D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[pemerton]

strikers do vary in defenses, but I do find most have average to low endurance vis a vis healing surges. I find that in multi-encounter adventures strikers are the most likely PCs to run out of healing surges, at which point pressing on is risky at best.

<snip>

the players of strikers are the most likely to overextend themselves and get surrounded. YMMV.

In my group surge pressure tends to come from the fighter - with second wind 2x/enc for 2 surges a time (epic dwarf with Cloak of the Walking Wounded) he can go through them fast - and the invoker/wizard (he doesn't have many and is such an attractive squishy target!).

The two strikers - ranger/cleric and sorcerer - are ranged so often harder to get to. The sorcerer also has a lot of defences - drow Cloud of Darkness, Greater Ring of Invisibility, plus encounter power teleport immediate actions - which make him hard to pin down.

The paladin is also hard to run out of surges, but with a Ring of Tenacious Will he starts the day with something like 18 of them.

 

[SirAntoine]

Some new combat roles could include a dedicated charger, a tactician, a bodyguard, a duelist, an ambusher, and a mage-killer.

In the exploration pillar, you might develop mechanics for scouting, trap removal, mapmaking, and endurance.

In the social pillar, you might develop mechanics for henchmen and hirelings, interactions, bargaining, learning social customs, diplomacy, and charming.

 

[Sadras]

Admittedly, people with "extreme" situations are more likely to mention something, but I've heard a lot of complaints about TPKs in the Hoard of the Dragon Queen adventure because of the...Redbrand Thugs, I think? And the fight you're apparently supposed to run away from (a half-dragon, IIRC?) where that is poorly telegraphed.

I haven't as yet run the Hoard of the Dragon Queen, only looked at the first section as yet, and IMO it does require DM intervention to make it exciting and run the pre-set encounters (which includes the half-dragon) without PC death. Again this is all theory-crafting at the moment.

The Redbrand Thugs/Ruffians come from the Starter Set adventure Lost Mines of Phandelver which is beautifully written and I would say the difficulty in that adventure is fair. There is a dragon, but it is not a hard requirement for the party to face - it is an option should the PCs desire it. I have run a third of the adventure so far.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Some new combat roles could include a dedicated charger, a tactician, a bodyguard, a duelist, an ambusher, and a mage-killer.

Those seem like they fit fairly well into at least one (possibly two--many classes in 4e bridge two roles, after all). Dedicated charging sounds like a core mechanical action for a striker of some kind. Tactician is supposed to be what 4e Warlords are, though I could see a more thoroughly Controller-Leader hybrid. Bodyguard sounds like a Defender that latches onto particular allies, rather than particular enemies. Duelist could be a lot of things, but sounds like a striker (certain kinds of 4e Avenger do something like that). Ambusher...again sounds like a striker (killing/defeating things by getting the jump on them), but I'm not entirely sure how to implement it in a fiction-friendly way. Mage-killer is pretty transparently a striker who specializes in particular enemy "professions" (for lack of a better word) rather than particular enemy species or other ways of categorizing enemies.

Still, those are all great ideas at least for a particular mechanical nugget around which to build a class, and I'd be willing to bet all of them would be fun if designed well. If you've ever heard of Dungeon World, there's a third-party supplement for it (called Grim World) which has several classes built pretty much exactly along these lines (a tactician, a kinda-sorta "charger"-type, a duelist) and I'm fairly sure I've seen anti-caster classes for it, too.

In the exploration pillar, you might develop mechanics for scouting, trap removal, mapmaking, and endurance.

Yeah, other than the mapmaking, pretty much all of those are the well-recognized Things Worth Doing in exploration. I'd probably rephrase it as scout, trapfinder, navigator, and...something along the lines of "quartermaster." The Scout collects information, observes the current lay of the land, etc. The Trapfinder locates and disarms physical impediments to travel--not just "traps," but locks, roadblocks, broken bridges, etc. The Navigator sets the course and pacing, determines orientation, and adapts to new information (gathered by the Scout, perhaps). The "Quartermaster" keeps herself and/or her party going, getting foraging and shelter, maintaining camp, etc.

The nice thing is, structured in this loose way, such roles can be filled in several different ways, which is what allows for different classes of the same role. For example, a "roguish" (e.g. stealthy) Scout collects information by being unseen, while a "rangery" Scout collects it through exploiting an awareness of the natural world. A "roguish" Trapfinder is geared mostly for overcoming gadgets, or *with* gadgets--while a "brute" Trapfinder plows through problems with bull-headed determination and somehow manages to endure the fallout or something like that. A "warlordy" Navigator is a calligrapher and cartographer, skilled with the science and the art of wrangling terrain; a "sagey" Navigator gazes into a crystal ball or meditates over a bowl of water to "see" the path ahead. Etc.

