Is there a well-developed theory for team roles (or character prototypes)?

[Astralia123]

I hear people say blaster, healer, controller and such all day, but a brief search on the English-speaking Internet only return some ... maybe I should say "primitive" results. Like this: https://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/A_Player%27s_Guide_to_Roles_in_the_Party_(3.5e_Gui de)

I notice there are some murmurings about the Big Four Roles (Fighter, Cleric, etc.), yet there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive post or article on this.

Is there some more developed or more extensive discussion on this topic?

[Divine Susuryu]

I don't think there is, and I doubt there ever will be, due to resistance from people who care very little for the mechanical aspect of the games. Any thread talking about it in any forum with a significant population will be derailed by something in the area of the following.


It's about acting a part, not filling some "role" in a party. RP is in the name - it's an RPG, not just a G.

Obviously, that's a strawman, and any real points will be far better thought out, but I think it illustrates my point well enough. There's a certain kind of person who engages in denialism of the game aspect of tabletop RPGs, hence all your Oberoni and Stormwind issues floating around. A sort of narrow Keatsian "unweaving the rainbow" argument applied only to TTRPGs, almost.

[Astralia123]

I don't think there is, and I doubt there ever will be, due to resistance from people who care very little for the mechanical aspect of the games. Any thread talking about it in any forum with a significant population will be derailed by something in the area of the following.



Obviously, that's a strawman, and any real points will be far better thought out, but I think it illustrates my point well enough. There's a certain kind of person who engages in denialism of the game aspect of tabletop RPGs, hence all your Oberoni and Stormwind issues floating around. A sort of narrow Keatsian "unweaving the rainbow" argument applied only to TTRPGs, almost.

Actually there are some very brilliant discussions on Chinese Internet, but I believe none of their work has been translated into English.
I'll briefly translate their Tier basis here (it was part of another work giving Tiers to all base classes):


Striker: the role of dealing damage to foes (including physical melee, physical ranged and magical/psionic/other)
Controller: the role who prevents foes from damaging allies
Buffer/Supporter: the role who improves allies' offensive capability or reduce the effect of enemy offensive (reduce damage, prevent/suppress debuffs, etc.), including bards and buffer wizards and so on.
Healer: the role of healing, removing negative effects and reviving
Skill User: the role who possesses large amount of high-rank skills (especially those his allies lack)
*Cohort Leader: the role who relies on his familiar/cohorts and other units that are attached to him, like druids and characters with leadership feat and summoning-specialized characters


Still, their team role theory is somewhat mixed with character prototypes, and some of my further research results share this issue. Additionally, some of these English-written articles only describes a very low power-level (both in character levels and optimization level).

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502248-Ultimate-Optimizer-s-Multiclassing-Guide
https://dmingwithcharisma.com/2011/12/the-seven-party-roles-definitions/
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8k3rdy/what_are_the_different_party_roles_in_dd/

[RoboEmperor]

http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=394

"In combat there are also 4 roles - these are the roles that get filled:

The Big Stupid Fighter: This role involves two things: Doing HP damage to BBEG, forcing BBEG to attack you with his viscous weaponry. The Big Stupid Fighter is not always a fighter (though stereotypically he is). He may be a Barbarian, a Summoned Critter, or a Druid. In order to qualify as a Big Stupid Fighter he should be any character that actively tries to be the target of enemy attacks. For those who wonder why I would label this character as "stupid" regardless of their INT score - reread the previous sentence.

The Glass Cannon: This role involves one thing: Doing HP damage to BBEG. The Glass Cannon is like the Big Stupid Fighter except he does not want to take damage. Usually this is not due to superior intelligence - but instead due to inferior HP or AC (or in most cases - both). The Glass Cannon is often a Rogue (Or Rouge for our 13 year old readers), a Gish, an Archer, or a Blaster (the inferior wizard).

God: When reality would entail the above two meeting a rather messy end - someone will need to make some adjustments to said reality in order for the above two to instead meet glorious victory. What other label could such a force be labelled as than "God"? Well - how about "Primary Caster" One label or another - this guy needs to make Reality his Witch (replace the "W" in your head.) in order to do his job effectively.

The Waste of Space: This is the character of the player who thought a Bard/Monk/Sorcerer multiclass was an excellent idea - or who thought healing was a good "combat" role. This character just doesn't fill any of the above roles well enough to be anything but a liability to the group. You probably have had one in your group. Heck, you probably have one in your current group. Don't sweat it - as long as it isn't you.



Out of combat you have 4 roles:

Social ("The Fop"): This guy thinks he's the leader. Whatever - he does the talking well everyone else lets him.

Sneak ("The Corpse"): This guy sneaks ahead to scout the enemy's lair and finds and disarms traps for the group. Why do I call him the "Corpse"? - reread what he does again.

