 4E.

Unless you're claiming D&D 4E wasn't D&D.

In which case... I disagree.

It wasn't a D&D I cared for, it may even have been a bad version of D&D, but it was D&D. Every bit as much as was the pre-supplement 1, only d6's and optional d20's.

I wouldn't even say they were in 4e anymore. I am just committed to using the words correctly now. The 4th Edition was D&D, for sure, but that doesn't mean it was very similar to any other edition.

 

[Hussar]

The only roles worth studying are the character classes in 5th Edition. The kind of roles 4e set up are unique to that edition, and they represent what was a departure from tradition. Not that the latter is any great cause for concern, but 5th Edition has to recapture a certain amount of "the feel" of earlier editions, 3e and before, for the fans.

If someone claims they used the kind of roles 4e set up before, that doesn't mean those roles wouldn't be a mistake for other people.

See, this is what I don't understand.

You mentioned before the idea of the lightly armoured ranged fighter. Thing is, I wonder how much of this is a sort of "gnome effect" situation. I've never actually seen a player of D&D do this, so, I'm wondering how much of a thing it really is. I'm not saying it can't be done, but, like a fighter using a spork, it's not something I've ever actually seen in play.

And, the thing is, "lightly armoured ranged fighter" is relatively unsupported in 5e, same as 4e. All of the fighter abilities are related to melee attacks, more or less. Right in the description it lists Str and Con as the primary stats for fighters. Sure, there is Archery Style (+2 to hit) but, without special equipment, you can't add your Strength to damage with a bow. You could be a throwing fighter, I suppose to get around that. Whereas a Ranger or a Rogue are both much better suited to being a ranged, lightly armoured combatant.

To put it another way, a ranged fighter in 5e is no more effective (or less effective) than a ranged fighter in 4e. Considering the other four base combat styles are all melee combatant, it's not a big stretch to thing that heavy armoured melee combatant is the norm.

in 3e, you could do it, but, it was going to cost you a LOT of feats to be anywhere near as effective as a melee fighter. In 2e, you had bow specs, but, these were a distant second to the damage you could do as a melee weapon specialist (to the range of about half as much damage).

In 1e, there was absolutely no reason to be a lightly armoured fighter. That was just suicidal. After Unearthed Arcana, melee fighters ruled (double specs gave you plus 3 to hit and damage and 3/2 attack routines at 1st level - why on earth would anyone primarily use a bow?).

The idea that 4e's defender fighter was made whole cloth for 4e is ridiculous on its face. Fighters have always been primarily a melee class. The only difference is, in 4e, they took that idea and expanded on it, making the fighter a lot better at melee at the cost of being not very effective at all at range. 5e has largely done the same thing. The melee combat feats are much more attractive to a fighter than the ranged ones. Never minding that there are a hell of a lot more melee style feats than ranged ones.

 

[SirAntoine]

See, this is what I don't understand.

You mentioned before the idea of the lightly armoured ranged fighter. Thing is, I wonder how much of this is a sort of "gnome effect" situation. I've never actually seen a player of D&D do this, so, I'm wondering how much of a thing it really is. I'm not saying it can't be done, but, like a fighter using a spork, it's not something I've ever actually seen in play.

And, the thing is, "lightly armoured ranged fighter" is relatively unsupported in 5e, same as 4e. All of the fighter abilities are related to melee attacks, more or less. Right in the description it lists Str and Con as the primary stats for fighters. Sure, there is Archery Style (+2 to hit) but, without special equipment, you can't add your Strength to damage with a bow. You could be a throwing fighter, I suppose to get around that. Whereas a Ranger or a Rogue are both much better suited to being a ranged, lightly armoured combatant.

To put it another way, a ranged fighter in 5e is no more effective (or less effective) than a ranged fighter in 4e. Considering the other four base combat styles are all melee combatant, it's not a big stretch to thing that heavy armoured melee combatant is the norm.

in 3e, you could do it, but, it was going to cost you a LOT of feats to be anywhere near as effective as a melee fighter. In 2e, you had bow specs, but, these were a distant second to the damage you could do as a melee weapon specialist (to the range of about half as much damage).

In 1e, there was absolutely no reason to be a lightly armoured fighter. That was just suicidal. After Unearthed Arcana, melee fighters ruled (double specs gave you plus 3 to hit and damage and 3/2 attack routines at 1st level - why on earth would anyone primarily use a bow?).

The idea that 4e's defender fighter was made whole cloth for 4e is ridiculous on its face. Fighters have always been primarily a melee class. The only difference is, in 4e, they took that idea and expanded on it, making the fighter a lot better at melee at the cost of being not very effective at all at range. 5e has largely done the same thing. The melee combat feats are much more attractive to a fighter than the ranged ones. Never minding that there are a hell of a lot more melee style feats than ranged ones.

Lightly armored ranged fighters should get more support, I agree. The traditional advantage to light armor is greater mobility and lighter encumbrance. The fact that a fighter, or indeed any other combatant, enters melee does not in itself constitute an act of defense. The special abilities of the 4e defender fighter made that class. It was full of surprises! Reduced effectiveness at ranged combat would not have been accepted at our table.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lightly armored ranged fighters should get more support, I agree.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Lightly-armored ranged fighters in 5E do not need any kind of boost. They're already the best kind of fighter. Thanks to finesse weapons, Sharpshooter feat and the Archery style (plus Crossbow Expert cheese if your DM allows it), a DX-based fighter specializing in ranged combat is already extremely deadly starting at level 3, possibly even level 1. I've seen this with Eldritch Knights and I think it would work with Battlemasters too (in a different way, leveraging Precision accuracy instead of mobility). If you think they don't have much support in 5E you should look harder at the spell list and the feat list.