Should There Even Be Roles?

[Kobold Avenger]

One of the complaints about the classes in 4e was they felt too constrained in what they were supposed to do. The idea that each class had a main role just made them feel inflexible compared to previous editions.

Should they even try to have suggested roles for each class in 5e, at all?

I think it was useful for some classes when they defined what they should do, it helped focus some. But I see more of a need to vary what each can do, some might want a Fighter to be a defender and some might want them to be a striker, like they tried with subclasses.

I think there's some need to have the roles be slightly looser. But I guess it might help for some if classes had different focuses/disciplines to determine the kind of things they should try in the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Roles should be a suggestion only.

Sometimes, roles develop within a party regardless of class, just from the characters' personalities and traits.

Lan-"my role is that of the loose cannon"-efan

 

[mach1.9pants]

Roles yes and loser yes. Roles have pretty much always been there but the original classes were too tightly defined by their roles

 

[Aldarc]

The roles should work more like guidelines, but written into the classes themselves. For example, there may be a small blurb for new players that says, "Play this class if you want to...[fight like this while also be good at doing this]."

 

[Dice4Hire]

How many classes in 4E were one pure role? I do not think many were. Most of them, especially the better ones, were a splash of one and a bit of another.

I think roles can make then a lot easier to understand, especially for new players, and is not much baggage for others. That said, we do not need all four roles to be pure combat roles. That needs to change.

 

[Knightfall]

Roles were one the aspects of 4E I actually liked. I think they should be included, but it would be beneficial if the roles weren't so cut and dry. If the player wants his fighter to be a striker then there should be an option.

And the combat system shouldn't be built on the foundation of roles. It should be more of a "character background" element. You pick your race, then you either select the role you want to play and build your character's class around it or you start with the class and add a role later on, perhaps through an appropriate theme.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Somewhere a 4E warlock is crying in the arms of a 3E Bard...

 

[Jawsh]

I think roles are essentially a fact of life. A fact of our imaginary lives that we live while gaming.

The fact is, a party with role distinctions is more effective. They work better as a team when everyone has a job, and when every job has a body in it.

But sometimes adventuring parties aren't as skilled at teamwork, and sometimes they come together for reasons other than entirely professional reasons, and I don't think the game should necessarily punish these groups.

Obviously if they're hiring their services to various guilds and the city watch, they should pay some attention to the composition of their group. For purely practical reasons to assure they can do the job.

The thing about the D&D world is that apart from adventurers, most guilds see all problems in terms of what they know how to do. A thieves' guild will probably want to send in a team of assassins. A church might send in a party of clerics. And a wizard's guild will hire a bunch of fighters. It's only the adventurers who can make the connection and realize that you can make an effective group out of a heterogeneous mixture of misfits that includes a dumb fighter and a weakling wizard.

I think I got off track a bit there.

The point I want to make is that a sub-optimal milieu of party members should be an option. And a DM can handle this in any edition. One solution is to tailor encounters down a bit if the party is missing a role.

Another solution is that the party can take matters into their own hands, and seek out additional XP so they can be higher level to take on challenges that they're not the ideal mix for. Or they can get a hireling or two. Or take the Leadership feat.

 

[FireLance]

It seems to me that roles are the new alignment. Most of the problems only crop up when you think of them as straitjackets instead of guidelines.

I think roles are a good introductory concept for new players so that they can get a sense of how to play to the strengths of their characters.

I think roles are also good guidelines for the designers to ensure that there is at least one good way (but mind you, ideally not the only way) to play the character.

Beyond that, if you're an experienced player, why do you care what the rules tell you your character's role is supposed to be? Do whatever you can get away with!

 

[Hassassin]

I think roles can make then a lot easier to understand, especially for new players, and is not much baggage for others. That said, we do not need all four roles to be pure combat roles. That needs to change.

Contrarily, I think combat roles should be combat roles (or suggestions), but each character should also have (a) non-combat role(s). There should be no trade-off between the two, i.e. taking on a non-combat role shouldn't make you weaker in combat.