In the social pillar, you might develop mechanics for henchmen and hirelings, interactions, bargaining, learning social customs, diplomacy, and charming.

All of those sound great! I hadn't considered the specifically *economic* side of socialization. In general, I'd argue that "diplomacy" and "charming" are more-or-less the same, and the places where "charming" isn't the same would be covered very well by "bluffing." Alternatively, you could subsume both "diplomacy" and "bluffing" into that single role--Charmer--and have different tactics within it (e.g. "good cop," "puckish rogue," "compulsive liar," etc.)

So if I had to boil those down, I'd say: "Supervisor" (working with underlings, your own or others'); "Bargainer"; "Investigator" (think Sherlock Holmes!); and "Charmer." To say any more than that--not that it's at all bad to get this far!--we'd need to have more of an idea of what the "Social system" and "Exploration system" actually mean. Which is halfway to designing our own game anyway

 

[SirAntoine]

Those seem like they fit fairly well into at least one (possibly two--many classes in 4e bridge two roles, after all). Dedicated charging sounds like a core mechanical action for a striker of some kind. Tactician is supposed to be what 4e Warlords are, though I could see a more thoroughly Controller-Leader hybrid. Bodyguard sounds like a Defender that latches onto particular allies, rather than particular enemies. Duelist could be a lot of things, but sounds like a striker (certain kinds of 4e Avenger do something like that). Ambusher...again sounds like a striker (killing/defeating things by getting the jump on them), but I'm not entirely sure how to implement it in a fiction-friendly way. Mage-killer is pretty transparently a striker who specializes in particular enemy "professions" (for lack of a better word) rather than particular enemy species or other ways of categorizing enemies.

Still, those are all great ideas at least for a particular mechanical nugget around which to build a class, and I'd be willing to bet all of them would be fun if designed well. If you've ever heard of Dungeon World, there's a third-party supplement for it (called Grim World) which has several classes built pretty much exactly along these lines (a tactician, a kinda-sorta "charger"-type, a duelist) and I'm fairly sure I've seen anti-caster classes for it, too.

In the exploration pillar, you might develop mechanics for scouting, trap removal, mapmaking, and endurance.

Yeah, other than the mapmaking, pretty much all of those are the well-recognized Things Worth Doing in exploration. I'd probably rephrase it as scout, trapfinder, navigator, and...something along the lines of "quartermaster." The Scout collects information, observes the current lay of the land, etc. The Trapfinder locates and disarms physical impediments to travel--not just "traps," but locks, roadblocks, broken bridges, etc. The Navigator sets the course and pacing, determines orientation, and adapts to new information (gathered by the Scout, perhaps). The "Quartermaster" keeps herself and/or her party going, getting foraging and shelter, maintaining camp, etc.

The nice thing is, structured in this loose way, such roles can be filled in several different ways, which is what allows for different classes of the same role. For example, a "roguish" (e.g. stealthy) Scout collects information by being unseen, while a "rangery" Scout collects it through exploiting an awareness of the natural world. A "roguish" Trapfinder is geared mostly for overcoming gadgets, or *with* gadgets--while a "brute" Trapfinder plows through problems with bull-headed determination and somehow manages to endure the fallout or something like that. A "warlordy" Navigator is a calligrapher and cartographer, skilled with the science and the art of wrangling terrain; a "sagey" Navigator gazes into a crystal ball or meditates over a bowl of water to "see" the path ahead. Etc.



All of those sound great! I hadn't considered the specifically *economic* side of socialization. In general, I'd argue that "diplomacy" and "charming" are more-or-less the same, and the places where "charming" isn't the same would be covered very well by "bluffing." Alternatively, you could subsume both "diplomacy" and "bluffing" into that single role--Charmer--and have different tactics within it (e.g. "good cop," "puckish rogue," "compulsive liar," etc.)

