D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Imaro]

And, the thing is, "lightly armoured ranged fighter" is relatively unsupported in 5e, same as 4e. All of the fighter abilities are related to melee attacks, more or less. Right in the description it lists Str and Con as the primary stats for fighters. Sure, there is Archery Style (+2 to hit) but, without special equipment, you can't add your Strength to damage with a bow. You could be a throwing fighter, I suppose to get around that. Whereas a Ranger or a Rogue are both much better suited to being a ranged, lightly armoured combatant.

Emphasis Mine... when I see a statement like the above, it really makes me wonder if the poster has read, much less played, any 5e... claiming that all of the fighter abilities are related to melee attacks is just wrong...

With the archery style, all of the Champions abilities work with ranged weapons...
With the arcery style, out of 16 maneuvers for the Battlemaster only 4 are specific to melee weapons... the rest of his abilities work with ranged or melee
I won't go into the EK since there are tons of spells useful to a lightly armored, ranged fighter

As to the description of the fighter, it actually says on pg. 71...

"You can make a fighter quickly by following these instructions. First make Strength or Dexterity your highest ability score, depending on whether you want to focus on melee weapons or on archery (or finesse weapons)...

It's right there in the description... it is telling a beginner how to build an archer fighter and what type of melee weapons to use with such a character. And of course if you follow this advice your damage is based on Dex not Str.

I also disagree with your assertion that a Ranger or Rogue are better suited to being ranged, lightly armoured combatants... the fighter in 5e truly is a master warrior of both ranged and melee combat.

To put it another way, a ranged fighter in 5e is no more effective (or less effective) than a ranged fighter in 4e. Considering the other four base combat styles are all melee combatant, it's not a big stretch to thing that heavy armoured melee combatant is the norm.

Again, emphasis mine... Say what? The 5e fighter who goes ranged is far and away more effective than a 4e PHB fighter that tries to do the same thing. I mean it's easy enough to see that just by actually reading over the class...

EDIT: For a comparison... I couldn't find a single fighter power in the 4e PHB for ranged weapons... did I miss something? If not this seems like 4e restricting the fighter to better fit within the boundaries of it's defined "defender role".

 

[SirAntoine]

Not to read the entire thread or ignore 1000 posts of history, some commentary.

2E occupations seem to match much better to 4E power sources than roles. Roles are a thing that has always been there as a nebulous concept of what is this character doing? What is this character good at? The change in roles in 4E is a prescription rather than proscription. It details what kind of abilities that class will definitely have access to rather than what abilities that class is not allowed to have. The weakening of clerics, wizards and druids to just the same amount of role coverage as most other classes is a different issue entirely. The roles were codified and integrated in 4E classes to prevent a class which is not good for anything being printed. No more fifth wheels. The result is only that the class's role tells the player where the class is not going to be bad. It wasn't there to describe the only place the class is good.

5E handles roles in a similar low-powered style as it handles everything else. They're still there. They're still baked into class abilities. 5E just takes a very ivory tower approach to how it presents the classes. The barbarian is a defender because its rage lets it take a larger amount of punishment and its reckless attacks encourage enemies to attack the barbarian. The bard is a leader as it both increases the party's healing with song of rest and improves others attacks or saves with its inspiration. There are also classes with roles that are more flexible from having a greater degree of choice in class abilities. All the abilities are also a little weaker, so they're a little less differentiated than they were in 4E. Because there is barely commentary on how to play a class, the appearance of distinct role-fulfilling abilities in each class may be accidental or natural rather than a design decision. I don't know.

For purposes of AC, a character who is already raising Dex for other reasons is well served with light armor. In a pure "how to get AC" comparison, Heavy Armor is cheaper. Light Armor is one feat which gives +1 to a stat and 20 Dexterity for 17 AC. From nothing, that's 1 feat and 4.5 stat boosts. In a point buy, it'd mean spending 9 points and three feats to raise that to 20 and get proficiency.
Medium Armor is two feats which give +1 to a stat and 14 Dexterity for 17 AC. From nothing, that's 2 feats and 1 stat boost. On the point buy, that'd be spending 4 points and two feats.
Heavy Armor is three feats which give +1 to a stat and 15 Strength if you want to move at full movement for 18 AC. From nada, that's three feats and 1 stat boost. In the point buy, that's 4 points and three feats.

