D&d pc roles: From past to present to future
- Thread starter xechnao
- Start date
What do you think?
My basic thought is that the roles, per se, have always been roughly the same. It isn't like D&D made up small unit tactics.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Ignoring what 3e's 15 million prestige classes brought to the table, the roles a party needs to somehow fill haven't changed much:
The tank. You can never have too many of these heavily-armoured damage-absorbing front line bashers who can also take the fight to the enemy when needed.
The scout: Often overlooked but always useful, a scout can tell you what lies ahead before you get there and can often get into (and out of) places others cannot. One in a party is usually enough.
The artillery: Anyone who mostly deals with threats at a distance via spell, missile or device. Again, something you can never have too many of.
The support: These guys patch you up when you're done fighting and-or exploring, see to the information gathering and divination, buff you up before and during battles, and so on. Many parties tend to think one of these is enough. They are wrong.
The rest: Those who can't figure out which of the above roles they fill and so instead try to fill either none of them or as many of them as they can. Many parties can do without these unless all the other roles are well covered.
So, who fills these roles?
Tank: Fighter (all editions), Cavalier (1e), Paladin (1-2-3e), Knight (3e), etc. The Barbarian (1-3e) also fits here, just without the armour.
Scout: Thief (1-2e), Rogue (3-4e), Ranger (all editions)
Artillery: Magic-User and subclasses (1-2e), Wizard and subclasses (3-4e), any character built primarily as an archer (all editions)
Support: Cleric (all editions), Druid (all editions), Bard (3e)
Rest: Monk (all editions), most wacko multi-class combinations (all editions)
I'm not sure where a few classes specific to 4e fit in. Warlord, for example - the class name suggests tank but everything I've heard/read seems to want to make it either support or artillery; so it might best be put in "the rest".
Also, sometimes classes primarily seen as one role might have specific characters who better perform another - a good example is the "heavy Ranger" who gives up on stealth in favour of joining the front line.
Lan-"single-class and proud of it"-efan
The tank. You can never have too many of these heavily-armoured damage-absorbing front line bashers who can also take the fight to the enemy when needed.
The scout: Often overlooked but always useful, a scout can tell you what lies ahead before you get there and can often get into (and out of) places others cannot. One in a party is usually enough.
The artillery: Anyone who mostly deals with threats at a distance via spell, missile or device. Again, something you can never have too many of.
The support: These guys patch you up when you're done fighting and-or exploring, see to the information gathering and divination, buff you up before and during battles, and so on. Many parties tend to think one of these is enough. They are wrong.
The rest: Those who can't figure out which of the above roles they fill and so instead try to fill either none of them or as many of them as they can. Many parties can do without these unless all the other roles are well covered.
So, who fills these roles?
Tank: Fighter (all editions), Cavalier (1e), Paladin (1-2-3e), Knight (3e), etc. The Barbarian (1-3e) also fits here, just without the armour.
Scout: Thief (1-2e), Rogue (3-4e), Ranger (all editions)
Artillery: Magic-User and subclasses (1-2e), Wizard and subclasses (3-4e), any character built primarily as an archer (all editions)
Support: Cleric (all editions), Druid (all editions), Bard (3e)
Rest: Monk (all editions), most wacko multi-class combinations (all editions)
I'm not sure where a few classes specific to 4e fit in. Warlord, for example - the class name suggests tank but everything I've heard/read seems to want to make it either support or artillery; so it might best be put in "the rest".
Also, sometimes classes primarily seen as one role might have specific characters who better perform another - a good example is the "heavy Ranger" who gives up on stealth in favour of joining the front line.
Lan-"single-class and proud of it"-efan
Neonchameleon
Legend
Lanefan, your knowledge of 4e is slightly off 
But other than that I'll agree with most of what you wrote other than to say that the truly scary 3e wizards weren't artillery, they were support. And Bards made excellent scouts in 3e (sculpt sound, invisibility, hide, move silently, listen).
Warlord is a 4e leader class - urging people onwards and inspiring them to pull out their reserves of energy (effectively healing them). That doesn't mean my current warlord doesn't wear heavy armour and a shield and sometimes tank. But they are support characters. (There's also a difference between a tank and a melee killer who is also on the front line).
But other than that I'll agree with most of what you wrote other than to say that the truly scary 3e wizards weren't artillery, they were support. And Bards made excellent scouts in 3e (sculpt sound, invisibility, hide, move silently, listen).Warlord is a 4e leader class - urging people onwards and inspiring them to pull out their reserves of energy (effectively healing them). That doesn't mean my current warlord doesn't wear heavy armour and a shield and sometimes tank. But they are support characters. (There's also a difference between a tank and a melee killer who is also on the front line).
Last edited:
Lord_Blacksteel
Adventurer
I've written some stuff about this on my blog recently and roles have changed somewhat over the years. Short version: One of the biggest is that in 1E and 2E there was no Striker/Defender split - Fighters were the combat monsters for both offense and defense and "Tanking" as a concept really didn't exist. They were up front because they hit the hardest AND had the best AC and HP, not just to soak up hits for the rest of the party.
Clerics were fairly similar to the leader role but were a lot handier in melee than the way the leader is typically viewed today. With an AC equal to that of the fighter and good offensive capability as well they could stand in for a fighter when needed.
Thieves were not strikers except possibly under very specific conditions - the genesis of the Striker lies more with the 2E Ranger than with the thief class.
Artillery as a concept was also largely restricted to certain wizards as in 1E a fighter by default was just as good with a bow as he was with a sword outside of stat modifiers. There was not much specialization required, certainly nothing like what we saw in 3E or 4E.
