You’re playing the game “wrong” (subverting role expectations)

[Spo]

When people sit at the table, they often introduce themselves by their class, and thus set up certain expectations of their role in the group. “I’m a fighter“ (read melee damage); “I’m a cleric” (read healer); “I’m a barbarian” (read tank). Or new to the table players may often ask “what does the party need?” (What role should I feel?).

Some people get so fixed to their expectations of the roles these classes are suppose to represent that they feel betrayed when a person plays them “wrong”.

I’ve experienced this several times over the years and have involved me playing my character as oppose to my role.

For example:

Goblin battle master fighter with crossbow expert. Played him as a range fighter. This upset the rogue player bc he was expecting me to be the tank.

High elf wizard. Barbarian player got upset when I was on the frontline with bladesong.

Sun soul monk. Wizard upset because I’m not engaging enemies in melee allowing them to engage in melee with the whole party.

It’s interesting that for a game that oftentimes highlights the fact that your imagination is the only limit, people are still tied to the concepts that by only having a “well balanced” party ( with the holy trinity of roles being fulfilled - tank, damage, healing) does a successful party make.

Have you played in an unbalanced group and been successful? Have you experienced the “your playing your class wrong” mentality yourselves?

[Democratus]

You don't really need to optimize for combat in 5e.

The most important thing is to have a good "session 0".

Everyone making a character should talk to everyone else during the creation process. Make sure that your intentions for your PC are made clear to the other players.

[Millstone85]

Our cleric is a subverter of expectations, and pretty much refuses to cast any healing spell.

I think it has contributed to our party being, well, cowardly. A shortcut through the mountain, far from Moria-sized, with the familiar reporting a spectator boss? We are six 11th-level characters? Yeah, let's continue on the mountain path.

[prabe]

Even though 5E doesn't do or have much in the way of niche-protection, I still think it's a valid concern around a table--and some of the OP's examples seem as though some of the reason people are upset is that the OP's characters are stepping on another's toes. In the instance of the cleric who doesn't do healing, it (potentially) weakens the party--I don't know that I'd necessarily call it "cowardice" if the party declines encounters they consider to be above their pay-grade.

As has been mentioned, having a good Session Zero (or equivalent--I find that you can manage a lot of this online before an in-person game) works wonders for avoiding people being upset or wrong-footed when someone builds against-type.

[MrStabby]

I don't know where the issue is in some of these.

Complaining that a class usesits class features to do something unexpected seems a bit unfair. The class has those features, why not use them?

Now, if a player had been secretive or even misleading about what they were playing and how they were to play it leading to other players making choices that are less fun for them - then yeah, they have a right to be a bit put out. Not because you shouldn't have played what you did, but because you had mislead them - even if you didn't lie to them. Apart from the fighter - I think a fighter is equally ranged as melee in peoples expectations so I think this one is on the resentful player.

I don't think a party needs balance - but a table does need people to play together without resentment. Play what you want, but support other players having fun as well.

[Misterwhisper]

I was told that I play my rogue wrong because “if you want infiltration play a different game, dnd is not that kind of game”

Also because I played them as a Velcro rogue as I called it.
Swashbuckler with sentinel and later mage slayer.

I got in peoples face and stayed there and shanked them if they tried things.

[HappyDaze]

I was told that I play my rogue wrong because “if you want infiltration play a different game, dnd is not that kind of game”

Also because I played them as a Velcro rogue as I called it.
Swashbuckler with sentinel and later mage slayer.

I got in peoples face and stayed there and shanked them if they tried things.

If mean "a game with clear and functional stealth vs perception" then they're somewhat right. If they mean a game of social engineering, deception and other tradecraft to infiltrate, then they're really right because if you're doing it right, many of the other PCs will have minimal roles to play.

[prabe]

If mean "a game with clear and functional stealth vs perception" then they're somewhat right. If they mean a game of social engineering, deception and other tradecraft to infiltrate, then they're really right because if you're doing it right, many of the other PCs will have minimal roles to play.

Yeah. I can see the other players not wanting to do that, for that reason. I can see the DM not wanting to do it, for that reason and because there's not a lot of mechanical support in the rules for that sort of game. You can do it, but you're looking at houserules and/or homebrew (using those as adjusting existing rules and writing new ones, respectively), and that's a lot of work for something that also shunts other PCs out of the metaphorical spotlight.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If mean "a game with clear and functional stealth vs perception" then they're somewhat right. If they mean a game of social engineering, deception and other tradecraft to infiltrate, then they're really right because if you're doing it right, many of the other PCs will have minimal roles to play.

There are ways to keep the other players engaged while a rogue does the rogue stuff. Saying that certain tables aren't geared for that style of play is a fair statement, saying the game system isn't is flat out false.