Medium Armor Mastery, for the best of both 18 AC and no stealth penalty, is 1 more feat and 3 more build points. A similar investment in maximum defense for Heavy Armor Mastery results in a net buy of 3 points and 4 feats. A character already using Str might be better served getting Heavy Armor rather than raising Dexterity and sticking to medium. Obviously most characters care more about their offense than their AC, so they tend to stick with whatever armor proficiency their class comes with.

This is an excellent post. You really give a good treatment of the subjects. I'd like to say I never felt any class was a fifth wheel.

 

[SirAntoine]

If I'm meeting to set up a typical game of D&D as a player I might ask "Is anyone playing a healer?". By which I mean, as I go on to say, "Is someone planning to play a PC both willing and able to provide a useful amount of healing to the party". This being a meaningful question over say, "Is anyone playing a cleric", because PCs from classes who could potentially heal might not chose those options, or the player of that PC may not choose to make that healing available. This being a useful question because the presence or absence of a healer can change the desirability of various class combos in the party. A party with no dedicated healer may suggest more self-contained, defensive PCs, maybe with some minor healing ability on the side. A party with a dedicated healer may be able to support more glass cannons and/or more PCs with vulnerabilities.

And it's not just the hp. Healer classes often can solve the other maladies such as poisoning and curses that adventurers are prone to.

In this context "healer" is a role. There are consequences for the party if the role is filled, and consequences that need to be planned for if the role isn't filled.

(I would prefer to table any discussion on the availability of of NPC healing as that varies so much from game group to game group)

Another excellent post.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd like to say I never felt any class was a fifth wheel.

If I may ask: Which editions have you played? The whole "fifth wheel" thing is largely (though not totally exclusively) a symptom of 3e, so if you skipped out on that edition or never played beyond level 6 or so, the issue may not have been apparent, but it definitely was to the community at large and to WotC.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the serious flaws in 3e's design dictated a good 25-50% of the design decisions in 4e: every class is good at something (no more Monks with grab-bags of features that don't mesh at all), no class can ever be good at everything (no more CoDzillas or Batman Wizards), healing is relatively easy but sharply limited (no more "Wand of CLW replaces Cleric"), "support" classes that do much more than just healing/cleansing (trying to make "the party Cleric" fun, rather than rewarding people for accepting an onerous task), all classes get non-combat resources, etc. The emphasis on a flexible, transparent combat system--and a non-combat system with a very light touch so every group could handle non-combat the way they chose to--is one of the only things I can think of, at least at 1:30 am, which can't be easily tied to a 3e "problem" that WotC wanted to solve.

Edit: In fact, if you're interested (and I wouldn't blame you if you weren't), there's a great interview on the Wizards website, where Rob Heinsoo talks specifically about all the various design things that went into 4e. He makes specific note of how 3e casters became the most important members of the party, mechanically speaking (e.g. a missing Fighter would still lead to a cancelled session if their participation were important to the story, but not simply because that character couldn't play). And he also notes that the 3e Fighter, Monk, and Bard all ended up a little lackluster over time, but that the game didn't really say that.

 

[pemerton]

there's a great interview on the Wizards website, where Rob Heinsoo talks specifically about all the various design things that went into 4e.

Here's an interesting quote from that interview:

We weren't always planning to give all characters equal numbers of powers. Many times we experimented with vastly different power acquisition schemes for different classes. And when we decided against those approaches, there were people in R&D, including myself, who sometimes balked and felt like giving different classes different numbers and types of power might be a good way of differentiating between classes. But sentiment didn't pan out. All of our actual experiments with different power-distribution schemes didn't work out, so we moved ahead with the notion that a richer understanding of our system might give us room to experiment in the future.​

Foreshadowing of Essentials, Psionics and 5e!

 

[pemerton]

Just for fun, here are some quotes from Gygax's PHB about player character roles, with some of my thoughts interspersed.

First, a general introduction (PHB p 18):

The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges wich it poses, and which role you desire to pay are dictated by character class (or mluti-class).​

The cleric (PHB pp 18, 20):

Clerics principally function as supportive, although they have some offensive spell power and are able to use armour and weapons effectively. . . .

The cleric serves to fortify, protect and revitalise. The cleric also has a limited number of attack spells . . . In addition, the cleric has the ability to wear armor, carry effective weaponry, and engage in hand-to-hand (melee) combat with a reasonable chance of success.​

This is very close to the 4e leader, especially the STR cleric or warlord.

