How many roles should there be?

[Shemeska]

Ideally? None.

I really don't like the 4e notion of "roles". It's a superfluous abstraction, and if it has any mechanical imposition upon a PC, it's even worse than that IMO.

If some folks want to use the terms in their own games to describe character motifs, fine, but don't code it into the core game in any way.

 

[Andor]

A few thoughts I've had from reading this:

1) "Roles restrict roleplaying" seems to be a common complaint. I do not get this at all. Generally, when I come up with a character for a game (if it's one that's going to feature a good amount of RP, as opposed to just hack and slash), I come up with the concept first.

Speaking for myself, I don't think roles restrict roleplay, directly.

They do restrict gameplay since it's harder for me to build a character for a role or focus that doesn't fit neatly into their tidy little boxes.

What does impact roleplaying for me is when the rules of the game are so abstractly gamist that I no longer am able to picture life inside the game world. How do I RP a character whose world is so alien to my own mental maps that I cannot understand his viewpoint?

This is not directly tied to the existence of roles. But if it wasn't for role driven game design requirements I don't think 4e would have been so very, very odd in how it implemented basic things like summoning, or the fighters "get over here" powers which were neither magical, physical or ignorable.

If I want to play a turn based tactical combat game I'll play Final Fantasy Tactics or Disgaea. If I want to roleplay I don't need a rules set designed to let me model Agrias, but not Bilbo.

If WotC want's to use roles in their internal design documents, more power to them.

I don't want to see them in the 5e PHB. I don't want to look at a fighter and think "Huh. Why is it he he gets martial melee weapons weapons that do 1d10 but only simple ranged weapons that do 1d6 while the Ranger gets Martial ranged that do 1d10 and simple melee that do 1d6." Even more than roles, niche protection needs to die of Mummy Rot.

 

[MoxieFu]

My prediction is that the jargon of Roles will not be in the game. Those who like Roles will insist that they are there. Those who dislike Roles will insist they are not. Both sides will see what they want to see.

 

[FalcWP]

[Roles] do restrict gameplay since it's harder for me to build a character for a role or focus that doesn't fit neatly into their tidy little boxes.

Again, I do not understand why you feel a combat role influences how you roleplay your character. Many of my characters, for the RP standpoint, could be any role or no role at all; many others fit naturally in to a certain role (The chivalrous knight who wants to protect his comrades, the screaming barbarian, the pious cleric) with little tweaking. Even concepts that straddle the border of two different roles can be done with multiclassing, hybrid rules, or classes that are designed to mix two roles... and that's if your actions in combat are hugely important to your character's roleplay!

What does impact roleplaying for me is when the rules of the game are so abstractly gamist that I no longer am able to picture life inside the game world. How do I RP a character whose world is so alien to my own mental maps that I cannot understand his viewpoint?

This is not directly tied to the existence of roles. But if it wasn't for role driven game design requirements I don't think 4e would have been so very, very odd in how it implemented basic things like summoning, or the fighters "get over here" powers which were neither magical, physical or ignorable.

Most of the rules in 4E deal with combat, yes. I generally don't need a rulebook to have a fun and balanced roleplaying encounter, but it is very handy for a combat encounter. In some cases, those combat rules sacrifice realism for balance or fun. Other systems I've played in have sacrificed fun and balance for realism. (Some have sacrificed fun and balance and realism for seven pages of grapple rules). I know what I prefer. It may not be what you prefer. When I run in to a power that makes no sense as written, I either

A) Reflavor it to something I do like
B) Don't pick it if it's going to bug me as a player
C) Work with my GM or my player to get something workable
D) Handwave it and get back to the fun stuff!

I don't want to see them in the 5e PHB. I don't want to look at a fighter and think "Huh. Why is it he he gets martial melee weapons weapons that do 1d10 but only simple ranged weapons that do 1d6 while the Ranger gets Martial ranged that do 1d10 and simple melee that do 1d6." Even more than roles, niche protection needs to die of Mummy Rot.

Well, now hold on a minute. Do you have a problem with *roles* or with *classes*? Role-wise, there's no reason the fighter and the ranger can't have the same weapons (in fact, in 4E they do). In fact, many classes who fill the same role equally well have wildly different weapon and armor proficiencies, class skills, etc.

What a role provides is a basic idea of how a character is going to function in combat, what his job is. The class is what's providing the actual toolbox of how he does that. Those toolboxes are generally going to be balanced between classes that fill the same role, but their specific contents can be quite different.

 

[Andor]

Speaking for myself, I don't think roles restrict roleplay, directly.

Again, I do not understand why you feel a combat role influences how you roleplay your character.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Well, now hold on a minute. Do you have a problem with *roles* or with *classes*? Role-wise, there's no reason the fighter and the ranger can't have the same weapons (in fact, in 4E they do). In fact, many classes who fill the same role equally well have wildly different weapon and armor proficiencies, class skills, etc.

What a role provides is a basic idea of how a character is going to function in combat, what his job is. The class is what's providing the actual toolbox of how he does that. Those toolboxes are generally going to be balanced between classes that fill the same role, but their specific contents can be quite different.

Roles are my problem. If I didn't like classes I wouldn't bother holding an opinion on D&D except that it was something that happened to other people.

And again, my problem with roles is that they intentionally limit your design space. Defender, striker, controller and Leader are not the only possible roles in combat, let alone the rest of the game.