Depending on the level & the opposition involved M-U's could be good buffer/debuffers and Clerics could be decent nukers too so there was some flexibility as far as role.
Also remember most parties were bigger than the 4-5 man modern standard. You might have 6-8 PC's + various hirelings and henchmen. Looking back 1 thief, 1 cleric, 1 magic-user, + 2-3 fighters (including sub-classes and multi-classes) was a pretty typical party. You might think people were more concerned with nice protection/roles but they really weren't. Roles were not seen as conceptually distinct from the classes themselves - it wasn't "we need a tank or a brick" it was "We need a fighter" or "we need a cleric". Thieves were usually seen as optional - you could go without them a lot easier than you oculd a wizard, fighter, or cleric. The idea of balance was very different than it is now.
It's a fun topic to discuss. There are some assumptions in 4E that "things have always been this way" but it's really not true. This arrangement works for 4E and makes sense in the game, but the Four 4E Roles have not always been true for other editions of D&D or other games either.
Clerics were fairly similar to the leader role but were a lot handier in melee than the way the leader is typically viewed today. With an AC equal to that of the fighter and good offensive capability as well they could stand in for a fighter when needed.
Thieves were not strikers except possibly under very specific conditions - the genesis of the Striker lies more with the 2E Ranger than with the thief class.
Artillery as a concept was also largely restricted to certain wizards as in 1E a fighter by default was just as good with a bow as he was with a sword outside of stat modifiers. There was not much specialization required, certainly nothing like what we saw in 3E or 4E.
Depending on the level & the opposition involved M-U's could be good buffer/debuffers and Clerics could be decent nukers too so there was some flexibility as far as role.
Also remember most parties were bigger than the 4-5 man modern standard. You might have 6-8 PC's + various hirelings and henchmen. Looking back 1 thief, 1 cleric, 1 magic-user, + 2-3 fighters (including sub-classes and multi-classes) was a pretty typical party. You might think people were more concerned with nice protection/roles but they really weren't. Roles were not seen as conceptually distinct from the classes themselves - it wasn't "we need a tank or a brick" it was "We need a fighter" or "we need a cleric". Thieves were usually seen as optional - you could go without them a lot easier than you oculd a wizard, fighter, or cleric. The idea of balance was very different than it is now.
It's a fun topic to discuss. There are some assumptions in 4E that "things have always been this way" but it's really not true. This arrangement works for 4E and makes sense in the game, but the Four 4E Roles have not always been true for other editions of D&D or other games either.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
Back in 1E/2E/3E, thieves were needed for the ability to Find/Remove Traps. Most parties I saw back in the day refused to set a foot into a dungeon without a thief/rogue because all it would take was one trap to take out the entire party.
The one term I haven't seen mentioned yet (and which vanished in 4E):
Skill Monkey/Face - the rogue or bard, for their ability to handle out-of-combat encounters, usually social situations. Magic is nice for this, but you usually only get one shot/person with magic, whereas skills can be used over and over.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
When I think of "tank", though, I'm thinking of something that can take damage *and* give it out. Like a tank.
Very true at low levels. I find that as levels get higher, Clerics stand farther back in the ranks.
I'm still not sure what a "striker" is supposed to be. Am I right in guessing it's someone who gives out lots of damage but can't (or doesn't) absorb much?
If you used 1e specialization rules from UA there was - or could be - loads of difference. A bow-spec'ed high-Dex. light-armour Fighter could artillerize with the best of 'em.
Very true, and the roles in general were more blurred; which in and of itself isn't really a bad thing.
Our average party size is around 8-10. I find a nice side effect is there's lots more chance for character interaction, with so many different personalities involved, than in a small 4-5 character group.
When putting together a party, you'd also tend to fill a "role" with more than one character - the tank would be a front line made up of several characters; the artillery might be a couple of wizards and an archer; the support might be a Cleric and a Druid; and so forth. And, there'd still often be room for an oddball...a Monk, or Bard, or Assassin; whatever.
Not true directly as written, but I think the same vague ideas have always kind of been there. The biggest difference I can see - assuming I'm interpreting things correctly - is 4e took what used to be a scout role, gave it damage output, and called it striker.
Lan-"unbalanced"-efan
clip
First Post
1e:
Fighter : "I am the God of Battle, tremble at my feet!"
Thief : If your thief wasn't a risk-taker, there was no point having one.
Cleric: Heal me. They also did something else to do with undead, but I can't remember what.
Paladin : Good at fighting, but a roleplaying trainwreck.
Druid : No good at fighting, and a roleplaying trainwreck.
Monk : You always need someone who can feign death.
Ranger : 2d8 hp at first level. Say no more.
Assassin : And you thought the 4e assassin was useless?
Magic User : You get annoyed when the fighters ask if Magic Missile is all you have left.
Illusionist : You remember the arguments the magic user player had with the DM about Phantasmal Force? You can have them all the time, at every level.
Fighter : "I am the God of Battle, tremble at my feet!"
Thief : If your thief wasn't a risk-taker, there was no point having one.
Cleric: Heal me. They also did something else to do with undead, but I can't remember what.
Paladin : Good at fighting, but a roleplaying trainwreck.
Druid : No good at fighting, and a roleplaying trainwreck.
Monk : You always need someone who can feign death.
Ranger : 2d8 hp at first level. Say no more.
Assassin : And you thought the 4e assassin was useless?
Magic User : You get annoyed when the fighters ask if Magic Missile is all you have left.
Illusionist : You remember the arguments the magic user player had with the DM about Phantasmal Force? You can have them all the time, at every level.
Similar Threads
