Should There Even Be Roles?

[UngainlyTitan]

I think roles are a great discipline for the designers in a game like 4e. In 5e though it could be harder to see the use. One thing would be to have role as something that can be added to class lile a theme.
Thus there would be fewer classes and boradly defined. Like the fighting man, magic user and holy man, with roles giving focus to the base concept.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Flatly, no. I don't think the Roles were a good idea. The characters are stereotyped into roles already when they pick a Class (and a Race). If you don't know what your role is when you pick a 'Fighter' then you need an education, quite frankly.

 

[Nagol]

I see two main values for roles: they make creating a character faster and they enforce a minimum level of competancy for the PC.

If I approach a game to crate a new character and want to play a sword and board warrior type, it's trivial in pre-3e D&D: Fighting Man or Fighter for me!

If I have the same conception and approach Fantasy Hero, I am now faced with the task of carving the character out of the massive potentialities available in the system. Extra Dex or combat skill levels? Knockback resistance or a powerful blow?

FH is absolutely terrific at getting a character that emulates my conception at the costs of time, variability in effectiveness, and requirements for system mastery.

Pre-3e is aces at minimising those costs for new characters. Roll 6 sets of dice, pick a class, roll hp, buy a bit of equipment, and off you go! OK so I exaggerate. It has a cost of conception emulation and limited ways to express a character, but that's not only OK but often desirable.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I just wish that D&D could move away from this obsession of asking "What is my Job?" back to simply "Who sort of character do I want to be?"

I want the option of being able to play interesting characters that aren't necessarily practical or 'useful', but they are just fun to play.

 

[delericho]

It's a tricky one. I think that roles were a good thing, but they were too inflexible in 4e.

I think perhaps the game should define the four different roles within the party, and discuss why it's beneficial to have all four, but not tie each class to a single role. Instead, build the classes so that, with the right power set, they can perform one of several roles (and include a note of those several suggested roles with the class description).

That way, the players know that they should probably have a Defender, a Striker, a Leader and a Controller in their group, but they're not forced into particular class selections. Perhaps one player decides to build his Fighter as a Striker, while the Cleric adopts the Defender role. The party is then supplemented with a Wizard built as a Controller (could have been a Striker or a Leader, but preferred more strategic play), and a Bard built as the Leader (could have been a Striker, but noooo...).

Or something.

 

[Kalontas]

I definitely like the categorisation of roles, but then again, I like a lot of stuff just because it neatly sits in a table.

Though I'd prefer the leader to be more of a healer. I enjoyed clerics in 3.5 (as little as I played the actual game edition) because it actually felt like a healer. When cleric is just "allowing allies to use healing surges" it doesn't really feel like a cleric.

 

[Jawsh]

I think "what is my job?" is a really good question to ask in a group-oriented game.

"What sort of character do I want to be?" is kind of individualistic and narcissistic. I won't say individualism is bad or wrong per se. But it leads to players wanting to be werewolves and dhampires and other angsty archetypes.

Those are good characters if you're talking about a novel, or a one-player-one-GM game session. Not so good for a group that wants to accomplish stuff.


I'm a big fan of The Hobbit, and one of the main reasons they brought Bilbo along to begin with was they needed a burglar to round out their party. Apparently they didn't get the memo that they also needed a cleric. Fortunately Gandalf had a rank or two in the Heal skill.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think "what is my job?" is a really good question to ask in a group-oriented game.

"What sort of character do I want to be?" is kind of individualistic and narcissistic. I won't say individualism is bad or wrong per se. But it leads to players wanting to be werewolves and dhampires and other angsty archetypes.

Those are good characters if you're talking about a novel, or a one-player-one-GM game session. Not so good for a group that wants to accomplish stuff.


I'm a big fan of The Hobbit, and one of the main reasons they brought Bilbo along to begin with was they needed a burglar to round out their party. Apparently they didn't get the memo that they also needed a cleric. Fortunately Gandalf had a rank or two in the Heal skill.

If the Fellowship had been formed by asking the question "What are their jobs?" then they wouldn't have taken Pippin. Indeed, beyond having a leader (Thorin), you didn't see all those dwarves categorised into Roles like they are in D&D.

Moreover, I don't play D&D for the tactical motivation of being part of a team. I play it because I like the drama of playing characters different to myself. That is what I call "Roleplaying".

 

[AlioTheFool]

I just wish that D&D could move away from this obsession of asking "What is my Job?" back to simply "Who sort of character do I want to be?"

I want the option of being able to play interesting characters that aren't necessarily practical or 'useful', but they are just fun to play.

This.

I despise the Roles concept. If I want to play a half-elf Bard/Ranger/Rogue/Wizard then I want the ability to do so. The Role concept really interfered with the ability to multiclass in 4E. I understand there are many people who like the tightness of the Role concept, but I truly can't stand it. I'd rather have the option of creating a poor combat character that actually reflects my character concept.

 

[Jawsh]

Well I guess WotC has a lot of work cut out for them if they're trying to create a game that can accommodate individualistic role-players together at the same table as team players. If I were them, I'd tend to make the rules lean toward favouring roles and teamwork, because that's D&D's traditional roots.

But if they are looking to compromise, what I would like to see is a little more advice on how to handle parties that aren't made up of the traditional four roles. Because even if they do define and codify roles into the rules, there will always be players and groups who don't follow the recommendations, and I think that should be okay.