D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Aribar]

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.

In 4E roles only mattered in combat. I'm not saying there aren't non-combat roles, just that when people talk striker/defender/controller/leader, they're typically only concerned with combat. The vast majority of the mechanics in D&D are about combat, with only skills (and pieces of the class, race, feat, spells and equipment) and adventuring sections actually being concerned with non-combat stuff.

Edit: Also not to say that non-combat stuff isn't important... Just that traditionally, that's were the main focus of the designers' rules are at.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

The "roles" defined in 4e were combat-only. Does that mean you cannot define non-combat ones? Hardly. But it does mean that, if we are evaluating classes based on the 4e roles, only the combat components matter for deciding which 4e role they would have. Many of the tricky/utility things that used to be unique to the Wizard have been moved to 4e's Ritual system (or just the Skills generally), and anyone can cast those if they have the Ritual Caster feat and the appropriate skill(s) (Wizards just get a head start by having the feat for free, along with some free rituals already learned).

Also, "artillery" is fully within the 4e Controller role. Controlling includes manipulating the battlefield (zones, walls, ally movement), debilitating enemies (e.g. conditions), clearing away 'infantry' (that is, Minions; artillery AoE damage), and fielding additional units (e.g. summons).

So...yeah. Going with the definitions used for 4e's roles, what you described really isn't far off from what 4e Wizards actually do, and (believe it or not) the Wizard's non-combat hat is being insanely good at all sorts of utility things. Finding ways to pick up Wizard cantrips is a common exercise (but a difficult one--they're well-protected).

Edit:
I'd also say that this is why the original ("pre-Essentials") 4e Druid was given the Controller role, rather than the Leader role that some expected. The Druid's (theoretical) shtick was nature-y spells including many AoE damage and terrain-affecting spells...and summon spells, which are (very generally speaking) something in the Controller sphere.

[sblock=Digression on the non-exclusivity of 4e roles]Plus, it's not like 4e's roles were even all that exclusive. Non-Defenders can easily acquire powers that Mark, though getting a punishment power is a bit harder without MCing to a Defender class. (Although even calling it "punishment" is a bit over-specific, since Swordmages can "punish" by damage mitigation.) Non-Strikers can approximate or even achieve Striker-like damage simply by growing in that direction, picking high-damage/high-accuracy gear, etc. Non-Controllers just need some AoE and/or condition-inflicting powers. Leader is also a little hard for non-Leaders to emulate unless they start with something (e.g. Paladin), but anything that grants bonuses, saves, or THP to allies will work and Skill Utilities made it even easier.

Outside of combat, you are pretty much whatever you choose to be. Most classes can be built to value at least one skill-beneficial stat, and with Backgrounds you can start out trained in essentially any skill you want while getting some potential seeds for your backstory. Certain classes naturally get a leg up on it, e.g. Wizards with Ritual Casting, Rogues with a (slightly?) larger number of skills, etc. However, there isn't much non-combat stuff that is out of reach by the time you get to level, I dunno, 4-5 ish? Certainly not by Paragon tier.[/sblock]

 

[Hussar]

There's a somewhat tangential approach that might help and does tie back to the idea of 5e's three pillars: logistics, strategic and tactical.

As a basic definition I'd say that logistics is related to all the stuff you do before an adventure begins. It's food and ammo and encumbrance and buying magic items and the like. Strategic level decisions are more day to day. What spells do I need? What basic approach do I take to combat ie light armored skirmisher vs heavy armour melee guy. That sort of thing. Tactical level are all the decisions you make after initiative is rolled.

Different editions focus on these levels differently. AdnD had a huge logistical level with very little tactical. 3e dropped logistical concerns (spontaneous casting forex) for strategic ones. 4e really hammered tactical level decisions at the expense of logistics.

I think when people talk of roles, you really need to specify what level you mean.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In 4E roles only mattered in combat..

If this is a true statement, then it explains in great lengths why I don't like 4e.

 

[Hussar]

If this is a true statement, then it explains in great lengths why I don't like 4e.

Why? I think this really gets to the heart of the misconceptions about 4e. Role as defined in 4e had a specific meaning: what was you most typical contribution in combat. It was simply a descriptive term, nothing more.

What do you mean when you talk about roles?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Different editions focus on these levels differently. AdnD had a huge logistical level with very little tactical. 3e dropped logistical concerns (spontaneous casting forex) for strategic ones. 4e really hammered tactical level decisions at the expense of logistics.

