D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Neonchameleon]

4E was a bit of an aberration where it comes to DnD; it tried to enforce a few roles that, realistically, had not existed before. Other roles were forced to act in ways that sometimes did not quite match to DnD norm.

Correction: 3.0 was a departure from D&D tradition by not having roles for the classes. 4e was a return to that tradition only making the game more flexible and the roles looser than in any edition prior to 3.0.

If you read the 2e PHB there are explicitly four roles spelled out. Fighter (Fighter/Paladin/Ranger), Rogue (Thief/Bard), Cleric (Cleric/Druid), Wizard (Generalist/Specilist). The PHB is very clear on this. The 1e Monk by the way was a variant Thief with almost exactly the same strengths and weaknesses and just some Sfx tacked on.

The innovation 4e made was in separating role from power source so a Warlord could do most of the job of a Cleric.

Beyond that, it entirely depends on party tactics; some parties work very well with a lot of fighters, some depend more on having a lot of access to magic. Different people may give different ideas of roles and what roles exist, but that depends on which theory they approach the game with. Ultimately, the old standard of fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue can cover things pretty nicely.

The old standard of fighter, wizard, cleric, thief was made explicit in the 2e rulebook. 4e roles were based round those roles in the 2e rulebook but less strongly coded so e.g. your damage dealer did not need to be martial.

Edit [MENTION=98938]DeF[/MENTION]CON1 I await the appearance of the Warlord class so you can make a fighter-type able to keep the party going.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Speaking from my own experience and perspective of course (aren't we all?), roles in early D&D were much more broad, and weren't rooted in stone. My impression of 4e is that they are much more clearly defined and rigid.

That is, in 1e, I could have a fighter who was a meat shield/defender in one adventure, and a striker in another. Or a cleric who was a healer in one module, and shifted to a defender or meat shield in another. Or a magic user who could be a controller, cannon, or infiltrator, depending on what spells I wanted to learn for that particular day.

I know a lot of folks don't like the MMO comparisons, but I think it's fair to say there are some with 4e and WoW in this regard. Very specific roles and builds were a focus in WoW, and it's not unusual to see similarities in pop culture hobbies during the same window of time. I want to be very clear that I'm not taking a dig at 4e or even making a value judgement, but simply to say that with the huge exponential growth and popularity of WoW during the time 4e was in development, that WoTC tried to capitalize on that and make a game where a WoW player could more easily transition to a TTRPG. Heck, the late 3.5 ads were direct attacks on MMOs, so it makes perfect sense to design 4e that way.

Also, neither (the more malleable roles of early D&D and 5e, or the defined roles of 4e) is better than the other, objectively.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Correction: 3.0 was a departure from D&D tradition by not having roles for the classes. 4e was a return to that tradition only making the game more flexible and the roles looser than in any edition prior to 3.0.

If you read the 2e PHB there are explicitly four roles spelled out. Fighter (Fighter/Paladin/Ranger), Rogue (Thief/Bard), Cleric (Cleric/Druid), Wizard (Generalist/Specilist). The PHB is very clear on this. The 1e Monk by the way was a variant Thief with almost exactly the same strengths and weaknesses and just some Sfx tacked on..

I have read it. Just did again to be sure. There are four occupation categories spelled out. Not roles. They are different things. You can have several roles within the same occupation.

The character classes are divided into four groups according to general occupations: warrior, wizard, priest, and rogue. Within each group are several similar character classes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Edit [MENTION=98938]DEFCON1[/MENTION] I await the appearance of the Warlord class so you can make a fighter-type able to keep the party going.

Well, you might be waiting a while I suspect. It seems apparent that any major healing of hit points during the middle of combat (IE anything more than just like a single HD's worth from something like Second Wind) has been given to the purview of magic. So the idea that a class would be made that gave a Cure Wounds amount of healing (especially at higher spell slots) that was not based upon magic but instead just inspiration and inner reserves... does not seem to me to be something WotC has interest in making, at least in the short term. Maybe eventually they will... but right now it seems to me they are more comfortable in letting each individual table just design or adapt their own fighter-esque class that could grant Cure Wounds levels of hit point recuperation while fluff-wise still not be a "spell".

But that's neither here nor there for this thread discussion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Speaking from my own experience and perspective of course (aren't we all?), roles in early D&D were much more broad, and weren't rooted in stone. My impression of 4e is that they are much more clearly defined and rigid.

That is, in 1e, I could have a fighter who was a meat shield/defender in one adventure, and a striker in another. Or a cleric who was a healer in one module, and shifted to a defender or meat shield in another. Or a magic user who could be a controller, cannon, or infiltrator, depending on what spells I wanted to learn for that particular day.