Healbot ("The Gimp"): Anyone who spends his character's resources for healing is clearly the party Gimp. That said - you want a party gimp. Preferably - not you. (though it can be done with Arcane Disciple)

Utility Caster ("Everything Else"):"

edit: "* Why isn't the Healer useful in combat? Good question. There are two ways you can live your "pretend" life - reactively or proactively. God will alter reality to prevent damage, a healer will try to do "damage control" (pun intended) after the damage has been taken. Simple truth: The mechanics of the game make preventing damage more efficient then healing damage after the fact. That's not to say a well placed "Heal" or even "CLW" never has use in combat - but if you're doing your job - it should never be required as a primary role."

[Particle_Man]

Didn’t fourth edition explicitly name these roles?

[redking]

Actually there are some very brilliant discussions on Chinese Internet, but I believe none of their work has been translated into English.
I'll briefly translate their Tier basis here (it was part of another work giving Tiers to all base classes):

I can read Chinese. Do you have the links?

[RedWarlock]

Didn’t fourth edition explicitly name these roles?

They did, but they also explicitly altered how those classes and roles functioned a bit to make them match up better. Defenders (fighters, paladins, swordmages) got a lot more short-distance control powers compared to their 3.x counterparts. Sorcerers were classified as strikers, while wizards were controllers (whereas their 3.x counterparts would more likely be lumped into the same role, having the same spell list). Clerics were stripped back in a lot of what they can do compared to 3.x clerics.

[Astralia123]

I can read Chinese. Do you have the links?

http://www.goddessfantasy.net/bbs/index.php?topic=51876.0
http://www.goddessfantasy.net/bbs/index.php?topic=50337

Here you go.

EDIT: Note there is a large anime girl picture at the top of this site (actually unrelated to its other content. Mostly).

[Rynjin]

Tark came up with the Hammer/Anvil/Arm (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p576?On-building-a-balanced-group-working-out-just) theory of roles, which I've always quite liked.

[MisterKaws]

http://www.goddessfantasy.net/bbs/index.php?topic=51876.0
http://www.goddessfantasy.net/bbs/index.php?topic=50337

Here you go.

You should probably tell people not to open that up on places with lots of people. It's not really a NSFW logo, but these days anime girls are very frowned upon by some people.

[Astralia123]

You should probably tell people not to open that up on places with lots of people. It's not really a NSFW logo, but these days anime girls are very frowned upon by some people.

Uh, well, as I live in China, people here don't seem to care about that sort of things very much...
Apologies if that cause trouble for some people. If that kind of pictures would be problematic in some other countries, maybe I'll talk into the site administrator to change it for a less nude one?

[Divine Susuryu]

Uh, well, as I live in China, people here don't seem to care about that sort of things very much...
Apologies if that cause trouble for some people. If that kind of pictures would be problematic in some other countries, maybe I'll talk into the site administrator to change it for a less nude one?

If it's acceptable to its intended audience, don't stress over it. Setting a precedent that complains from people outside the audience should change something is no good. Just think of the Satanic Panic of the late 80s around D&D itself - highly religious people from outside the community were offended by something they didn't participate in. Did nobody any good in the end.

[Astralia123]

If it's acceptable to its intended audience, don't stress over it. Setting a precedent that complains from people outside the audience should change something is no good. Just think of the Satanic Panic of the late 80s around D&D itself - highly religious people from outside the community were offended by something they didn't participate in. Did nobody any good in the end.
There you get a point, but as far as I know, that picture was due to the taste of the site administrator instead of the need of the audience, and a less nude version of the same anime character was used before the current one. Anyway it won't hurt to become slightly more... let's say "environmental friendly".

So how bad is it to be seen viewing a picture of partially-nude anime girls (not necessarily under-aged) in your places? Just for reference.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Didn’t fourth edition explicitly name these roles?

Yeah, 4e built around (appropriately enough) 4 roles:

Defenders prevent damage to the other roles, most often by penalizing "marked" enemies for attacking anyone but them, but also sometimes with some short range BFC.

Strikers do lots of damage to a single target. Some times some status effects, too.

Controllers affect larger areas/multiple enemies, doing a little to moderate amount of damage to lots of foes, imposing status effects on lots of foes, and/or changing the terrain to do one or both of the other two to anyone who stepped in it. Some people like to call artillery (focus on damage) a separate role.

And leaders, who heal, provide bonuses to other characters, and enhance tactical mobility.

Most classes have both a primary role and a secondary role that can change depending on how you build your character (or you can lean into the primary role even harder, like the hilarious "lazy warlord" builds that are literally incapable of doing anything on their own because all their powers involve making/letting their allies do things on their turn).