Furthermore they are only meaningful in the context of short, tactical, small unit combat. I freely admit this describes the vast majority of D&D combats. But not all of them. And then you have sacrificed everything else in the game in order to be the guy who brough a knife to gun fight because the rules won't even acknowledge guns exist. This in a metaphore. I am not complaining about a lack of firearms rules. I'm talking about things like open field mass combat, or long running chase-fights, or hours long naval engagements.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If roles were separated from classes, how many are there?

Traditionally, 4: meat shield, heal-bot, skill monkey, and deus ex magica.

But did Wizards of the Coast identify the correct roles in 4th edition?

The identified a workable set of 4 roles. I'm certain there could be others. In particular, the Controller is a shakily-defined role.

Did they shoehorn roles into a set of four (4) because there are four traditional D&D classes?

Certainly.

Is dealing "damage to multiple foes at once" inherently in the same role as weakening (handing out debuffs), confusing, or delaying your foe? Or is this just a mish-mash of "things wizards do"?

The latter, it seems kinda like a grandfather clause to let wizards keep some of their excessive versatility and power.


Roles work pretty well. The controller role could certainly be re-examined, perhaps cut into more workable chunks. For instance, you could break a 'blaster' role specializing in multi-target damage (like a 4e sourcerer or evoker) out of controller, leaving a role specialized in condition-infliction and action denial.


Another option is to relate roles to the 'three pillars.' There could be a variety of systematic aproaches.

You could take the existing 4 roles and give them corresponding functions in each of the pillars.

Combat:

Defender: Marks/blocks/soaks damage
Leader: Buffs/heals/preserves actions
Striker: high-damage,skirmishing
Controller: blasting/area-denial

Exploration:

Defender: Directly removes obstacles, takes risks
Leader: Provides bonuses/removes penalties
Striker: Spots trouble, directly removes enemies/traps
Controller: Provides knowledge, changes circumstances

Interaction:

Defender: Counters threats of violence, presents a position of strenght/status, provides access.
Leader: Clarifies positions, offers compromises, smooths over objections
Striker: Engages in high-rist/reward strategies (deception, blackmail, etc)
Controller: Gains information, alters dynamics


Or, you could have different roles in each pillar:

Combat: Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller
Exploration: Scout, Navigator, Expert, Trail-breaker
Interaction: Investigator, Researcher, Negotiator, Authority

Different classes could have different combinations of roles. Or some roles could be determined by class and others by theme.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Lan-"and for the record, my vote is zero"-efan

 

[Minigiant]

I see a lot of people say the controller role is unnecessary. I find this odd but I know why people say this. The 3x controller was too strong and no fun if the PC was good at it. And the 4e controller was a little on the weak side unless the player powergamed and got a stun lock.

But that is beside the point. Ir did get me thinking about other way to describe the functions of the game. Traditional we described them as wargaming terms as D&D rose out of a war game. But what if we thought of PCs as Trading Card Game cards.

(Forgiven me as haven't play tcgs in forever) On the combat side, D&D uses the traditional roles of tcgs in it's tactics. There are characters that aim to win the fight, characters that keep the enemies from winning the fight, and characters who provide utility to the other two. Then the first group, the threats, can be split into efficient aggressive one and powerful combination ones. The other 2 groups can be split into 2 groups each as well. Defensive character could either control the enemy or attempt to prevent a TPK. The utility can be split into direct buffs or efficiency.

Aggressive attacker- Slash. Slash. Slash. Blast Blast Blast
Power attacker- Wait Wait...Color Spray... Sneak attack
Healer- Cure Moderate Wounds
Controller- Sleep. Hold Person
Buffer- Haste, Protection from Missiles
Efficiency-... errr... new topic


The exploration side doesn't have the Offense/Defense/Other trichotomy. There is little offense in exploration outside of scouting. Exploration is all about answers. The DM chucks traps, locked chests, unfriendly people, walls, bodies of water, rickety bridges, puzzles, and hungers at the party. When the party throws out a threat, the DM gets all mad as they teleport and fly over their threat.

So exploration cannot be split in Offense/Defense/Other. All the player function are defensive. Instead the answers to the DM's threats are grouped.

Dungeon challenges
Wilderness challenges
Urban challenges
Athletic challenges

The trichodomy works for Interaction. Someone rolls a Charisma skill/check to convince the target. Another person rolls Wisdom to prevent being misled. Sometime the DM calls for a Intelligence roll to craft the idea or gather resources for the diplomatic action.

 

[Hassassin]

Again, I do not understand why you feel a combat role influences how you roleplay your character. Many of my characters, for the RP standpoint, could be any role or no role at all; many others fit naturally in to a certain role (The chivalrous knight who wants to protect his comrades, the screaming barbarian, the pious cleric) with little tweaking. Even concepts that straddle the border of two different roles can be done with multiclassing, hybrid rules, or classes that are designed to mix two roles... and that's if your actions in combat are hugely important to your character's roleplay!

If you mandate that one class (build*) = one role, you limit the design space of classes. Should the bard - traditionally a jack of all trades - really be shoehorned into one combat role? Classes have traditionally represented any kind of character concepts, not just those that excel at a single combat role.

Keeping roles in mind when designing classes won't hurt unless you overdo it. If the premise is that each class can handle at least one combat role well, there is a wider range of possible class concepts. Allowing that one role to be something other than the four 4e roles increases the design space further.

* If you have to choose between Slayer fighter and Defender fighter the same is true. You still leave out the generalist, which is how I've always seen fighter with regards to combat: bard is the jack of all trades; fighter is the jack of all combat trades.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If 5e were to have viable generalists, it'd have to stop over-rewarding specialization - and I shudder to think of the screaming and whining and charges of 'not really D&D' /that/ would provoke.