D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[pemerton]

The traditional roles of basic D&D where

Defender (cleric)
Striker (Fighter)
Artillery/Blaster (Wizard)
Non combat specialist (Thief)

then the ranger came in and was a fighter/mage/thief hybrid

In 1st ed AD&D the magic-user is not just artillery. S/he is also anti-personnel (charm person, hold person, confusion, sleep, etc) and terrain control (mostly via illusions, but also with walls, transmute rock to mud, etc). The illusionist sub-class is a specialist at this, and better at it at lower levels.

Also in 1st ed AD&D, the ranger is not really a fighger/mage/thief hybrid. Spell-casting doesn't kick in until 8th level, and remains very modest. The only out-of-combat ability comparable to a thief's is tracking. The ranger is mostly a humanoid slayer (+1 per level to damage) who helps the party avoid surprise.

 

[SirAntoine]

and that is why you don't like roles... because it let someone choose to fill the fighters shoes with a different set of similar abilities, or the cleric or the thief or the wizard...

They are their shoes.

 

[SirAntoine]

Perhaps, but it is the "traditional" cleric role. Given the inclusion of dedicated healers and the so called laser clerics, the entire thing has become defunct, and moved more into the ideal of "White Mage" ala Final Fantasy.

No. The traditional cleric role gives you a character who can heal, and only use blunt weapon so they don't spill blood. The cleric is a holy man, dedicated to service in war scenarios, and by way of their devotion to the gods they can call upon divine power, or divine magic.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They are their shoes.

see that is why I like the idea, because the core 4 have the most to play with, letting the others into that will allow for more fun at my table...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Even 5E has Vampiric Touch, a third level wizard spell. And a wizard can even use his Familiar to touch with it so that he does not put himself into harms way.

I don't think that works by RAW. You use familiars to cast touch spells at range, but vampiric touch is cast on yourself.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I never even really liked the "you need a divine caster and an arcane caster" terminology anyway. Healing can, and has, come from many sources. Few tricky/utility spells have remained exclusively arcane. Some games, even some versions of D&D, separate Druids (and Shaman etc.) into their own thing, apart from Clerics. That's another reason why I think the things you are expecting to come from "divine caster" should just be stated directly, or given a label (like "Support" or "Leader") that doesn't pigeonhole you into a single concept or interpretation.

Including this version of D&D. You need a druid for long-distance travel (Transport Via Plants) and create armies of elephants on demand (Animal Shapes) and a cleric so you can abuse Magic Jar (Death Ward) and survive horribly evil 24d12 death traps (also Death Ward) and abuse Sharpshooter (Bless). The fact that they're both "divine" according to a fluff blurb in the PHB didn't mean they're equivalent.

Paladins likewise have a lot of unique shticks.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think that works by RAW. You use familiars to cast touch spells at range, but vampiric touch is cast on yourself.

Yes, it looks like you are correct. I took a quick look through the PHB. There are very few touch spells at all. Most of them appear to be things like Fly where one touches an ally, not an enemy. That ability of familiars will rarely be used.

 

[Sacrosanct]

agreed...

The traditional roles of basic D&D where

Defender (cleric)
Striker (Fighter)
Artillery/Blaster (Wizard)
Non combat specialist (Thief)
.

Um...no. Basic D&D?

it was:

Cleric: You want to wear armor like a fighter but cast healing spells and turn undead
Fighter: you just want to bash things and be able to take a crap ton of damage before falling
Magic User: You want to cast spells (all spells, not just offensive. But things like sleep, charm, fly, web, teleport, etc were all staples just as much as a fireball was)
Thief: You're closest in this one. Skill monkey, get in and out and take all the treasure

This thread is almost 1500 posts in, and many of those are people saying early D&D, especially basic D&D, only had roles in a very loose terms. And yet, here you are again, trying to narrowly define what they were when it wasn't the case. I.e., a fighter in B/X wasn't just a striker. He was also a defender. And a wizard wasn't just a blaster. He/she was everything but a front line fighter. It all depended on how you wanted to play them.

 

[Hussar]

Um...no. Basic D&D?

it was:

Cleric: You want to wear armor like a fighter but cast healing spells and turn undead
Fighter: you just want to bash things and be able to take a crap ton of damage before falling
Magic User: You want to cast spells (all spells, not just offensive. But things like sleep, charm, fly, web, teleport, etc were all staples just as much as a fireball was)
Thief: You're closest in this one. Skill monkey, get in and out and take all the treasure

This thread is almost 1500 posts in, and many of those are people saying early D&D, especially basic D&D, only had roles in a very loose terms. And yet, here you are again, trying to narrowly define what they were when it wasn't the case. I.e., a fighter in B/X wasn't just a striker. He was also a defender. And a wizard wasn't just a blaster. He/she was everything but a front line fighter. It all depended on how you wanted to play them.

You do realise though, that your four definitions are pretty much exactly what the 4e roles are, right? Cleric - like a fighter but gets healing= Leader; Fighter=striker; Magic User (ignoring the non-combat spells you bring up since we're talking about roles and that only means combat)=controller and thief, well, thieves just sucked.

No real defender, true. That's a role that 4e developed in much greater detail than existed before since most versions of D&D didn't get that detailed about combat. Fighters didn't push people around or stop their movement, they just killed stuff. Fighters didn't have any real mechanical meat to them to make them a defender, other than AC, which isn't what a defender does. You couldn't block damage from an ally, for example. B/X really only had three roles. Not surprising considering how mechanically simple the game is. When you've only got, what, 128 pages for your entire game, you don't get a whole lot of mechanical depth.

 

[Sacrosanct]

...ignoring the non-combat spells you bring up since we're talking about roles and that only means combat...

Oh good lord....


This right here? This is sign #1 that we won't agree, because this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. "roles" does not only mean combat. It never has. D&D is a lot more than just combat. If you think it is, then we are so far apart there is no sense in bothering to reply. And that's ignoring the fact that you just put MU as controller and GM put it as artillery, which proves my point that B/X wasn't putting your class into a particular role because you came up with a completely different one he did.