D&D PC ROLES: FROM PAST TO PRESENT TO FUTURE

[xechnao]

old school:
ever ready (fighter)
trick monkey (thief)
nuker (mage)
buffer/debuffer (priest)

3.xe
What do you think?

4e
striker
controller
leader
defender

5e
Insert your favorite idea


Discuss.
PS: it is desired to correct/challenge whatever premise you want in the OP

[RobbyPants]

What do you think?

Well, I think they had similar ideas to older editions with 3E, but really, your roles ended up being:

Caster
Everyone else

Where the first role was mandatory, and the other not desirable past low level.

[Juton]

When you say 5e do you mean essentials, or the as yet hypothetical edition after essentials?

[xechnao]

The yet as hypthetical dream edition of yours.
I believe it's apparent essentials has the same roles as 4e.

[Psychic Robot]

5e: No roles because roles are dumb.

[Doom]

So you're saying in 5e they'll avoid doing obviously dumb things?

[Psychic Robot]

A man can dream.

[hogarth]

5e: No roles because roles are dumb.

If you're saying that every PC should be equally adept at melee combat, ranged combat and healing (to name three possible roles), I disagree.

But I don't think a one-to-one mapping between classes and roles (like 4E claims to have) makes sense, either.

[sake]

I'm mostly fine with the Defender/Leader/Controller roles, I'd just like to see the striker role dead and buried.

Also, ideally EVERY class should have a viable out of the box melee range attack(doesn't actually have to be melee though) and a ranged attack no matter what powers and feats they pick.

[Caedrus]

5e: No roles because roles are dumb.

This is just about impossible unless everyone's the same. Roles arise naturally, whether by design or not. Even if the differences are something like "These weapons both have the same damage per second, but different rates of fire."

[PoliteNewb]

5e: No roles because roles are dumb.

This is just about impossible unless everyone's the same. Roles arise naturally, whether by design or not. Even if the differences are something like "These weapons both have the same damage per second, but different rates of fire."

I don't think the argument is over having roles in the game, or roles in the party, so much as it is about having those roles linked to classes.

Because having roles linked to classes leads to every member of the same class being pretty much the same.

If I'm understanding PR correctly, when he says "no roles", he means "writing 'Fighter' on your sheet should not lock you into a role". And I agree.

[Caedrus]

5e: No roles because roles are dumb.

This is just about impossible unless everyone's the same. Roles arise naturally, whether by design or not. Even if the differences are something like "These weapons both have the same damage per second, but different rates of fire."

I don't think the argument is over having roles in the game, or roles in the party, so much as it is about having those roles linked to classes.

Because having roles linked to classes leads to every member of the same class being pretty much the same.

If I'm understanding PR correctly, when he says "no roles", he means "writing 'Fighter' on your sheet should not lock you into a role". And I agree.

Ah. Well that's okay then.

[RobbyPants]

That's how I feel. I'm fine with individual characters picking up a "role" as they identify a need in the party. I just don't like them being linked to classes in such a way that dictates what class the new player has to play when joining a game.

[Roy]

Roles exist as a way to force multiplayer. Except that it's a tabletop game, so it's kinda assumed you'll willingly play multiplayer.

[xechnao]

That's how I feel. I'm fine with individual characters picking up a "role" as they identify a need in the party. I just don't like them being linked to classes in such a way that dictates what class the new player has to play when joining a game.

Ok, then you can answer what "party needs" regarding the role of various individuals you would like to have in D&D.

[xechnao]

Roles exist as a way to force multiplayer. Except that it's a tabletop game, so it's kinda assumed you'll willingly play multiplayer.

Interesting observation.

Roles indicate to others a different way of doing things that they can't follow. So if the game assumes roles it is like individuals having to assume that they have to embrace the fact that they cant do certain things that some other individual can.

EDIT: BTW, Roy I am quoting this post to some other genre forum(s) where I have started the same thread. Hope you dont't mind

[RobbyPants]

That's how I feel. I'm fine with individual characters picking up a "role" as they identify a need in the party. I just don't like them being linked to classes in such a way that dictates what class the new player has to play when joining a game.

Ok, then you can answer what "party needs" regarding the role of various individuals you would like to have in D&D.

It varies, really.

If you have a group of four players, all who want to play archers or squishy wizards who sling spells from a distance, you're going to need a way to stay at a distance, or the party will die. This can come in the form of:

- Better mobility than your opponents
- Having/summoning a tank to get in the way
- Using battlefield control spells to put stuff in the way

So, that particular party will likely need a tank, summoner, or battlefield shaper to function well. Those are all roles in the loose sense of the word. Otherwise, they all have to be mobile as hell and hope they don't ever get out-maneuvered or flanked.


Similarly, picture a group of melee brutes. They're going to need some way to consistently engage their foes in melee. This could involve hampering the enemy's mobility, boosting their own, or otherwise encouraging the opponents to engage them. So, vital roles will have to focus on those needs.


Basically, the "roles" of the party members need to be able to deal with anything you'd expect to encounter. There's no reason to tie any of these roles to a class, but the party needs to be sure to have their bases covered.

