D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Hussar]

All in all, I'm going back to what I said earlier.

If a player says, "I want to make a character that can lay the boots to lots of things at once" would you point him at a fighter or a wizard? Me? I'd point to wizard, because, well, hitting lots of targets at once is what wizards do. Sorcerer is a good option here too, and it's certainly not the only option, nor is it the only way to build a wizard. But, out of the box, with the minimalist of efforts (no combining feats, classes, several levels and various weapons) I get a character that blows up lots of people at once. Not that you can't do it with other characters, that's never been the meaning of Roles in 4e. Just that, out of the box, this is what this class is best at.

If I want to make a stalwart combatant that holds the line and protects his companions, then, sure, I'd be looking at a fighter and not, say, a rogue. Again, not that rogue can't do it. But, again, out of the box with the most obvious of choices, a fighter fills that roll (defender) pretty ably and better than a number of other choices.

So on and so forth. Roles are descriptive. The problem is that in 4e, the books were written with a voice that was far too strong and far too authoritative and people took that to mean that roles were prescriptive. ONLY fighters can be defenders goes the refrain, which simply isn't true. It's just that fighters, out of the box, make the best defenders.

 

[Eric V]

All in all, I'm going back to what I said earlier.

If a player says, "I want to make a character that can lay the boots to lots of things at once" would you point him at a fighter or a wizard? Me? I'd point to wizard, because, well, hitting lots of targets at once is what wizards do. Sorcerer is a good option here too, and it's certainly not the only option, nor is it the only way to build a wizard. But, out of the box, with the minimalist of efforts (no combining feats, classes, several levels and various weapons) I get a character that blows up lots of people at once. Not that you can't do it with other characters, that's never been the meaning of Roles in 4e. Just that, out of the box, this is what this class is best at.

If I want to make a stalwart combatant that holds the line and protects his companions, then, sure, I'd be looking at a fighter and not, say, a rogue. Again, not that rogue can't do it. But, again, out of the box with the most obvious of choices, a fighter fills that roll (defender) pretty ably and better than a number of other choices.

So on and so forth. Roles are descriptive. The problem is that in 4e, the books were written with a voice that was far too strong and far too authoritative and people took that to mean that roles were prescriptive. ONLY fighters can be defenders goes the refrain, which simply isn't true. It's just that fighters, out of the box, make the best defenders.

The confusion over this is weird, since (at least in the PHB2 onwards) 4e classes also identified secondary roles for them, and certainly people on charop boards did the same. I know I am missing some of the conversation here since at least one participant is on my ignore list, but there definitely seems to be some misunderstandings on AEDU structure, and levels of role effectiveness (fighters as healers, for example), that makes me believe some 4e statements are being made by people who played very little 4e.

Again, WotC made a good decision to "disguise" 4e influence on the game, but I believe it's led to some of the confusion we see here.

 

[Hussar]

The confusion over this is weird, since (at least in the PHB2 onwards) 4e classes also identified secondary roles for them, and certainly people on charop boards did the same. I know I am missing some of the conversation here since at least one participant is on my ignore list, but there definitely seems to be some misunderstandings on AEDU structure, and levels of role effectiveness (fighters as healers, for example), that makes me believe some 4e statements are being made by people who played very little 4e.

Again, WotC made a good decision to "disguise" 4e influence on the game, but I believe it's led to some of the confusion we see here.

You have to remember that for a lot of those who eschewed 4e, 4e begins and ends with the first three books. They didn't read anything that came later and certainly didn't spend a whole lot of time looking at how the system changed over time. Understandable. I played OWoD but never played NWoD and have absolutely no idea what the changes are. Nor do I care. Did they fix the mechanical issues with OWoD? I certainly don't know. I gave up on Vampire in the early 90's and never really looked back.

So, while those who followed 4e know that the system evolved radically during the four years (or so) it was in print, those that are outside that bubble only look at the original three. You can see it all over this thread with people quoting only the 4e PHB multiple times in order to "prove" how limited 4e roles were. The fact that the AEDU structure was opened up considerably with things like Essentials, the inclusion of hybrid classes and numerous bits and bobs across multiple books talking about how the roles aren't prescriptive are completely ignored because, as far as a number of people are concerned, they don't exist in their experience.