"If you want to play infiltration, don't play it with us because we don't want to" is fair. "If you want to play infiltration, don't play DND" is not.


because there's not a lot of mechanical support in the rules for that sort of game. You can do it, but you're looking at houserules and/or homebrew (using those as adjusting existing rules and writing new ones, respectively), and that's a lot of work for something that also shunts other PCs out of the metaphorical spotlight.

What rules aren't there? You can disguise, pick locks, sneak, surprise people and even subtly poison people.

Again, not being at the right table for that kind of game is a fair point, but the system is plenty capable of running that kind of game.

[HPisBS]

... Apart from the fighter - I think a fighter is equally ranged as melee in peoples expectations so I think this one is on the resentful player.

Sure. But, to be fair, if the party is otherwise lacking a tank, then it'd be a fair expectation for the one who's capable of tanking to keep enemies off of the squishies - when needed.

It's perfectly valid for the whole party to try to stay at range, but once something gets up close, I'd definitely expect the fighter, monk, etc to put away the crossbow and keep the monster off of the rogue, sorcerer, etc. (Particularly if said PC seemed scared of melee.)

[MrStabby]

There are ways to keep the other players engaged while a rogue does the rogue stuff. Saying that certain tables aren't geared for that style of play is a fair statement, saying the game system isn't is flat out false.

"If you want to play infiltration, don't play it with us because we don't want to" is fair. "If you want to play infiltration, don't play DND" is not.



What rules aren't there? You can disguise, pick locks, sneak, surprise people and even subtly poison people.

Again, not being at the right table for that kind of game is a fair point, but the system is plenty capable of running that kind of game.


I think playing infiltartion in D&D is fine, as long as a player is happy to infiltrate whilst the others are smashing down the door and using their class features as well.

[patchyman]

You don't really need to optimize for combat in 5e.

The most important thing is to have a good "session 0".

Everyone making a character should talk to everyone else during the creation process. Make sure that your intentions for your PC are made clear to the other players.

I was going to say the same thing. This is a good tip for a DM though: during Session Zero it is not sufficient to ask what class a player intends to play, but what role they intend to fill in the party.

[Misterwhisper]

There are ways to keep the other players engaged while a rogue does the rogue stuff. Saying that certain tables aren't geared for that style of play is a fair statement, saying the game system isn't is flat out false.

"If you want to play infiltration, don't play it with us because we don't want to" is fair. "If you want to play infiltration, don't play DND" is not.



What rules aren't there? You can disguise, pick locks, sneak, surprise people and even subtly poison people.

Again, not being at the right table for that kind of game is a fair point, but the system is plenty capable of running that kind of game.

My situation was more arming the lines of, i was at the corner of a long hallway scouting ahead of the group, around the corner about 25ft from the corner was a pair of guards in front of a door, by the rules, as soon as I come around that corner I am instantly spotted because there is no cover.

So one of the teams full casters just casts a spell at them instead of anything stealthy.

The wizard or maybe the sorlock, just said “your whole role is pointless we can just do everything with spells, just scout and shoot something with a bow.”

“I am a melee rogue not an archer.”

“Then you suck, rogues are not good in melee. You are an elf, just use a longbow”

“I am a half elf, not a full elf, I will stick with charisma and melee thanks.”

“We have a bard, so you are pointless, just wait for combat, use a short bow cause you aren’t even good with a longbow and when you die play something better”

This was all a mix of in character and out.

The long term lesson was that some classes are just not good enough to be in a long term hard game type setting like rogues, warlocks, or monks.

Also there was the lesson of “don’t constantly insult the LE rogue and call him useless.”

Of course there did not know I was evil for a very long time after that when I completed my mission under their nose.

[Nifft]

When people sit at the table, they often introduce themselves by their class, and thus set up certain expectations of their role in the group. “I’m a fighter“ (read melee damage); “I’m a cleric” (read healer); “I’m a barbarian” (read tank). Or new to the table players may often ask “what does the party need?” (What role should I feel?).

Some people get so fixed to their expectations of the roles these classes are suppose to represent that they feel betrayed when a person plays them “wrong”.

I’ve experienced this several times over the years and have involved me playing my character as oppose to my role.

For example:

Goblin battle master fighter with crossbow expert. Played him as a range fighter. This upset the rogue player bc he was expecting me to be the tank.

High elf wizard. Barbarian player got upset when I was on the frontline with bladesong.

Sun soul monk. Wizard upset because I’m not engaging enemies in melee allowing them to engage in melee with the whole party.