Each of the three most recent editions has a focus, something it's better at than the others. 5e is pretty easy to pick up and has a focus on roleplay. 3.5 has by far the most in-depth character creation. And 4e does tactical combat better than either of them, with clearly defined and well balanced character roles and a varied set of options and abilities for every single encounter.

[Eldariel]

Nobody has truly gone in-depth about the various party roles in 3.5 partly because they're so vague: most decent classes can fill all the roles themselves, and most classes can be played to the tune of any of them. And this is before we account for multiclassing and PRCs.

This post (https://www.paizo.com/threads/rzs2p576?On-building-a-balanced-group-working-out-just) is written with Pathfinder in mind but it mostly applies for 3.5 as well and is at least somewhat more elaborate than Treantmonk's. However, it is written with rather low-powered groups in mind (not a word on minionmancy, for instance), and the baselines set out in it are rather arbitrary and meaningless. I think it does most of what you're looking for though, discussing the three "party roles" in "Hammer, Arm & Anvil". Odd lingo, but the basic idea is soundish (though it misses out on the ways passive defenses can indeed be built to surpass offense). Now, if only the example party dropped the pretend classes and switched to like another Cleric (as the buffer and a second fighter) and perhaps a Druid, a Wizard, or a Summoner (for more big frontline beef)...

[Astralia123]

Nobody has truly gone in-depth about the various party roles in 3.5 partly because they're so vague: most decent classes can fill all the roles themselves, and most classes can be played to the tune of any of them. And this is before we account for multiclassing and PRCs.

This post (https://www.paizo.com/threads/rzs2p576?On-building-a-balanced-group-working-out-just) is written with Pathfinder in mind but it mostly applies for 3.5 as well and is at least somewhat more elaborate than Treantmonk's. However, it is written with rather low-powered groups in mind (not a word on minionmancy, for instance), and the baselines set out in it are rather arbitrary and meaningless. I think it does most of what you're looking for though, discussing the three "party roles" in "Hammer, Arm & Anvil". Odd lingo, but the basic idea is soundish (though it misses out on the ways passive defenses can indeed be built to surpass offense). Now, if only the example party dropped the pretend classes and switched to like another Cleric (as the buffer and a second fighter) and perhaps a Druid, a Wizard, or a Summoner (for more big frontline beef)...

In the case of 3.5, now I'm thinking the "Core Triangle"(or maybe the Big Three, which are the Fighter, the Cleric and the Wizard) is a very good model.
Either of the three roles doesn't have to be exactly the same base class: the Fighter could be a fighter, a barbarian/fighter, a gish or a arcane caster who casts polymorph on himself; and the Cleric can be a real cleric or an archivist or something else. The Wizard could be a wu jen or some other arcane class (though in most cases he is a wizard).
In short, they are the Melee Physical Attacker, the Divine Caster and the Arcane Caster. Other roles exist (psionic characters, artificer, specialized blasters, ranged attackers, and so on), but they are not absolutely necessary - and the three basic roles are.

I've written an article on this in Chinese and if you people are interested...
http://www.goddessfantasy.net/bbs/index.php?topic=109575.0
Still, large anime girl picture warning.

[Telonius]

The division probably goes back to 2nd Edition, with their four "groups": Warrior (comprised of the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger classes), Wizard (comprised of Mage and Specialist Wizards), Priest (comprised of Priest, Druid, and priests of a particular mythos), and Rogue (comprised of Bard and Thief). Those are the typical four roles. You see them described as different things: Tank, Big Stupid Fighter, Beatstick; Caster, Pointy Hat, Arcane Magic; Healer, Healbot, Band-aid, Buffer/Debuffer; Sneak, DPS, Skillmonkey, Utility, Trapfinder. Whatever you call them, they fall into four major ways of solving problems. For the "Warriors," if you see a problem, you beat on it with a heavy object until it's no longer a problem. For "Wizards," you cast a spell to solve the problem. For "Priests," you fix your friends while they're solving the problem (or get your God to solve the problem). For "Rogues," you solve the problem with finesse and sneakiness.

Occasionally you'll see another character role listed, "Face." This sort of character solves a problem socially; they make it so it's not necessary to fight. Personally I think there's a lot of overlap between Face and Rogue. But when Face is included, there's usually a distinction by making the "Rogue" role more explicitly about combat, sneak attacks, and ambushing.

[MisterKaws]

Uh, well, as I live in China, people here don't seem to care about that sort of things very much...
Apologies if that cause trouble for some people. If that kind of pictures would be problematic in some other countries, maybe I'll talk into the site administrator to change it for a less nude one?

I'm a week late, don't mind me.

Well, in work, it depends, but best case scenario you're getting the stink eye.