So if I had to boil those down, I'd say: "Supervisor" (working with underlings, your own or others'); "Bargainer"; "Investigator" (think Sherlock Holmes!); and "Charmer." To say any more than that--not that it's at all bad to get this far!--we'd need to have more of an idea of what the "Social system" and "Exploration system" actually mean. Which is halfway to designing our own game anyway

Think of distinct combat roles, and new mechanics and staggered resolution for exploration and social interaction which create design space for specialty and skillful play. The 4e combat roles are much too broad. They needlessly restrict and reflavor creativity and distinctive professions and tactics. What they call the controller, for example, covers area of effect damage and other distinct things needlessly. There should be recognition and accessibility for each, and different versions of each.

I feel the game has bluffing down well enough, but diplomacy should be distinct from charming. Diplomacy is a negotiation between parties who have a dispute or who need to reach an agreement. Charming is what is done to make a friend, win a vote, or to initiate a romance. Diplomacy requires different skills, and most importantly to distinguish it from charming, "leverage". The diplomat has "a hand", which he plays. The charmer can just put his cards on the table.

 

[Minigiant]

Like I said back on page 33.
The original Exploration roles are:

Rogue (urban and dungeon exploration)
Ranger (wilderness and harsh exploration)
Physical stat guy (Bend bars, lift gates, jump, swim, climb, tumble, balance)
Mental stat guy (lore skills and detection)
Taxi (mounts, flights, or teleports)

 

[Aenghus]

All characters should be good at most things, also, to avoid dependencies on others.

That's interesting, as it's not something many RPGs wholeheartedly encourage, including a number of versions of D&D.

A lot of RPGs encourage specialisation for those interested in their PCs being successful. In most RPGs individual tasks are "all or nothing", success or failure. Failing tasks like disabling traps can kill the PC so there is a strong incentive to be as good as possible at the relevant skills to maximise chances. Also, a significant proportion of players like succeeding in what they do, and/or dislike failing in-game, and given a chance prefer to stick with what they are good at to portray themselves as "competent at X" with a good record of successes in-game.

Specialists will have higher numbers available to them than generalists and providing the DM doesn't raise the numbers to maintain the challenge might breeze through adventures that would chew up and spit out a team of generalists, and will probably have a easier time of it. This is something I've seen happen, a bunch of generalist adventurers get TPKed in a dungeon, and the players work together to create a team of complementary specialists which return and take it apart.

Generalists are discouraged by many systems as the difficulties are fixed too high for the generalist to solve them reliably. "Spreading yourself too thin". Their breadth of capabilities were often not rewarded by adventures which could be most easily solved by a carefully chosen subset of the skills and mechanics, the ones most attractive to specialists. This demotes the generalist to a backup role quite often. Rare abilities may never become relevant to the game.

Specialists do have potential disadvantages depending on your perspective. Specialists can stress the mechanics they are using, as edge cases are less playtested. If the numbers are higher than expected in play they can trivialise task DCs. If the speciality is in something like magic, which can do anything well in e.g. 3e, you can end up with a specialist who is better at almost everything, given sufficient system mastery.

Specialists have strengths and weaknesses and need cooperation from other adventurers to cover all bases. This assumes the PCs will be mostly cooperative, which is a safe assumption from my personal experiences of D&D but YMMV. If a specialist is disabled there may be no backup in that speciality.

From the very start of the RPG hobby there's been a tension between the adventuring party as a cooperative team or a loose group of competitive individuals. I wasn't playing in the early days when gp was xp but can see there was potential incentive to take money for your own PC and cheat the party.The latter style is an incentive towards generalists as you can't rely on the other players any more and may be competing with them. This makes individual PCs more self sufficient, but potentially reduces the raw power of the party.

My earlier games as a player tended to the cooperative more than the competitive - thief types were "expected" to take a bonus but watched carefully as a consequence. PCs who were seen as betraying the party were expelled at best, sometimes killed as traitors.

From what I've seen of 5e it's swingy and doesn't reward specialisation as much as either 3e or 4e did.

 

[BryonD]

It would be better to design classes without making any assumptions about the priorities players will have in combat.

Agrees

All characters should be good at most things, also, to avoid dependencies on others.

Strongly disagree. (without disputing the the merits of this for your own enjoyment)

I find that taking characters out of their comfort zone is huge fun on its own and makes it that much more awesome when the characters are shining while in their comfort zone.
I also like it when groups have to work together to find creative solutions and find ways to fills gaps in their composition.

Being bad at the right things is just as important as being good at the right things.

 

[neobolts]

Not sure this qualifies as "roles", but here's what I think creates a "well rounded" party:
-A STR based bruiser of some sort wit the ability to take a hit.
-A rogue type, DEX based for damage, stealth, etc.
-Access to arcane magic.
-Access to divine magic.

