Should There Even Be Roles?

[Halivar]

The roles, regardless of what's printed on the class's rules page, is only a starting point. The paladin is listed as a defender/leader, but I have enjoyed playing one as a striker (for 3 years now) immensely. By loading up on powers and feats that emphasize damage dealing over other class abilities, I managed to twist the class around pretty well.

IMO, that's a success for roles. They are only an indication of the class's initial bent; what you do with it is up to you.

I would like to see a continuation of this.

 

[Minigiant]

Roles should stay nut each class should be access to all of them. A fighter coulld go all striker with a powerful attacks or a flurry of weaker ones. Or they could be defenders like the 4E one or swallow the warlord to be a healer or controller. This lets players specialize it one role or dabble in a few. It also aid is multiclassing and racial optimization as classes no longer lock it combat style.

As for noncombat roles, the same. Give every class access in different methods to let players better make their characters. Players can choose between Face, Explorer, and Knowledge skills... or choose more Combat power.

 

[billd91]

I think the 4e use of roles should be taken out behind the wood shed and dealt with. That said, I also think we should take a bit of advice from Monte Cook's article on Ivory Tower Game Design and present the implications of picking certain feats, skills, classes, what-have-you and how they could affect the role your PC will play in a party of adventurers.

 

[MerricB]

The biggest problem with the roles in 4e is that they aren't really the four roles of old D&D.

Defender isn't really a role in traditional D&D. Striker isn't a role in traditional D&D. Controller isn't a role. The only actual role - and it's the best point of 4e - is identifying the leader/healer role.

Especially in 3E, you had a cleric with the group, or you were dead. There were just way too many threats you needed a cleric to overcome or clean up afterwards. Ability Drain or Energy Drain could only be used if a cleric were around, otherwise they'd wreck the campaign. (So I discovered with my no-clerics only druids Ulek campaign).

The combat roles of pre-3E were "melee guy", "ranged guy" and "spell guy", with a fair amount of "nothing guy" thrown in (the MU without usable spells or magic items.)

In 3E, you got "strikey guy" - the rogue - for the first time. Backstab wasn't really an option pre-3e, as it was reliant on a lot of DM permission. Most thieves were in the middle of melee with everyone else. And, in AD&D with the rules for firing into melee, that meant everyone except the Wizard who could choose targets for his spells.

The Striker really hurt and distorted the entire concept of roles, because doing Lots of Damage is Really Fun... and why should the other classes be limited to low damage? It's enshrining the 3E version of the rogue, and putting combat over adventuring, which I don't like.

The Controller - what they pushed the Wizard into - doesn't describe the old Wizard. The old Wizard wasn't Controller, he was Versatility man and I Win the Combat man. Having a spell like Sleep just end otherwise unwinnable combats is great. Personally, I think the 5E sleep should work like the AD&D sleep - but the Wizard should have a utility "blast" power so that they can do stuff when they run out of normal spells. (It's very depressing to be a wizard in AD&D and unable to do anything else. It's made much better by a lot more EXPLORATION and INTERACTION in the game...)

The Defender - in AD&D, it's any fighter or cleric (or paladin or ranger) worth their salt. Good HP and AC and melee combat. It doesn't define them utterly - the fighter can use a bow, the cleric can cast supportive spells - as its something they do rather than something they are.

Cheers!

 

[Aldarc]

Especially in 3E, you had a cleric with the group, or you were dead. There were just way too many threats you needed a cleric to overcome or clean up afterwards. Ability Drain or Energy Drain could only be used if a cleric were around, otherwise they'd wreck the campaign. (So I discovered with my no-clerics only druids Ulek campaign).

The combat roles of pre-3E were "melee guy", "ranged guy" and "spell guy", with a fair amount of "nothing guy" thrown in (the MU without usable spells or magic items.)

My own personal preferences is decreasing the reliance in D&D on healers, as per paragraph one, to allow for the basic three archetypes of paragraph two: mage, rogue, and warrior. But D&D has developed a drug dependency on clerics and healers.

