D&D 5E The Role of Classes in 5e

[Asisreo]

Forgive the brevity of this post, though I would like to spark what I think would be an interesting discussion.

When people speak of individual classes, they have an idea of what role the class is supposed to play. For instance, wizards are supposed generalists while Barbarians are supposed damage-sponges.

But I feel these assumptions are made without much depth. Perhaps because the evidence is thought of as self-evident. I.E. why would a barbarian have the highest HD if they weren't damage sponges.

So my point of discussion: What role, in your mind, are the classes in 5e meant to fill in a party? What features/traits supports your stance?

 

[MarkB]

I don't think of them in those terms at all. 5e's flexible enough that you don't need to look at what roles need filling. I think about what I want my character to be, and pick a race/class/subclasss/background combo that will let me express that.

 

[Blue Orange]

I think they explicitly divided classes into roles in 4e (defender, controller, striker, leader-which-was-actually-support) and that's where the idea comes from. This was influenced by MMORPGs, where a character is a tank (defense), DPS (artillery, essentially), healer, or some mix of the three. Those trace back to the original classes of white-box D&D, Fighting Man, Magic-User, and Cleric, with the Thief as a utility add-on and the Paladin as sort of a Fighting Man with some Cleric attributes, with editions between 1st and 3rd having various combinations of those--the druid is a cleric/mage with an animal/plant focus, for instance, and the barbarian is a fighter leaning more towards offense than defense.

 

[BookTenTiger]

One thing I enjoy about 5e is how multiple classes (through subclasses) can fulfill the same mechanic role, while having very different narrative roles.

In the game I run, three characters are healers: a Death Domain Cleric, a Celestial Patron Warlock, and an Alchemist Artificer. Simply thinking about it as a mechanic role, there's a lot of overlap there. But narratively, they play out very differently. The cleric gets his powers from a god of the land, the warlock has a single patron they are beholden to, and the artificer uses a big ol' syringe he made himself.

In a way, I feel like the flexibility of subclasses has allowed classes in 5e to shift from the group role you play to supporting the story you want to tell.

 

[Blue Orange]

D&D 5E - Here's The Most Common D&D Party Composition

D&D Beyond's latest data-output looks at the composition of the typical adventuring party. The 'traditional' party always used to be Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard; let's see how that stacks up these days! These screenshots were compiled by SageAdvice.eu. DDB's developer said "I’m going to be...

www.enworld.org

Here's a list of the most common party compositions...

You actually do fall into a cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue pattern, with three-character parties dropping the wizard. The 'fighter' can be replaced by a barbarian, the wizard by a sorcerer, druid, or even a bard apparently, the 'cleric' occasionally by a paladin or druid particularly in three-person parties, but the rogue is usually there to deal with traps and the like.

As BookTenTiger says, they've gotten a lot better at allowing you to drop creative flavoring onto somewhat similar mechanics, allowing for more individualized role-playing once the rolls..er, roles have been filled.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

This is a foreign concept to me in play.

We get a rough idea of the campaign and then just individually make something we want to play, period.

And we play them as we want.

I recoil from the idea of a “role.” I play a character and we see what happens. We (my long time pals and me) get a hankering to play something and just do it. Any role unfolds organically in play.

of course I have probably made my character with things that fit how I want to play. If I want to fight up close I have given thought to HP and AC etc. but it’s not an assigned role.

did this come from MMOs or something? While I had 4e books I recall reading about strikers etc. but paid it no mind. Probably part of why I didn’t fit well in 4e.

 

[Krachek]

My take is any class can take any background.

 

[Lyxen]

5e is much more flexible than 4e, and it really depends on the archetype that you are choosing for most of the classes.

 

[Oofta]

I view classes as professions and specialties. In a hospital you have doctors, but also nurses, anesthesiologists, clerks, janitors and so on. It doesn't define a character, it influences the role the PC takes but doesn't define it.

You can have tank clerics and ranged fighters, sneaky wizards and melee rogues, healer druids and wilderness scout barbarians. As @Warpiglet-7 said, people write up what they think will be interesting. We don't really think in terms of roles outside of very vague idea that it's helpful if someone is front line and someone can heal.

Between backgrounds, multi-classing and subclasses, there's a lot of flexibility and many PCs don't focus on just one role.

 

[tommybahama]

The problem is that you have to have a DM buy into those roles.

Our DM and many others based on feedback on these forums don't. They will ignore the tank, even taking opportunity attacks to "geek the mage."

If you are a DM that abides by the standard fantasy genre where the fighter stands toe to toe with the enemy while the mage casts spells in the back then I applaud you. Unfortunately that seems rare these days.

Here's an article that discusses the myth of party roles in depth:

The Myth of Party Roles in D&D 5E - Tabletop Builds