I think that when you or I look at 5e and see all the 4e under the hood, it's because we have a great deal more experience with the 4e system, while someone only seeing 4e as PHB and DMG 1, wouldn't recognise most of the 4e'isms because the tone is so different.

I've always said that the biggest disaster for 4e was the presentation of the core 3. Had 4e been written in the same tone as 5e, or even 3e, we would have seen a VERY different last couple of years.

 

[Sadras]

Problem is people do not generally look at 4e and immediately think Essentials in the same vein that people do not immediately think Skills and Powers when discussing 2e. And lets be frank, how many Essential players are in this discussion and how many are 4e AEDU users?
I cannot remember but was Essentials well supported by even the 4e community?

That is not to say I do not agree with most of your post @Hussar, I actually do agree, but to claim that the non-4e players in this thread are unaware of what Essentials and later 4e books brought to the table is assuming a lot. Online posters are generally better informed of other games/rules/ideas given their active participation in the community.

I doubt there is anyone here who is dismissing 4e's contribution to 5e.

 

[Imaro]

The fact is Essentials specifically eschewed the AEDU paradigm to give a feel that was more similar to older editions, because that's how older editions worked... to then claim it uses the AEDU paradigm... because it has powers that recharge at varying lengths (which again was a thing at least as far back as 3.x if not farther) is disingenuous. At most 4e could lay claim to encounter powers... though since after a short rest is considered encounter, I'm not sure there aren't examples of this type of ability in earlier editions as well. Like I said earlier what 4e brought that no other edition had was a paradigm which every class followed that was centered around W at-wills, X dailies, Y encounters, and Z utility powers. To claim it invented powers of varying recharge rates is like claiming it invented the point system for psionics because they were in PHB 3 (even though 3e, and I believe AD&D 2e, used a point system long before that).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It depends on the type of fighter. Second wind would be a utility ability and is similar to some 4e utility powers for fighters. It's just moved to a short rest type of utility. Indomitable is a daily power, and eldritch knights definitely have more daily powers.

both good points... especially the eldritch Knight... he is most defiantly closer to AEDU set up then I gave credit for.

 

[PaulO.]

Upthread, another poster said that, before roles, for many players (perhaps most) what drove their character building was a conception of the character as "a warrior", "a shaman", etc - some sort of fantasy figure or archetype.

My response was that if a player describes or conceives of his/her PC as a miracle-working healer, but mechanically the character in question has no ability to work miracles, heal injuries, etc, then something has gone wrong. In other words, I think it is fairly key to a roleplaying game that mechanics and fiction complement one another.

The role labels in 4e are pointers to mechanics, with an eye to linking those mechanics to fiction.

This also relates to my exchange with @steeldragons upthread. I stand by my comment that to describe the role of a warrior as (say) solving the problems the game poses by strength of arms does not give the right sort of information to help players build characters where the mechanics and fiction match. This is because it simply a statement about the fiction - the warrior solves problems by strength of arms - but it tells us nothing about mechanics.

A swashbuckling Errol Flynn type solves problems through strength of arms. So does a knightly Lancelot type. So does a Jet Li-style martial artist. But in most fantasy RPGs they are mechanically rather different, and not necessarily all equally viable. (Robin Laws' Hero Wars/Quest might be an exception, and maybe other free-descriptor systems like FATE.)

To give some examples of elements of action economy and broader action resolution that matter to this sort of thing, in Rolemaster being surrounded by enemies in melee is extremely punishing, because most defence comes from parrying, and parrying is limited to one target per round. In AD&D, being surrounded is less punishing because most defence comes from AC, which is pretty constant across all targets (there are a few issues about shields and flank/back attacks). In Marvel Heroic RP being surrounded is not especially punishing at all, because defence comes from a reaction roll and there is no limit on the number of reaction rolls per round.

To try and make Jet Li-style martial artists viable in RM, there are special rules whereby unarmoured warriors can obtain a parry-like defence that applies against multiple targets. To make Jet Li-style martial artists viable in AD&D, there is the monk class (which gets a level bonus to AC) and the rules for kensai and martial arts in Oriental Adventures, which also allow the gaining of AC - ie all-purpose, multi-target defence - without having to wear armour.

