D&D 5E How would you like 5e to handle combat roles.

[Herschel]

I've played a lot of 4th Edition and what I miss most about the game is the ability to play any party of characters and still work as a combat unit. That is all rogues and still fight well together as we did in 3.5E. Where people could play whatever they wanted and didn't feel pressure to fit a particular cog.

The problem with this then becomes item dependence ie: wands of Cure Light Wounds, which IMO really sucks more than the other. One ting 4E has done (but it takes a few YEARS with a new edition) is have character builds within classes that fit a certain style of party.

Instead of all rogues you may have two rogues, a Swordmage, a Skirmishing Warlord or a Bard and a Psion or Wizard. All can be light-armored and somewhat stealthy while still filling the style of play you want.

 

[conanb]

I say scrap everything apart from the Classes - and let players make up their own minds about what 'Role' they want to play. You could, I guess, have an essay discussing tactical roles and team work, but the notion of having built in rules that dictate the way you should play your character detracts from the very idea of roleplaying in the first place. It codifies character behaviour - what should be left up to the players to decide.

This is what I want, to choose class then choose role. Rogue + Defender = Thug or Wizard + Leader = Arcane Healer, etc.

 

[Herschel]

I say scrap everything apart from the Classes - and let players make up their own minds about what 'Role' they want to play. You could, I guess, have an essay discussing tactical roles and team work, but the notion of having built in rules that dictate the way you should play your character detracts from the very idea of roleplaying in the first place. It codifies character behaviour - what should be left up to the players to decide.

How does it codify character behavior? It codifies combat abilities/skills but it does NOTHING to codify how you play your character's personality.

In combat, you have a job to do because you're good at it and that's why you're IN the group.

Outside of combat, you do what you do because you're good at it regardless of what your combat role is.

A combat "leader" may never be the party "face" outside of combat.

A combat "defender" may never be the one to come to an NPC's aid in a dispute.

Just like in the real world your job doesn't define you, it's just your profession. Certain jobs draw certain types of people (Bards and salesmen, for example) but even then not all of them are the same.

 

[Pilgrim]

Well, before I consider anything, I'd like to see the ridiculous role labels eliminated.

I think role labels put to much emphasis on what a character "should" do. Without adhering to these predefined "roles" you could then design optional/modular classes, much like multi-class characters, that float around with a variety of abilities / skills that could cover various areas within a party without the player feeling that they have to fit into some preconceived notion.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I'd prefer combat roles as an explicit part of the game to be dropped entirely.

 

[DonTadow]

I say scrap everything apart from the Classes - and let players make up their own minds about what 'Role' they want to play. You could, I guess, have an essay discussing tactical roles and team work, but the notion of having built in rules that dictate the way you should play your character detracts from the very idea of roleplaying in the first place. It codifies character behaviour - what should be left up to the players to decide.

I am all for a few words on roles in the book but drop the combat game terminology. It's a turn off. The advantage dnd has over a video game, is that players can be and do anything and are frequently asked to do so. It's why folks are eagerly anticipating guild wars 2, to get away from being locked into a "role".

In addition to a few words on combat roles, other things like social roles, trap finding roles and other roles a character will take on should be covered.

In DND, you may be asked frequently do a variety of things (at least in non 4e combat). Let's look at my last combat, the big burly fighting barbarian was needed to swim to the bottom of a toxic filled lake and pull a switch, whiel the other players fended off the attacks. They were all playing defender, and she was not playing any as she had other skills that were beneficial.

The thing about being a modular system, is the knowledge that you can be anything within reason. Class shouldnt limit you, your playstyle should.

The leader/striker/defender system was WOTCs attempt to mimic MMOs because they didnt realize that in DND, we don't stick to one thing. Especially in combat.

 

[Mokona]

The roles, at least according to 4th edition, are:

1. Leader
2. Defender
3. Striker
4. Controller

The most popular poll response has been "Everyone can play each role but in different ways."

(I agree everyone should be a striker because killing monsters = fun.)

Can we see examples?

1. How is the Wizard going to act as a Leader?
2. How is the Rogue going to act as a Defender?
3. <skipped>
4. How is the Fighter going to act as a Controller?

Wash, rinse, and repeat...

 

[tlantl]

I think the best role for roles in D&DN is lining wastepaper baskets.

I believe defining roles for the classes and the player is to confine them in a small box that removes their ability to do things the way they want to.

dD away with these things and D&D feels more like a fantasy game. Don't we have enough complexity in the rules without adding unnecessary layers that hinder the way people play.

 

[Mark CMG]

Combat roles are pigeonholes. I don't care for the concept in a roleplaying game.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree with those who say that combat roles are pidgeonholes.

I think that classes should represent iconic roles in the story and in the campaign as a whole: fighters fights, rogues explore, clerics protects & heals, wizards cast wondrous spells, bards suck, and so on.

But that should remain fairly general, and not become a design constraint (which is even worse than a play constraint) like it happened when they rationalized too much the tactical roles in combat. There's no reason why we can't have one tank fighter, one striker fighter, one tactical/controller fighter and so on.