[PoliteNewb]

It varies, really.

If you have a group of four players, all who want to play archers or squishy wizards who sling spells from a distance, you're going to need a way to stay at a distance, or the party will die. This can come in the form of:

- Better mobility than your opponents
- Having/summoning a tank to get in the way
- Using battlefield control spells to put stuff in the way

Yeah, but couldn't those be defined as tactics, rather than roles?

Just because you need a way to keep your enemies at a distance, doesn't mean you need 1 guy in the crew to be dedicated to a certain way of keeping enemies at a distance.

Ideally, roles would be available (because some people like being able to say "I'm a nuker" or "I'm a summoner" or "I'm a face"), but not mandatory.

One more short note: just as we can define ways of dealing with encounters tactically, you can also look at the long-term strategic...try your best to only get into situations where your role/schtick is useful. If you're a horse-archer (or a party of horse-archers, for that matter), you fight on the plains, and you don't do jobs/quests that will put you in cramped tunnels or thick woods.

[RobbyPants]

I guess there is a fine line between roles and tactics. Really, a role is just you performing well at that tactic and agreeing to do it.

And you're right that you don't need one guy to be dedicated to doing it, but someone needs to actually do that for it to be a tactic.

So if your party is something like Ranger, Ranger, Warlock, Evoker, someone still needs to either fulfill one of those roles in any given combat, or they all need to out-maneuver the monsters. This could seriously be as simple as one of the rangers memorizing Entangle, the Warlock picking up Chilling Tentacles, and the Evoker memorizing a handful of Conjuration spells. Then, in any given combat, they have something they could do when needed. None of them are dedicated summoners or battlefield controllers, but they're all semi-capable.

So, that party would all have some be some sort of ranged attacker/blaster role, and each could pinch hit as the secondary support roles.


You know, the more I write this, the more I wonder if I care about the distinction between roles and tactics.

[MfA]

3.xe
What do you think?

- SoD/lock down/trick monkey caster
- Instagibber

[Roy]

Roles exist as a way to force multiplayer. Except that it's a tabletop game, so it's kinda assumed you'll willingly play multiplayer.

Interesting observation.

Roles indicate to others a different way of doing things that they can't follow. So if the game assumes roles it is like individuals having to assume that they have to embrace the fact that they cant do certain things that some other individual can.

EDIT: BTW, Roy I am quoting this post to some other genre forum(s) where I have started the same thread. Hope you dont't mind

Go ahead and quote it.

The reason why roles exist in some hard defined form is because of MMOs. Most people will not willingly group there. They'll play with friends, sure but if given the choice between go it alone (or with friends) or invite some randoms along, the randoms only get to come if what you're doing cannot be handled by you and possibly your friends. And people knew it'd be like that from the beginning, which is why MMOs launched with narrow roles, so you'd have to group with a bunch of people you would not otherwise associate with. This of course breeds resentment. It also introduces more moving parts and therefore more chances to fail, which means you spend more time attempting to succeed and pay them more.

Obviously all of these concepts are completely alien to tabletop. And have never existed in any real form in tabletop.

Supposedly the D&D Fighter is a tank, but in any edition 3.5 or earlier he has no actual means to take hits for others, and it's only in 1st and 2nd that he can take hits for himself. Then 4th came along and tried to give him means to take hits for others and tells you he's supposed to be tanking for the party, but this is a lie because he doesn't have the means to hold that many enemies, and he doesn't have the means to take that many enemies hitting him, so what you really want is 1-2 mobs on every party member, because if all 5-10 hit the same guy they're screwed. Not to mention the whole concept of tanking requires the enemies to be played stupid. Fine in an MMO, insulting in tabletop (unless they actually are stupid, in which case they probably won't understand the taunt).

Of course 3rd and 3.5 bend the roles a lot more than 1st and 2nd, but the point is they have never really been enforced.

And if you look at a different game like Shadowrun, you'll see things like different roles just meaning different minigames (everyone shuts the fuck up when one guy is working the Matrix, etc). This also happens in D&D (shake the Bard at it, anyone?) but not as often. But in Shadowrun, everyone is sneaking in, and shooting fools in the face and so forth.

Ultimately this shows that not only do most people not want to be trapped in a little box, that they will actively go out of their way to be broadly competent, to ensure participation in as much of the game as possible. And this means that the ideal 'role' is 'multi threat character'. It's only if forced to that they will opt for less. And while I don't go as far as JE in saying that a character needs to be the whole fucking party or they aren't trying, you had damn well have a valid means of contributing to solving any problem that comes up at least 90% of the time. Can't drive the tank? Man the turret then. Can't do that? Get a rocket launcher, face backwards and be a rear cannon to blast pursuers. Find something useful to do, or you're wasting everyone's time.