I think when people talk of roles, you really need to specify what level you mean.

Given your definitions of the terms here, it seems ironic that one of the common complaints about 4e was that Rituals cost too much in the way of fungible resources aka money. So there's definitely a certain degree of change in player attitude, beyond just what the edition did. Whether that's because the more logistic-heavy (as you've defined "logistics") players never got in in the first place, or that gaming culture at large has shifted over time, I doubt anyone can say.

If this is a true statement, then it explains in great lengths why I don't like 4e.

Something to remember: "Roles," as defined in 4e, are about combat stuff...but every character always has access to things that have nothing to do with combat. Skills are both powerful and broad (many things that used to require spells are now Arcana, Nature, or Religion checks, for example), the Rituals system absorbed a vast variety of the non-combat spells and made them into logistical concerns (as defined above). Things like Alarm, Gentle Repose, Arcane Mark, Unseen Servant, Tenser's Floating Disk, Knock, Traveller's Feast, Animal Friendship, etc. became Rituals (the first five are 1st-level; the next two are 4th level; Animal Friendship is 5th level). Anyone who (a) had the feat, (b) had a copy of the ritual and the necessary materials on hand, and (c) knew the appropriate skill, could cast that Ritual and (with a successful check) get it to work.

Some characters still get a bit more than others. Wizards not only get Ritual Casting for free plus some free rituals (normally you have to pay to get a scroll or book with the ritual written on it so you can perform it), they also got Cantrips which had some impressive utility value. Rogues get extra skills, IIRC. And some characters get a bit less, and this is usually deplored by 4e fans as legacy BS: Fighters only get 3 skills (compared to the standard of 4), the lowest number of all classes. (Many people houserule this, either by saying all Fighters get one particular useful skill like Perception, or that they may choose one extra skill regardless of whether it's on their list or not. Not everyone does, of course, but it's probably among the most common 4e houserules.)

So yeah. 4e's "roles" are about combat because that's what the designers decided players needed to have the most information about, and which they felt needed a clear systematic approach. Non-combat stuff isn't part of 4e's roles, not because it's absent, but because the designers did not feel that non-combat things needed to be systematic. Instead, non-combat mechanics are just assigned to classes in whatever way the designers felt was appropriate for the aesthetic and history of the class in question. Which, of course, means that some classes have a lot, some have a little, and most are somewhere in the middle.

 

[SirAntoine]

Roles are anything you can clearly see a character doing, in or out of combat, and also the very role you're playing in the game as in who is your character.

EDIT: The following comment was not meant to try anyone's patience: "The 4e combat roles were made for a more board game like experience." I was repeating what I said earlier in the thread, because I did some more thinking about it and found a few more similarities. I want a D&D board game in the future. If an edition of D&D is like a board game, I also don't have any problem with that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Roles are anything you can clearly see a character doing, in or out of combat, and also the very role you're playing in the game as in who is your character.

That is how you are choosing to define the word, yes. It's a perfectly valid definition. There are also other valid definitions.

The 4e combat roles were made for a more board game like experience.

So you keep insisting. I remain unconvinced. Particularly since, as far as I know, you have zero experience actually playing 4e, and therefore (again, as far as I know) have not actually seen what kind of experience it provides.

 

[Sadras]

​

 

[pemerton]

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

I've discussed this at length upthread. In pre-3E D&D melee is sticky by default - once you get into melee you can't get out without taking a punishing attack. In official AD&D, targetting in melee is random.

It is only once melee becomes non-sticky by default - which is a 3E innovation - that the game has the mechanical scope for a defender. A defender - by manipulating movement, imposing conditions, etc - makes melee sticky for him or her, similar to how it was in AD&D.

a fighter in B/X wasn't just a striker. He was also a defender.

No. There is no defender (in the 4e sense) in pre-3E D&D because the rules of the game make melee sticky by default.

A fighter can be a "defender" in the colloquial sense, but that is true of practically any character. It doesn't really bare on a discussion of roles using the 4e terminology.

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.

The point it proves has also been discussed at length upthread: in 4e AoE damage is classified both as control (per Wizards) and as striking (per Sorcerers).

So controlling can include artillery. It also includes the wizard's classic anti-personnel function (Sleep, Charm, Hold etc).

Cleric: You want to wear armor like a fighter but cast healing spells and turn undead

This is a good description of a 4e cleric, especially a STR cleric from the PHB or an Essentials cleric.