The druid (PHB, pp 18, 20-21) is also described in terms that suggest a leader:

Druids . . . operate much as do other clerics, but they are less able in combat and more effective in wilderness situations. . . .

[T]he spells usable by druids are more attuned to nature and the outdoors then are the spells of other clerics or magic-users. Nonetheless, druids serve to strengthen, protect, and revitalize as the usual c;eric does.​

I'm not sure this is an accurate description, though. The druid has noticeably more spells that target enemies, like Entangle at 1st level, Charm Person at 2nd level, Call Lightning at 3rd level, etc. The druid is something of a cross between a cleric and a MU. In 4e terms, it straddles the leader and (ranged) controller.

I think the AD&D druid is generally recognised as something of a challenging class to play effectively.

The fighter (PHB pp 18, 22):

Fighters generally seek to engage in hand-to-hand combat, for they have more hit points and better weaponry in genera than do other classes. . . .

The principal attribute of a fighter is strenth. . . . A good dexterity rating is also highly desirable. . . . Fighters are the strongest of characters in regard to sheer physical strength, and they are the best at hand-to-hand combat. . . .

Although fighters do not have magic spells to use, their armor and weapons can compensate.​

There is no defender/(melee) striker distinction in AD&D - for reasons I've explained above. This calls out the fighter as a melee-oriented characer, though, whose resilience (armour and hit points) and weaponry are their main asset.

The magic-user and illusionist (PHB pp 18, 25-26):

Magic-users cannot expect to do well in hand-to-hand combat, but they have a great number of magic spells of offensive, defensive and informational nature. . . .

While they have might spells of offensive, defensive and informational nature, magic-users are very weak in combat. . . . [M]artial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive. . . .

[W]hile magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons, they are possible the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic-users are quite weak.

****

Illusionists . . . are different primarily because of the kinds of spells they use. . . .

llusionists have different and highly effective spells to employ. . . . [T]hey are at least as powerful as normal magic-users and possibly slightly more potent at very high levels.​

This makes it clear that MUs (and illusionists) are not weapon users, and certainly not melee combatants. Their power is their spells. But there is no very specific characterisation of what their spells are good for. The "offensive" spells are (in 4e terms) ranged striking ("artillery") and control ("anti-personnel", like Sleep at low levels and Cloudkill at higher levels). The "defensive" spells also include control (eg Web - though some might count this as "offensive") as well as abilities that in 4e become rituals (eg Wizard Lock). The "informational" spells in 4e are a function of Arcana skill (a mandatory skill for wizards) and rituals.

It is possible to see the AD&D wizard in its 4e version, but the ranged striking is notably weaker, at least in the PHB. (Later releases, especially post-Essentials, boosted it somewhat.)

Turning to thieves (PHB pp 18, 27):

Thieves use cunning, nimbleness, and stealth. . . .

The profession of thief is not dishonorable, albeit is neither honorable nor highly respected in some quarters. . . .

Thieves are principally meant to take by cunning and stealth.​

I think the biggest change in class role between AD&D and 4e (and it continues into 5e) is with respect to the thief. The thief becomes a powerful skirmisher (melee striker in 4e) or sniper (ranged striker in 4e), and the focus on literal thieving (or dungeon-delving burglar) is dialled back.

Finally, monks (PHB pp 18, 30):

Monks are . . . disciples of bodily training and combat with bare hands. . . .

Monks . . . practice rigorous mental and physical training and discipline in order to become superior.​

Monks have always been martial artists, and hence melee-oriented, but AD&D found it hard to pin down the way in which they contribute to this while differing from the fighter. 4e took advantage of some of its distinctive features (eg the role of movement in combat) to give monks a distinctive skirmishing role.

It seems to me that class and mechanical function have always been intended to be linked, but in AD&D some classes made this a bit tighter and clearer than others.

 

[Hussar]

Emphasis Mine... when I see a statement like the above, it really makes me wonder if the poster has read, much less played, any 5e... claiming that all of the fighter abilities are related to melee attacks is just wrong...

With the archery style, all of the Champions abilities work with ranged weapons...
With the arcery style, out of 16 maneuvers for the Battlemaster only 4 are specific to melee weapons... the rest of his abilities work with ranged or melee
I won't go into the EK since there are tons of spells useful to a lightly armored, ranged fighter

As to the description of the fighter, it actually says on pg. 71...

"You can make a fighter quickly by following these instructions. First make Strength or Dexterity your highest ability score, depending on whether you want to focus on melee weapons or on archery (or finesse weapons)...