They certainly follow the classic four: Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric.

But they don't have to conform to 4e roles, per se. It's way looser in combat in 5e.
It's a logical progression, the game has entered a period of flowing away from MMO conventions (heck, MMOs are flowing away from MMO conventions, look at Guild Wars 2). So, tank-healer-dps is out.

tl;dr: It's once again about a "well rounded" party that can cover any situation, rather than "roles" that dictate combat duties.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The 4e combat roles are much too broad. They needlessly restrict and reflavor creativity and distinctive professions and tactics.

I...don't understand how these two sentences make sense together. If it is broad, and therefore interpretable in very different ways that are still consistent with the meaning, how is that "needlessly restrict[ive]"?

What they call the controller, for example, covers area of effect damage and other distinct things needlessly. There should be recognition and accessibility for each, and different versions of each.

Well, firstly, I'll note that area-effect damage is one of the things not strictly tied to any particular role, even in the abstract. Sorcerers get quite a bit of it, for example; Monks technically do not get "AoE" damage, usually, but their movement-with-attack features (called "Full Disciplines") mean they usually deal damage to multiple foes a round, effectively equivalent. And most Defenders can pick up powers that allow marking a group or an area at once (usually centered on them); while they cannot usually maintain those marks indefinitely, they're often worth a round of punishment, and the ability which does the mark-ing usually deals some damage too.

Secondly, there's at least one, and if you're flexible two, classes that do "single-target" control, as I understand it. The Seeker, though often considered an underpowered class, does best when controlling individual foes, as their control effects are delivered via magic-enhanced archery. Then, if you're flexible, the standard 4e Warlock can, with careful building, be a very competent single-target controller, inflicting debilitating status effects on whichever enemy is currently affected by their Warlock Curse. (Disclaimer: Never played either one, so I may be misremembering some things.)

So...yeah. Again, I don't think 4e's roles are nearly as prescriptive as you're saying. They are broad, not because you ABSOLUTELY MUST DEFINITELY meet EVERY SINGLE criterion inside them in order to succeed. Instead, they're more like chunks of...even "design philosophy" seems a little too narrow. They're guidelines, or perhaps "priorities lists"--you don't have to meet all of them, and there can be many ways to meet them that are still successful. Suggestions for appropriate behavior, depending on what the designers want a class to be able to do well before the player applies any amount of tinkering, customization, tactics, teamwork, etc.

I feel the game has bluffing down well enough, but diplomacy should be distinct from charming. Diplomacy is a negotiation between parties who have a dispute or who need to reach an agreement. Charming is what is done to make a friend, win a vote, or to initiate a romance. Diplomacy requires different skills, and most importantly to distinguish it from charming, "leverage". The diplomat has "a hand", which he plays. The charmer can just put his cards on the table.

Alright. I guess I feel like the difference you're drawing between those social skills is excessively narrow--and, IMO, restrictive--for my tastes. The negotiator is trying to convince a particular person to have a particular opinion; the charmer is trying to convince a particular person to have a particular opinion of them. Both involve persuading a person to think something particular about a thing. I see this as analogous to the "ranged damage/melee damage" dichotomy. A class that a designer wishes to have baseline solid damage will be given a feature that enables this. That feature might focus on melee damage, ranged damage, or both without particular focus. (For example: in 5e, Sneak Attack is agnostic, capable of riding on both melee and ranged attacks; while the various Paladin smite spells, IIRC, are melee attack specific, and several Ranger damage spells are ranged-only.)

Also, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, about the "most characters should be competent at most things." I see D&D as inherently a cooperative endeavor, and feel that the game should encourage that cooperation. Teamwork should, IMO, be required, not just useful. No character class, IMO, should be able to do absolutely everything, and no individual character should be good even at a majority of things all at once. (I'm skeptical of characters that can be good at many things which change from session to session--that's where 3e casters became horrible monsters--but I'm open to the possibility that 3e's flaws are not inherent to that style of character.)

Characters that are good at (essentially) everything all the time are boring to me--and if only some party members can achieve this, they overshadow the others (eventually). Characters that can be made to be good at anything, but have no natural capacities, risk either becoming the former, or risk the "newbie trap" problem of the "character that can try everything, but succeeds at almost nothing." Hence, again, why I think roles are so useful: no matter how they're defined, they make the designers conscious of the places where a class isn't actually achieving anything meaningful and thus needs to be redesigned, while also making them aware of classes that achieve everything (whether simultaneously or serially) and thus also need to be redesigned.