It’s interesting that for a game that oftentimes highlights the fact that your imagination is the only limit, people are still tied to the concepts that by only having a “well balanced” party ( with the holy trinity of roles being fulfilled - tank, damage, healing) does a successful party make.

Have you played in an unbalanced group and been successful? Have you experienced the “your playing your class wrong” mentality yourselves?

Unbalanced play can be great, but upsetting fellow players sounds kinda awful.

Were you intending to upset your fellow players?

[MrStabby]

My situation was more arming the lines of, i was at the corner of a long hallway scouting ahead of the group, around the corner about 25ft from the corner was a pair of guards in front of a door, by the rules, as soon as I come around that corner I am instantly spotted because there is no cover.

So one of the teams full casters just casts a spell at them instead of anything stealthy.

The wizard or maybe the sorlock, just said “your whole role is pointless we can just do everything with spells, just scout and shoot something with a bow.”

“I am a melee rogue not an archer.”

“Then you suck, rogues are not good in melee. You are an elf, just use a longbow”

“I am a half elf, not a full elf, I will stick with charisma and melee thanks.”

“We have a bard, so you are pointless, just wait for combat, use a short bow cause you aren’t even good with a longbow and when you die play something better”

This was all a mix of in character and out.

The long term lesson was that some classes are just not good enough to be in a long term hard game type setting like rogues, warlocks, or monks.

Also there was the lesson of “don’t constantly insult the LE rogue and call him useless.”

Of course there did not know I was evil for a very long time after that when I completed my mission under their nose.

Well this is a few different issues. It isn't so much that D&D doesnt support infilatration, but rather that the best ways of doing tend to involve magic rather than skills.

Some of it is the other people in your group telling you how to play your character - expecting you to shoot a bow when you don't want to is much like expecting them to hold back on casting spells on guards when they don't want to. There is a circumstance and each player gets to respond to that in their own way. If you want to play a melee rogue that is your perogative. The only exception I would make is for a player actively disrupting the game or acting against the party.

As is so often the case, this seems like a lack of communication. Or maybe not. I do love the rogue class but would never play one in a game with a bard or wizard in the party.

[prabe]

What rules aren't there? You can disguise, pick locks, sneak, surprise people and even subtly poison people.

Again, not being at the right table for that kind of game is a fair point, but the system is plenty capable of running that kind of game.

In 5E, the rules for doing things (any things) outside of combat are much less detailed than the ones for doing them inside of combat. This isn't necessarily a bug, but if you're going to run a whole session (or more) using those less-detailed out-of-combat rules, you're going to be walking on a high wire, not a ledge, and definitely not on a sidewalk (to extend a metaphor some). Some DMs might find that intimidating.

Also, running in split-screen might be something the DM isn't comfortable doing. If only some (or one) of the PCs wants an infiltration (or, say, heist) adventure--or wants to attain a goal thereby--it's not unreasonable for the DM to want the party to all be doing the same thing. As you say, this is more table than game-system, especially if the other players all want the party to be doing the same thing/s, and/or are going to make a point of making some approaches non-viable.

[MoiMagnus]

Have you played in an unbalanced group and been successful? Have you experienced the “your playing your class wrong” mentality yourselves?

Having an unbalanced group is not a problem per se.
[Well, it will change the gameplay style, which can be a problem. For example, if you like DMing epic battles with "big monster with a big sword" and that the PC team is not able to survive any direct confrontation and plan to avoid most battles through stealth, diplomacy, or sending NPCs to fight instead, you might feel very frustrated as a DM.]

The unbalance being a surprise, because the party "looked balanced" but really isn't, is a problem. Betraying expectation is bad, and that's why session 0 is important.

Note the difference between betraying expectations and subverting them. Which usually depends on how important were the expectations you're breaking, and how well what you give in exchange compensates for what is missing.

[prabe]

My situation was more arming the lines of, i was at the corner of a long hallway scouting ahead of the group, around the corner about 25ft from the corner was a pair of guards in front of a door, by the rules, as soon as I come around that corner I am instantly spotted because there is no cover.

So one of the teams full casters just casts a spell at them instead of anything stealthy.

The wizard or maybe the sorlock, just said “your whole role is pointless we can just do everything with spells, just scout and shoot something with a bow.”

“I am a melee rogue not an archer.”

“Then you suck, rogues are not good in melee. You are an elf, just use a longbow”

“I am a half elf, not a full elf, I will stick with charisma and melee thanks.”

“We have a bard, so you are pointless, just wait for combat, use a short bow cause you aren’t even good with a longbow and when you die play something better”

This was all a mix of in character and out.

The long term lesson was that some classes are just not good enough to be in a long term hard game type setting like rogues, warlocks, or monks.

Also there was the lesson of “don’t constantly insult the LE rogue and call him useless.”