It's right there in the description... it is telling a beginner how to build an archer fighter and what type of melee weapons to use with such a character. And of course if you follow this advice your damage is based on Dex not Str.

I also disagree with your assertion that a Ranger or Rogue are better suited to being ranged, lightly armoured combatants... the fighter in 5e truly is a master warrior of both ranged and melee combat.



Again, emphasis mine... Say what? The 5e fighter who goes ranged is far and away more effective than a 4e PHB fighter that tries to do the same thing. I mean it's easy enough to see that just by actually reading over the class...

EDIT: For a comparison... I couldn't find a single fighter power in the 4e PHB for ranged weapons... did I miss something? If not this seems like 4e restricting the fighter to better fit within the boundaries of it's defined "defender role".

So, a Melee Battlemaster has 16 powers, a Ranged Battlemaster has 12. A champion's Improved Critical works with all weapons, but, considering that melee weapons out damage dice ranged weapons, we're back to melee weapons being more effective. Never minding that you need to start spending feats in order to make ranged attacking effective - removing things like disadvantage and cover penalties, none of which actually apply to melee attacks. Oh, and let's not forget that because you have a bow in hand, you no longer get Opportunity Attacks and cannot benefit from a shield.

But, yeah, just as effective as a melee fighter. Less powers, less damage, lower AC, same movement rates, and you are forced to burn feats. Totally just as effective.

Yup, in 4e, fighters were, by and large, restricted to basic attacks with a bow. Pretty much the same as a 5e fighter. Hey, you want to make a 5e bow fighter? Go right ahead. I'll be over here giggling at you as you do about half as much damage and get hit far more often. Let's not forget that while you take things like Sharpshooter feats, I take things like Heavy Armor (DR 3 more or less) or Sentinel (free attacks and turns me into a pretty much straight up 4e style fighter.)

Although, all that aside, I cannot for the life of me find the rules that let fighters add their Dex to damage with ranged weapons. I know it's there, but, where the heck is it?

 

[Herschel]

To me ignoring RPG roles means trying to ignore your characters strengths and weaknesses, going "La la la I can't hear you", and using the PC as you want even if it's trying to force a square peg in round hole.

The roles witnessed by the players also depend on the particular campaign, player tastes and in particular the DM. Some DMs always make monsters attack the fighter types first, some the weakest party members first, some divide them evenly etc etc. If wizards all get killed at low level you will never see a high level PC wizard and what they can do. Ditto rogues, bards etc. Lots of traps probably favours high hp classes and classes that can find or have advantages evading traps.

Yeah, the term "meat shield" was used back in the day and most DMs I ever played with "went for the squishies" with any even semi-intelligent enemy. Wizards tried to "shape the battlefield" while Clerics "buffed and healed" the party. The rogue moved around trying to get in a "sneak attack/big hit" while not wanting to be face-to-face with a single foe.

People also missed how nebulous the primary roles were in 4E in many cases. You could build a Warlock for straight damage, or you could build him for more control. Rogues could be built with decent control options also, and Fighters could get "striker"-type damage. You could even build a damage-heavy Wizard, if you wanted to. There were generally more tools geared to augment the primary role, but by no means was it exclusive.

Out-of-combat roles were not tied to your combat role either. The Cunning Sneak Rogue is just as much, if not more, likely to be the party "face" as the Warlord or Cleric.

 

[SirAntoine]

Just for fun, here are some quotes from Gygax's PHB about player character roles, with some of my thoughts interspersed.

First, a general introduction (PHB p 18):

The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges wich it poses, and which role you desire to pay are dictated by character class (or mluti-class).​

The cleric (PHB pp 18, 20):

Clerics principally function as supportive, although they have some offensive spell power and are able to use armour and weapons effectively. . . .

The cleric serves to fortify, protect and revitalise. The cleric also has a limited number of attack spells . . . In addition, the cleric has the ability to wear armor, carry effective weaponry, and engage in hand-to-hand (melee) combat with a reasonable chance of success.​

This is very close to the 4e leader, especially the STR cleric or warlord.

The druid (PHB, pp 18, 20-21) is also described in terms that suggest a leader:

Druids . . . operate much as do other clerics, but they are less able in combat and more effective in wilderness situations. . . .