[PoliteNewb]

Ultimately this shows that not only do most people not want to be trapped in a little box, that they will actively go out of their way to be broadly competent, to ensure participation in as much of the game as possible. And this means that the ideal 'role' is 'multi threat character'. It's only if forced to that they will opt for less. And while I don't go as far as JE in saying that a character needs to be the whole fucking party or they aren't trying, you had damn well have a valid means of contributing to solving any problem that comes up at least 90% of the time. Can't drive the tank? Man the turret then. Can't do that? Get a rocket launcher, face backwards and be a rear cannon to blast pursuers. Find something useful to do, or you're wasting everyone's time.

General agreement with this. What's especially galling in a game (IMO) is when trying to be broadly competent is mechanically inferior (3X multiclassing), or (related and possibly the same) if you're not maxed/optimized for something, there is no point in trying (3X skills, in many cases).

In my ideal, you should have 1-2 schticks you are good at, a handful you are not awesome but are competent at, and then a default level for everything else (where you can still attempt and sometimes succeed).

I have no problem with a specialist shining at his chosen specialty...but I don't like specialization being the baseline, and I don't believe specialization should pay massive dividends over generalization. Specialization should be largely a flavor issue...you specialize to be a fire mage or a necromancer, not because if you don't, you will suck.

[Judging__Eagle]

Adventurer is the role I want to see.

Weild weapons, wear equipment, use abilities.

Roy, you're silly. Having a character that can contribute to other character's actions who are on the same Tier as themselves is a Hedonistic character design. Some characters/players are actually upset when they have to sit out of any part of the game.

Which is reasonable. Every instance where only one character is acting; from Diplomacing to Matrix running, has been identified as problematic on TGD since only one character is actively engaging in actions.

My own game model doesn't have "roles" of any kind built in. However, much like Shadowrun, Creatures will often fulfill certain recognizable Archetypes. Someone with a Minor Martial (Technique or Physique) and a Moderate area of effect ability, and a Major Reactive (Defense) is not a very heavy hitter, but they hit lots of enemies at once, and have the defenses to take hits.

Players should have tools at their disposal to generate characters; and the tools should be the same across the board. Seperating magic, from non-magic is terribad.

At least, that's in my humble opinion.

[Roy]

Ultimately this shows that not only do most people not want to be trapped in a little box, that they will actively go out of their way to be broadly competent, to ensure participation in as much of the game as possible. And this means that the ideal 'role' is 'multi threat character'. It's only if forced to that they will opt for less. And while I don't go as far as JE in saying that a character needs to be the whole fucking party or they aren't trying, you had damn well have a valid means of contributing to solving any problem that comes up at least 90% of the time. Can't drive the tank? Man the turret then. Can't do that? Get a rocket launcher, face backwards and be a rear cannon to blast pursuers. Find something useful to do, or you're wasting everyone's time.

General agreement with this. What's especially galling in a game (IMO) is when trying to be broadly competent is mechanically inferior (3X multiclassing), or (related and possibly the same) if you're not maxed/optimized for something, there is no point in trying (3X skills, in many cases).

In my ideal, you should have 1-2 schticks you are good at, a handful you are not awesome but are competent at, and then a default level for everything else (where you can still attempt and sometimes succeed).

I have no problem with a specialist shining at his chosen specialty...but I don't like specialization being the baseline, and I don't believe specialization should pay massive dividends over generalization. Specialization should be largely a flavor issue...you specialize to be a fire mage or a necromancer, not because if you don't, you will suck.

This is why my baseline, like Tome is a 3.5 caster. You have multiple combos available to yourself. Getting Solid Fog + Black Tentacles doesn't stop you from being able to Mind Fog + Mass Charm for example. Unlike Tome I don't assume things like infinite wish loops exist but aside from that it's fair game.

Conversely 3.5 non casters are a terrible baseline, because you specialize in one thing, and that's it. Even if that thing were a good thing, you're still a one trick pony. When it isn't, you're even worse off.

If 3.5 were all caster vs caster it would be somewhat balanced and interesting to play and to fight. And although this is the logical consequence of the game mechanics, few DMs make a truly immersive world so it doesn't reflect this, and instead pretends people of non peasant levels care about Hill Giants and such.

And even among casters, specialization isn't that narrow. If you're a Necromancer Wizard, you can totally throw spells from any five other schools if needed, one of which is Divination. You just prefer Necromancy to the others. And there's two you can't do. Which given that there's one school drastically weaker than all the others, and another that is easily negated it's pretty easy to make this not a big deal.

I have no idea why JE is attacking me, so I'm ignoring that.

[Judging__Eagle]

And while I don't go as far as JE in saying that a character needs to be the whole fucking party or they aren't trying, you had damn well have a valid means of contributing to solving any problem that comes up at least 90% of the time.

I'm not attacking you. I'm saying that you're pretty much saying the same thing I did.

I'm really noticing how this sort of play style affects my character generation and creation. I very much prefer to play characters who have a very specific ability, that gives them flexibility; or simply as many options as the system allows.

If a game has multiple power systems with their own Mini-games (ex. Alchemy, Combat, Magic, Psychic, Trade Skills), I prefer to play a character who has enough of each to gain benefits from engaging in that mini-game within the game.