How many roles should there be?

[Herschel]

When you roll stats you don't always get what you want.

But stat pre-reqs require you to get what you need.

 

[BobTheNob]

My first thought is that a thread titled "How many roles should there be?" is a bit premature, seeing as there's a much longer still-active thread nearby debating whether defined roles should exist at all

Agreed. Its very presumptuous given how much of a split topic this is.

In so far as the "It doesnt stop roleplaying" argument, I agree, it never did. But it does shoehorn you come combat unless you study books extensively and create awkward character build to defy it.

I also stand by my point that as soon as you start classifying classes by combat roles, you doom the game to having a WAY too high focus on combat, which is what 4e had and I really want them to step back away from. Combat is an element of D&D, not its only purpose. Where it was 60-80% of playtime in 4e, I want it simplified WAY back so its like 20-30%. As soon as your start defining combat roles, you are setting yourself up for complication.

I know as far as my group is concerned roles can become "that thing they did in 4e" and never show their face again, and we will be happy.

 

[Lanefan]

I also stand by my point that as soon as you start classifying classes by combat roles, you doom the game to having a WAY too high focus on combat, which is what 4e had and I really want them to step back away from. Combat is an element of D&D, not its only purpose. Where it was 60-80% of playtime in 4e, I want it simplified WAY back so its like 20-30%. As soon as your start defining combat roles, you are setting yourself up for complication.

Combat can still take up most of the session if it wants; that comes down to the playstyle of a given group. But in my experience a character's combat role can and does change from one combat to the next, depending on circumstance. Sometimes the Thief ends up having to tank because she got caught in the front line. Sometimes a Fighter ends up as artillery (via bow) or taking on a run-and-slash striker role. Some people design their Fighters as artillery rather than tanks; it doesn't need a separate class to make an Archer out of a Fighter. Wizards can be artillery or support, Clerics can be just about anything.

Trying to shoehorn characters into certain roles just doesn't make sense, given this.

Lanefan

 

[dagger]

But stat pre-reqs require you to get what you need.

If you don't have the stats you have to be another class, and when the STR req is a 9, well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My first thought is that a thread titled "How many roles should there be?" is a bit premature, seeing as there's a much longer still-active thread nearby debating whether defined roles should exist at all.

'Defined' is the key word, there. Roles have always existed, and it would be very hard to keep the game in anything like it's traditional shape while scrubbing it of roles (characters would have to be made virtually identical or something, even then, players might self-select functions like 'taking point' even in the absence of mechanical differences).

The question is thus do we present roles in a clear, consistent manner and support them mechanically, or do we relegate them to the murky realms of system mastery and tribal knowledge?

That gets back to the question of who is the game for? Is the game's purpose to grow an audience, attracting and holding new fans? Is it to apeal to longtime fans? Just apeal as broadly as possible?

Hiding roles between the lines caters to the hard-core and longtime fan or the elitist 'system master.' That's a narrow - but deep and important - slice of the potential market. They matter if WotC wants to hold on to (or recapture) their existing base.

Formalized roles make the game easier to grasp, improving first play experiences, which is good for the new and casual player - who are a broader, shallower pool of fans and potential fans. They matter if WotC hopes to grow their market.

Obviously, 5e has been stated as trying to apeal as broadly as possible. Roles, possibly /more/ roles, would be helpful in doing that, as they'd serve their purpose for new players. Mechanical support for roles that was optional - that could be traded out and customized to make 'against stereotype' builds of a class - could still apeal to system masters.

If that were the aproach taken, then the new/casual guy's fighter might be a solid striker or good defender depending on a simple choice or two. But, the system master's fighter might be awesome at any one role, or viable in two or more, depending on how he exercises his mojo.

 

[thewok]

If we're talking about combat roles (which is what it looks like), then I'd whip out my MMO logic and say there needs to be three roles in the group: defender, leader/support and controller. The dealing of damage should be a natural effect of performing one of these roles, rather than a goal in and of itself. (Yes, I hate pure DPS classes in MMOs.)

These need not necessarily be fully independent of each other, either. You can have a defender with a bit of controller (Fighter who specializes in enemy movement), or a leader with a bit of defender (a warlord who can do a bit of punishing when enemies attack his less armored friends), or a controller with a bit of leader (invoker with some healing powers), and so on.