I would expect a player wanting to build a Jet-Li style martial artist in either of those systems to have regard to those rules, which establish the mechanical framework within which s/he is able to realise his/her character concept.

Turning to 4e: if a character wants to play a swashbuckler-type, who is mobile, hits hard, but is vulnerable to being surrounded and taken down by mobs, s/he should start by looking at the classes labelled "striker". If a character wants to play an uber-dreadnought type, who is happiest when surround by enemies that s/he is beating to a pulp, then s/he should start by looking at the classes labelled "defender". (This also alludes back to the "strong guy" discussion upthread - this is why @Hussar thinks that characters like Superman, The Hulk and The Thing instantiate the defender role - because they do their thing most effectively when surrounded by enemies that they are beating to a pulp.)

For D&D, I've always viewed these in terms of primary ability. The martial artist who gets overwhelmed as you describe would be a class dependent upon Dexterity. They usually have moderate to high AC so they can go into melee some, but low HPs so they can get overwhelmed too.

The guy who likes wading into the middle would be a Strength based class, who typically have high AC and high hps that allow them to not only avoid a lot of attacks, but absorb a few without too much worry.

The INT based class, the wizard, was the one with a variety of hard counters but limited casts. They had to understand the situation, the enemies, the allies, and pick the one spell that be a silver bullet for that fight.

And so on.

I feel like these are the typical expectation and description of the class, but there has always been room in every edition for customization through selection of features and multiclassing (even in 4E when making a damage dealing "defender" or a controlling "leader" [Rainy Daze]). Some might say 4E tried to shoehorn people into only one way of playing, which is true, but the amount of customization available broke that wide open for character-optimizers.

The function of the role labels isn't to tell anyone what to do, or how to play a character. The rules - for PC building, for action resolution - nowhere reference the roles. They reference class, ability scores, sometimes power source (arcane, divine, martial, etc). The role labels aren't prescriptive - they are information-carrying labels that, in a rough-and-ready way, indicate what sort of fiction the mechanics of a given character class will tend to produce, if played in the default way.

The roles are somewhat prescriptive for game designers, in the sense that game designers are expected to build character classes which can function effectively in one (or more) of the roles the game acknowledges. The prescription is, in my view, not all that tight - if you look at the way the game evolved over time, you see a wider and wider variety of classes and mechanical options within them (sub-classes) being published.

I completely agree. I will say that I think 5E is more forgiving for poor choices, due to bounded accuracy. So if you want to make a fighter-warlord type character, you can, and it will still be pretty effective. I think this is easier to do in 5E than 4E.

 

[Manbearcat]

None of those qualities fit the role, though. They all fit sturdy brawler, though.

Except for the use of the word juggernaut and the Hulk specific characteristics (purple pants and green skin), I was actually thinking they fit 90%+ of the physical-based superheroes in the marvel universe... And I agree they don't seem like defender (at least as 4e defines it) specific characteristics at all.

I would have hoped that the purple pants and the green skin with freakishly bulging muscles bit came off clearly as a little levity to lighten things up Obviously a 4e Fighter (Defender) doesn't have that overlap with the Hulk.

However, I'm a little confused here. Are you guys saying that the other parts of what I wrote aren't how a Fighter manifests in play in 4e? I have no idea how much (if any) 4e (with a Fighter especially) you've played SirAntoine. However, I know you've played some Imaro (maybe 6 months?) and probably saw a Fighter in action.

Extraordinariy physically resilient doesn't fit?

What about top-end HPs, Surges, Armor, Fortitude and powers that restore HPs, give temp HPs or give damage reduction?​

Extraordinarily athletic doesn't fit?

What about Athletics as trained skill + Str primary + likely to be other stuff in the mix (utilities, feats, background, theme, etc) = meeting the medium DC pretty much auto and passing the high DC with regularity?​

Mobile Skirmisher doesn't fit?

What about the Combat Agility class feature, Fighter feats, attack (at-will as well) and utility powers galore that have movement or shifting in them?​

Mere presence on the battlefield forces enemies attention onto them and if they focus their attention on their enemies, their enemies aren't escaping (except by shuffling off this mortal coil) doesn't fit?

What about the general Opportunity Attack rules + general Marking rules + Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge class features + Fighter's attack (several at-will) and utility powers (pulls and slides) that synergize with all the former?​

Cleaving, multi-attacking juggernaut that cuts down swathes of enemies at a time?