Let me take the time to actually discuss the subject as well: In 3e the usual warrior/priest/mage/thief doesn't work very well, since mages are better at crowd-control than warriors, warriors are better at damage than thieves, healer priests are a very poor investment, and thieves are walking corpses(pre-Darkstalker), and lose in scouting potential to diviners.

So the 3e roles are more like:


Beatstick
Crowd-Controller/Debuffer
Supporter(Buffs, not heals)
Diviner because scouts are just future corpses
Blaster


So... yeah, it's just mages and a beatstick. Surprising, yes?

[Mechalich]

The division probably goes back to 2nd Edition, with their four "groups": Warrior (comprised of the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger classes), Wizard (comprised of Mage and Specialist Wizards), Priest (comprised of Priest, Druid, and priests of a particular mythos), and Rogue (comprised of Bard and Thief). Those are the typical four roles. You see them described as different things: Tank, Big Stupid Fighter, Beatstick; Caster, Pointy Hat, Arcane Magic; Healer, Healbot, Band-aid, Buffer/Debuffer; Sneak, DPS, Skillmonkey, Utility, Trapfinder. Whatever you call them, they fall into four major ways of solving problems. For the "Warriors," if you see a problem, you beat on it with a heavy object until it's no longer a problem. For "Wizards," you cast a spell to solve the problem. For "Priests," you fix your friends while they're solving the problem (or get your God to solve the problem). For "Rogues," you solve the problem with finesse and sneakiness.

Occasionally you'll see another character role listed, "Face." This sort of character solves a problem socially; they make it so it's not necessary to fight. Personally I think there's a lot of overlap between Face and Rogue. But when Face is included, there's usually a distinction by making the "Rogue" role more explicitly about combat, sneak attacks, and ambushing.

2e had much stronger niche protection in terms of what class could do what. For example, many essential thief skills were exclusive to the thief, which is why you always had a thief in the party in all the isometric D&D RPGs. 3e niche protection is much less developed and it's easier for spellcasters to work around holes in the traditional groupings (particularly through minions, which are much more versatile than in 2e). 2e also had a more traditional balance in that 'kill it with HP damage' was the principle way to win combat encounters, while in 3.X that is a less than optimal approach most of the time compared to SoS/SoD options.

[ngilop]

I can only speak for myself as I was using those terms before I even knew what RPG and gaming was.

Blaster- Guy who uses ranged abilities
Archer- Guy who uses ranged weapons
Scrapper- Guy who uses melee weapons focused on damage
Tank- Guy who uses melee weapons focused on defense
Support- Guy who usually has a minor role in one of the above, but his main thing is making others A LOT better at their chosen role
Utility- Guy who provides a varied range of general use abilities
Control- Guy who either controls the environment or adversaries to gain advantages
Healer- Guy who cures wounds, negates status effects, and puts up preventative wards

This is something I have had been using since I was 4 or 5. Of course, those roles can, and often do intermingle.

[JMS]

So, the Spheres of Power and Might wiki has an article on this. http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/character-roles.
Aimed at 3pp Pathfinder, but it can be generalized. It starts with a quick laydown of some basic ideas, like greater Narative power is good, and then lays out possible roles.

[noob]

In 3.5 it is split in "being able to do everything perfectly and creating universes" role and "being able to do some very specific thing" role.
Then there is the players who are here to fuel ideas in the whole adventuring team until the fictional universe disassemble and the gm flees the table.

[HouseRules]

Before the Fighter Mage Thief (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief) there was the Fighter, Mage, Healer.

Supplement I: Greyhawk screwed the world as we know it because the split between Fighter and Thief roles has made mundane characters weaker.
If we go back and prevent the split of the two mundane roles, then mundane characters would not lose their "out of combat" role.
If we go back and prevent the "combat role" of thief with their "backstab", we would prevent the need for "Striker" role from developing separately from the "Defender" role.

"Leader" role is the greatest lie in the game.
In a Regiment, there is One and Only One Surgeon during the Napoleon Era and Earlier Era of War.
The Colonel and the Surgeon symbolically merged together to form this "Leader" role because you cannot "magically heal" in the Real World.
Instead of healing in the Real World, Colonels of Regiments (represented as a Party of 2 to 8) recruit new soldiers (represented as Character Hit Points).

A Regiment would have 4 to 8 Battalions.
Note that there are 3 roles in each battalion; here are the Napoleon's Style Battalion:
Line Infantry: fusilier (4 defenders), grenadier (1 heavy striker), voltigeur (1 mobility striker)
Light Infantry: chasseur (4 light defender), carabinier (1 medium striker), voltigeur (1 mobility striker)

Here is British Style Battalion:
Line Infantry: line company (8 defenders), flank company (2 mobility striker)

Napoleon's units have seniority from left to right in order.
British units have seniority from right left alternation and flank to center.