[T]he spells usable by druids are more attuned to nature and the outdoors then are the spells of other clerics or magic-users. Nonetheless, druids serve to strengthen, protect, and revitalize as the usual c;eric does.​

I'm not sure this is an accurate description, though. The druid has noticeably more spells that target enemies, like Entangle at 1st level, Charm Person at 2nd level, Call Lightning at 3rd level, etc. The druid is something of a cross between a cleric and a MU. In 4e terms, it straddles the leader and (ranged) controller.

I think the AD&D druid is generally recognised as something of a challenging class to play effectively.

The fighter (PHB pp 18, 22):

Fighters generally seek to engage in hand-to-hand combat, for they have more hit points and better weaponry in genera than do other classes. . . .

The principal attribute of a fighter is strenth. . . . A good dexterity rating is also highly desirable. . . . Fighters are the strongest of characters in regard to sheer physical strength, and they are the best at hand-to-hand combat. . . .

Although fighters do not have magic spells to use, their armor and weapons can compensate.​

There is no defender/(melee) striker distinction in AD&D - for reasons I've explained above. This calls out the fighter as a melee-oriented characer, though, whose resilience (armour and hit points) and weaponry are their main asset.

The magic-user and illusionist (PHB pp 18, 25-26):

Magic-users cannot expect to do well in hand-to-hand combat, but they have a great number of magic spells of offensive, defensive and informational nature. . . .

While they have might spells of offensive, defensive and informational nature, magic-users are very weak in combat. . . . [M]artial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive. . . .

[W]hile magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons, they are possible the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic-users are quite weak.

****

Illusionists . . . are different primarily because of the kinds of spells they use. . . .

llusionists have different and highly effective spells to employ. . . . [T]hey are at least as powerful as normal magic-users and possibly slightly more potent at very high levels.​

This makes it clear that MUs (and illusionists) are not weapon users, and certainly not melee combatants. Their power is their spells. But there is no very specific characterisation of what their spells are good for. The "offensive" spells are (in 4e terms) ranged striking ("artillery") and control ("anti-personnel", like Sleep at low levels and Cloudkill at higher levels). The "defensive" spells also include control (eg Web - though some might count this as "offensive") as well as abilities that in 4e become rituals (eg Wizard Lock). The "informational" spells in 4e are a function of Arcana skill (a mandatory skill for wizards) and rituals.

It is possible to see the AD&D wizard in its 4e version, but the ranged striking is notably weaker, at least in the PHB. (Later releases, especially post-Essentials, boosted it somewhat.)

Turning to thieves (PHB pp 18, 27):

Thieves use cunning, nimbleness, and stealth. . . .

The profession of thief is not dishonorable, albeit is neither honorable nor highly respected in some quarters. . . .

Thieves are principally meant to take by cunning and stealth.​

I think the biggest change in class role between AD&D and 4e (and it continues into 5e) is with respect to the thief. The thief becomes a powerful skirmisher (melee striker in 4e) or sniper (ranged striker in 4e), and the focus on literal thieving (or dungeon-delving burglar) is dialled back.

Finally, monks (PHB pp 18, 30):

Monks are . . . disciples of bodily training and combat with bare hands. . . .

Monks . . . practice rigorous mental and physical training and discipline in order to become superior.​

Monks have always been martial artists, and hence melee-oriented, but AD&D found it hard to pin down the way in which they contribute to this while differing from the fighter. 4e took advantage of some of its distinctive features (eg the role of movement in combat) to give monks a distinctive skirmishing role.

It seems to me that class and mechanical function have always been intended to be linked, but in AD&D some classes made this a bit tighter and clearer than others.

Are you serious?

 

[SirAntoine]

Yeah, the term "meat shield" was used back in the day and most DMs I ever played with "went for the squishies" with any even semi-intelligent enemy. Wizards tried to "shape the battlefield" while Clerics "buffed and healed" the party. The rogue moved around trying to get in a "sneak attack/big hit" while not wanting to be face-to-face with a single foe.

People also missed how nebulous the primary roles were in 4E in many cases. You could build a Warlock for straight damage, or you could build him for more control. Rogues could be built with decent control options also, and Fighters could get "striker"-type damage. You could even build a damage-heavy Wizard, if you wanted to. There were generally more tools geared to augment the primary role, but by no means was it exclusive.

Out-of-combat roles were not tied to your combat role either. The Cunning Sneak Rogue is just as much, if not more, likely to be the party "face" as the Warlord or Cleric.

Very restrictive, especially if you create abilities to focus on these artificial priorities.