What about at-will Cleave and attack powers at every Encounter/Daily level to multi-attack or close burst 1 (or more)?​

I can't even fathom how it could be said that the stock 4e Fighter doesn't possess all of those things above and, therefore, it doesn't translate into the fiction from the actions that come from merely playing the class. Is that you guys' position? Or something else? Because I've GMed a Fighter 1-30 and I've read much of Peter David's run of the Hulk (and tons of other Hulk stuff) and, from my measure of those things, they functionally and aesthetically (outside of the green skin and purple pants again) share a lot in common.

I'll ignore the details of the comparison for now in favor of a more fundamental question: is your definition of Defender, "Defender = anyone who does things the 4e Fighter does"? Is that the definition you're going off of? If that's what you mean, then yes, I can see how the Hulk is like a Fighter. This seems to be quite a different definition of Defender than the Wikia definition so I'd like you to confirm if this is how you're using the term "Defender".

I think maybe this was addressed in other posts? The Wikia (a) doesn't appear to have it correct and (b) its an extremely shallow encapsulation that doesn't possess resolution enough to capture the function and synergies of 4e's various Defenders' tactical suites of abilities, coupled with the system's general mechanics, together which make up very nuanced (and thematic) modus operandi.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You have to remember that for a lot of those who eschewed 4e, 4e begins and ends with the first three books. They didn't read anything that came later and certainly didn't spend a whole lot of time looking at how the system changed over time. Understandable.

I have no issue with that, inless people pretend to understand the whole edition, and then show they only know what a basic google search and quick look at phb1 would show.

I played OWoD but never played NWoD and have absolutely no idea what the changes are. Nor do I care. Did they fix the mechanical issues with OWoD? I certainly don't know. I gave up on Vampire in the early 90's and never really looked back.

this is a great example... OWoD went through SOOOO many mechanical changes over the years that in one game I played (biweekly) we started every game asking "What rules are we using for quatiss this week??"
I did play both oWoD, and nWoD, and I find myself always going back to oWoD... However I totally steal from NWoD all the time. I infact am planning a bait and switch on my players, where I am having players draw up characters thinking they are in oWoD(we are using those rules anyway) then in game sprining the god machine...

So, while those who followed 4e know that the system evolved radically during the four years (or so) it was in print, those that are outside that bubble only look at the original three. You can see it all over this thread with people quoting only the 4e PHB multiple times in order to "prove" how limited 4e roles were.

yup... it would be like looking at 3.5 and complainging that there is no warlock... well unless you read complete arcane.

The fact that the AEDU structure was opened up considerably with things like Essentials, the inclusion of hybrid classes and numerous bits and bobs across multiple books talking about how the roles aren't prescriptive are completely ignored because, as far as a number of people are concerned, they don't exist in their experience.

you can look earlier... PHB2 and PHB3 already had classes with different looks. Psionics are already power points.

I think that when you or I look at 5e and see all the 4e under the hood, it's because we have a great deal more experience with the 4e system, while someone only seeing 4e as PHB and DMG 1, wouldn't recognise most of the 4e'isms because the tone is so different.

I can understand that, but you would think people would say "I don't see it, but I don't know much about it" instead of "ITS NOT THERE STOP TELLING US IT IS!!!"

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think maybe this was addressed in other posts? The Wikia (a) doesn't appear to have it correct and (b) its an extremely shallow encapsulation that doesn't possess resolution enough to capture the function and synergies of 4e's various Defenders' tactical suites of abilities, coupled with the system's general mechanics, together which make up very nuanced (and thematic) modus operandi.

Yeah, it seems like you guys are using an inductive definition: "defender" = "anyone who is like the Fighter." In this case I can see why you think the Hulk is a Fighter and therefore a Defender.

BTW, RE: OP, I thought of another functional role that might be useful in a party: "Grease Man". He gets you into places you couldn't have otherwise gotten. Overlaps somewhat with Stealthy Guy, but 1.) has less focus on the "how" than the "what". Could be done with social engineering or turning you into animals or teleportation or stealth. 2.) Is able to bring other guys along with him, which Stealthy Guy/scout cannot do.

Hat tip to heist flicks/books, in this case "Skin Game."

-Max