D&D 5E The Role of Classes in 5e

[Oofta]

The problem is that you have to have a DM buy into those roles.

Our DM and many others based on feedback on these forums don't. They will ignore the tank, even taking opportunity attacks to "geek the mage."

If you are a DM that abides by the standard fantasy genre where the fighter stands toe to toe with the enemy while the mage casts spells in the back then I applaud you. Unfortunately that seems rare these days.
...

So ... it's a bad thing if DMs run NPCs intelligently using tactics they believe the enemy would realistically use?

 

[Scribe]

I think it's interesting that there appears to be a clear disconnect between how players form their group, and a lack of mechanics which would support the concept of a traditional/mmo like take on party comp and combat.

In know there are some subclasses that looked to introduce mechanics to support a front line play style, but yeah, interesting.

 

[Asisreo]

I recoil from the idea of a “role.” I play a character and we see what happens. We (my long time pals and me) get a hankering to play something and just do it. Any role unfolds organically in play.

of course I have probably made my character with things that fit how I want to play. If I want to fight up close I have given thought to HP and AC etc. but it’s not an assigned role.

did this come from MMOs or something?

Perhaps "playstyle design" is a better phrase?

It isn't that, necessarily, classes have to fulfill a party composition role but I feel its apparent that Wizards are meant to excel at backline control and Fighters are meant for consistent damage.

How would you categorize a wizard versus a cleric versus a ranger for instance in terms of their strengths and weaknesses.

My example:

I would consider Rogues as Evasive Strikers. They have several ways to mitigate incoming damage and keep themselves out of dangerous situations but if those defenses are bypassed, they don't have as much HP to keep them safe. Yet they are also great at burst damage. Their low number of attacks make landing that damage less likely, but they hit like a truck when successful.

 

[billd91]

So ... it's a bad thing if DMs run NPCs intelligently using tactics they believe the enemy would realistically use?

Would they? Would a real person rush past an armed combatant, even risking their defenses and a potentially fatal blow to do so? This isn't a cut and dried question and for some people it smacks more of being a token on a board with enough hit points to survive the expected attack of opportunity or knowledge that the blocker only gets 1 to spend.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Would they? Would a real person rush past an armed combatant, even risking their defenses and a potentially fatal blow to do so? This isn't a cut and dried question and for some people it smacks more of being a token on a board with enough hit points to survive the expected attack of opportunity or knowledge that the blocker only gets 1 to spend.

A bear would go after the front line fighter, because they're the biggest target.

A rust monster would go after whoever has the most metal.

An NPC who lives in a world where there are wizards would absolutely go after the squishy mage who is lobbing fireballs, just like how soldiers in WWII would rush to take out the big guns (based on my viewing of one episode of Band of Brothers).

 

[niklinna]

Classes exist in 5e to provide stereotypes. These stereotypes aren't necessarily based on particular mechanical roles, but they usually do cover particular narrative tropes at some level of breadth (often in the class as a whole) or narrowness (more typically in its subclasses). On the plus side:

• A quick glance over the baker's dozen of classes can get you in the ballpark of a character concept you have in mind, and with luck one of the subclasses will be very close. This is especially good for new players. More experienced players can multiclass for even more specific concepts.
• Stereotypes and tropes are by definition well-known, so they enforce genre standards and help give coherency to how things roll out in an adventure.
• On the other hand, you can subvert them for more interesting characters and stories.
• With a little work, you can reskin certain parts of a class/subclass for a custom feel.

On the minus side:

• Thirteen stereotypes really isn't a lot (have you ever wasted hours at tvtropes.org?), so players with concepts that don't immediately fit snugly may be frustrated with the choices available—even with multiclassing. I've seen many a thread about making a shaman or witch, for example, with some people arguing that druid/warlock cover them fine, others saying oh no they don't, and of course plenty of homebrewed classes and subclasses.*
• Classes often provide very specific powers and abilities, both narratively and mechanically, so that reskinning can be problematic. Say you want a shaman-type with a spirit companion—wildfire druid looks like what you need! But it's all based around fire. Changing all the subclass and spirit abilities to a different element or theme is a mechanical job, and not a small one (not a huge one either, of course, but it's more work than picking things off a list).
• The meta-classes of martial, caster, half/third/whatever-caster, plus whatever the warlock is**, limit character types more implicitly but every bit as much as the classes themselves.

* Part of the problem here, of course, is that compared to other stereotypes, shaman and witch are a fair bit fuzzier (not that this is the thread to go into detail about that). There's a reason Ronald Hutton names the parts of his book on shamans "Why we think we know about shamans" and "What we think we know about shamans".

** I mean really, what the heck is the grab bag of stuff that is the 5e warlock?

 

[niklinna]

Here's an article that discusses the myth of party roles in depth:

The Myth of Party Roles in D&D 5E - Tabletop Builds

Well, that example better party relies on a Twilight domain cleric, which is obviously broken.

 

[Oofta]

Would they? Would a real person rush past an armed combatant, even risking their defenses and a potentially fatal blow to do so? This isn't a cut and dried question and for some people it smacks more of being a token on a board with enough hit points to survive the expected attack of opportunity or knowledge that the blocker only gets 1 to spend.

Depends on the enemy, the situation, the terrain, goals and placement.

Even animals have hunting tactics. Wolves for example will feint, distract, and try to separate out what they perceive as the easiest target. An intelligent monster with disciplined tactics may rush a target knowing that the fighter can't hit them all. They may even have the guy leading the charge going defensive.

There's always going to be a bit of artificial funkiness to D&D tactics, so when I DM yes monsters understand reactions and that they can count on 1 OA. Just like players. Some monsters are going to risk taking a hit if they think they can survive. People in warfare put themselves in harm's way to achieve a group goal all the time.

But this is getting off topic.

 

[Shiroiken]

Except for a few classes, you can basically make a lot of different builds out of every class. Barbarian, Bard, and Rogue heavily lean into certain roles because of some class features, but you can still build outside of these types. You might not be the best damage sponge, but your barbarian can tank. Your bard might not be the best controller/support, but you can still be a striker. Your rogue might not be the best striker, but they can do some battlefield control.

 

[Garthanos]

Nostalgic confirmation? intensional seeming undermining/removing of the concept of roles without really doing so? Hiding roles instead of discussing them so the designers don't get blamed for a class that cannot accomplish the things a given role is intended to do?