 

[Hassassin]

So your fighters did what exactly in a fight? Hide in a corner? Did your clerics never cast spells? I feel like I'm missing out on some secret meaning of what is a descriptor of what someone mostly does in combat.

This is how I see it.

Against goblins my paladin sometimes charges ahead cleaving through enemies. He may not consistently do all that much damage compared to a rogue, but when smiting evil or power attacking he does an impressive amount.

Sometimes there's only a single monster who looks kind of dangerous. The paladin decides to strap on his tower shield instead and approach carefully, while spellcasters try to soften the target.

If an ally goes down in a fight my paladin will probably run to lay on hands, or maybe use a potion or even a wand. Wherever he goes allies are resistant to fear. At later levels he can also heal other conditions.

However, if the enemy is undead, the paladin will pick up his holy symbol and hold them at bay while others shoot them full of arrows, stones and spells.

Is he a striker, a defender, a leader or a controller?

 

[Aldarc]

This is how I see it.

1. Against goblins my paladin sometimes charges ahead cleaving through enemies. He may not consistently do all that much damage compared to a rogue, but when smiting evil or power attacking he does an impressive amount.

2. Sometimes there's only a single monster who looks kind of dangerous. The paladin decides to strap on his tower shield instead and approach carefully, while spellcasters try to soften the target.

3. If an ally goes down in a fight my paladin will probably run to lay on hands, or maybe use a potion or even a wand. Wherever he goes allies are resistant to fear. At later levels he can also heal other conditions.

4. However, if the enemy is undead, the paladin will pick up his holy symbol and hold them at bay while others shoot them full of arrows, stones and spells.

Is he a striker, a defender, a leader or a controller?

1 does not necessarily place him in a striker role and it's entirely consistent with 2. 3 is not the primary focus, and would make him a 'leader' secondary. And if the paladin is holding them at bay, that could very well qualify him as a defender. So yes, I would say that he is a defender primary and leader secondary.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I don't think a class needs a pre-defined role.

But I think it is good to have "builds" that suggest themselves for a role. The game may be designable in a way that your role is not too strong or too static that you can't live without a sacred mix of roles.

Say, if your defender role is just a stance away from your striker role, or if the leader role is just one spell preperation away from your controller role... Why not?

 

[Hassassin]

1 does not necessarily place him in a striker role and it's entirely consistent with 2. 3 is not the primary focus, and would make him a 'leader' secondary. And if the paladin is holding them at bay, that could very well qualify him as a defender. So yes, I would say that he is a defender primary and leader secondary.

I'm not sure why a barbarian swinging a greataxe is labeled as a striker, if a paladin swinging a greatsword isn't. Whether healing is the primary job of my paladin depends on whether there's another healer in the party. Finally, if an effect that causes multiple enemies to flee 60' and not approach isn't controlling, I'm not sure what is.

Anyway, my point is that with all characters I've played, their combat role changed from fight to fight or even round to round, depending on enemies, environment and party make up (including who's still standing). Some might be labeled as "mostly doing X in combat", but not nearly all.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not sure why a barbarian swinging a greataxe is labeled as a striker, if a paladin swinging a greatsword isn't.

Because their combat roles are not defined by the fact that they swing two-handed weapons, but by their abilities and combat role foci.

Whether healing is the primary job of my paladin depends on whether there's another healer in the party.

Yes, because being a 'leader' is the secondary role of the paladin in 4E.

Finally, if an effect that causes multiple enemies to flee 60' and not approach isn't controlling, I'm not sure what is.

But that's only in certain circumstances when your foe is a particular type. Having utility outside of your primary role does not somehow preclude you from being categorized as your primary role or make you a primary [other role], at least according to 4E's class design philosophy anyway.

Anyway, my point is that with all characters I've played, their combat role changed from fight to fight or even round to round, depending on enemies, environment and party make up (including who's still standing). Some might be labeled as "mostly doing X in combat", but not nearly all.

'Role' is about your expected primary combat role and not "you will do this at all times." It also defines the general sort of powers that the class are given in 4E.