And mine is that the non-casters are less rigid in 4e than previous editions. The fighter was a very good damage dealer and meat shield both and could focus on either. Indeed they focussed on aggressive meat shielding (don't you dare turn your back on me). And I've made 4e fighters that challenged the rogue at skills. Also it is much easier for a 4e character to grow into a new role by changing powers than in any other edition including 3.X and 5e. You can't leave your old focus behind. In 1e (unless you use human dual classing) you can't turn your fighter into someone able to restore hit points easily at all.

That said, 4e casters can not change their entire loadout in a day.

I know a lot of folks don't like the MMO comparisons, but I think it's fair to say there are some with 4e and WoW in this regard. Very specific roles and builds were a focus in WoW, and it's not unusual to see similarities in pop culture hobbies during the same window of time.

And here I'll reflect this at the editions where builds were a central thing and that used feat trees. In other words 3.0/3.5/PF. Very specific builds, requiring 8 ranks in a given skill to qualify for Prestige Class X and the ability to cast second level spells for Prestige Class Y were not a 4e thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have read it. Just did again to be sure. There are four occupation categories spelled out. Not roles. They are different things. You can have several roles within the same occupation.

Occupation, role. Tomato tomato.

Especially when you have multiple roles within the same class (always a secondary role). And you gained XP in 2e for doing things your class was supposed to.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Occupation, role. Tomato tomato.

Especially when you have multiple roles within the same class (always a secondary role). And you gained XP in 2e for doing things your class was supposed to.

LoL, no, they aren't the same thing. You can be a football player as an occupation, but your role can be at any position of the field, from quarterback, to lineman, to cornerback, etc. 4e clearly and explicitly defined what classes fit what roles, and what each of the roles were.

 

[Mark CMG]

Agreed.

But I don't know that it is even just that. It can be hard to really describe.
In very gross terms, in other editions your character could play a role. In 4E your role could be expanded into a character.

"Role" began as a less specific terminology and was narrowed in later editions to "role in combat" as separate from character, hence needing to overlay a character (or expand with a character, as you say) onto a a role (in combat). "Role" in early RPGing meant a role separate from the player (not always well defined though the effort was meant to be made).

 

[Neonchameleon]

LoL, no, they aren't the same thing. You can be a football player as an occupation, but your role can be at any position of the field, from quarterback, to lineman, to cornerback, etc. 4e clearly and explicitly defined what classes fit what roles, and what each of the roles were.

Um... no.

In D&D, no matter what the edition before you hit tenth level your actual profession is the same. Adventurer. To use the analogy, all D&D characters are professional American Football players.

The difference between profession and role is that the 2e Profession says "Heavy armour, slow moving, can take a hit and can catch people as they run past". The 4e role would simply say "Makes a good Lineman" - but there is no reason you actually have to play lineman with that character other than they've got all the features indicated by a lineman by the 2e profession. I've tanked with an invoker before now. There's a running joke between myself and the other most experienced 4e player that whatever class I play the end result is controller, and whatever she plays is a striker.

And your position can't be at any role on the football field in 2e. If you choose fighter you're limited to the offensive or defensive line. You are absolutely terrible at playing healbot, wizard, or skillmonkey. Cleric can play either line or half/quarterback. Wizards are always backs. Put a wizard in the line and they turn into strawberry jam. And a fighter can't cover their role.

4e on the other hand you can build your fighter as a lineman (offensive or defensive) with no problem at all. You can build with skills and stealth to play a hard hitting receiver (Thief) - I've had six trained skills with a level 1 fighter. You can grab Ritual Caster and go lock down the enemy in melee, turning you into a running back. And you can even heal and fill in as a leader through a couple of multiclass feats.

So yes, tomato tomato. Your actual profession, when used not as a term of art is exactly the same. Adventurer. And with fighters and rogues being far more locked down in 2e than they are 4e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Um... no.

Um...yes. Says so right there in the book. I even quoted it for you. Sorry, you don't get to pull a " The PHB is very clear on this.", and when shown how the PHB is actually very clear on using the term "occupation" and not "role", act like the PHB isn't clear and your interpretation is the right one. You're the one to put up the PHB text as sacrosanct (no pun intended), so you don't get to hand wave it away when you find out that the actual text doesn't support what you thought it did.

In D&D, no matter what the edition before you hit tenth level your actual profession is the same. Adventurer. To use the analogy, all D&D characters are professional American Football players.

Wrong again. Using the analogy, some would be football players. Others would be basketball players. Others would be soccer players. Etc. Within each occupation, there are several roles one can play. That's the point I am trying to make. You could play a rogue that didn't have the role of "striker". Or a wizard that didn't have the role of "controller". Or a cleric that didn't have the role of "healer".

And to be honest, I find your statement of "4e is returning to tradition" to be pretty darn odd. 4e was the edition to go most off the rails into a new direction more than any other edition. I don't know how you can say with a straight face that a version of D&D that got rid of vancian magic, introduced healing surges, and a number of other radical changes as "going back to tradition."