Of course there did not know I was evil for a very long time after that when I completed my mission under their nose.

That sounds as much like player asshattery as anything having to do with the rules. I haven't seen any class be useless in any of the 5E games I've been involved with (up to level 10, I think). That might be because no one is being particularly ruthless about character optimization, of course, as well as with the situations the parties have found themselves in.

[kyoryu]

Eh, it's your character.

But if you're taking a cleric and know the party is expecting you to heal, and you have no intention of healing, then tell them.

Subverting role expectations is fine, and builds that do non-typical things are fine.

Letting your party believe you're going to do something that you don't is much less cool.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

My solution is to give the character personality and tools instead of the class.
I am a paladin said the follower of Tyr with only 2 levels in the paladin class(burning the evil with burning hand is fun).

I am an assassin said the fighter CBE+SS kobold(I did have teeth(I love this typo) tools and Poisoner's Kit).

I am an archivist said the bard.

I am a gladiator said the front line tank sorclock.




Eh, it's your character.

But if you're taking a cleric and know the party is expecting you to heal, and you have no intention of healing, then tell them.

Subverting role expectations is fine, and builds that do non-typical things are fine.

Letting your party believe you're going to do something that you don't is much less cool.

Exactly. In one of the games I am a lore bard, I told my friends in the start "I will not have healing spells or (combat)buffs"

Another player said "OK, I want to take healing"

[RSP]

My situation was more arming the lines of, i was at the corner of a long hallway scouting ahead of the group, around the corner about 25ft from the corner was a pair of guards in front of a door, by the rules, as soon as I come around that corner I am instantly spotted because there is no cover.

So one of the teams full casters just casts a spell at them instead of anything stealthy.


First, the guards don’t necessarily auto-notice. Even if the lighting conditions are in their favor, they aren’t necessarily always alert. Now, that said, yes, they’ll notice someone approaching them if all they’re watching is a long, well-lit hallway.

But there’s a couple issues I see here.

The first is one that I often see, which is the “I want to scout ahead.” This, in my experience and opinion, leads to an imbalance of “solo time” for the scout. This impacts fun (which is the only real way to play “wrong” in my opinion), in that the other Players are doing nothing every time the Scout wants to go it alone.

Further, (and it seems this is what you were alluding to as your next step had it been possible) it gives the Scout all the decision-making for the group. If the Scout wants to engage and surprise the guards, they do. With everyone else being surprised (as they’re unaware of enemy combatants at this point), and then spending turns and actions trying to catch up to the Scout and get in on the combat, which, again, affects fun, as Players usually don’t like waiting through turns of combat just to say “I Dash” and then waiting some more.

Had the Scout seen the guards and then, with no further actions, returned to tell the group to plan their next move, it’s less an issue (though still in my opinion gives too much solo time to the Scout if done regularly).

To be fair, if the Caster, after the Scout returns with the news of the guards, decides on their own to cast a spell at the guards without taking the group into consideration, they’re just as guilty of taking that decision from the group, same as if the Scout did.

As others have stated, this (and other issues pointed out in the thread) comes down to a good session zero, and the group all being okay with how each player sees their character acting. If one Player wants to sneak through dungeons by themself, while the other four Players want to explore together, something’s not going to work out.

[Spo]

Unbalanced play can be great, but upsetting fellow players sounds kinda awful.

Were you intending to upset your fellow players?

Not. At. All.

The concept for my goblin hand crossbow guy was to weave in and out of combat using his disengagement feature and create havoc with the battle master maneuvers. He didn’t want to stand there toe to toe with the enemy exchanging hits like a sword and board fighter.

Perhaps this was the play style the rogue player wanted to employ but saw that I was doing better than him?

As for my blade singer wizard, he just dance around enemies keeping the aggro on him instead of throwing fireballs as was expected by the barbarian player.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

My solution is to give the character personality and tools instead of the class.
I am a paladin said the follower of Tyr with only 2 levels in the paladin class(burning the evil with burning hand is fun).

I am an assassin said the fighter CBE+SS kobold(I did have teeth(I love this typo) tools and Poisoner's Kit).

I am an archivist said the bard.

I am a gladiator said the front line tank sorclock.





Exactly. In one of the games I am a lore bard, I told my friends in the start "I will not have healing spells or (combat)buffs"

Another player said "OK, I want to take healing"


This. My character sheets don't even have general classes written unless it actually fits the description I'm going for.

If you look at my descriptions and my character sheets the four PCs I have in play say Amethyst Guard, Weather Sage, Inventor, Genie.

All together it's a tank, Controller, Healer/Trap Finder and DPS. My game's weird where I can switch out PCs depending on what's going on.

I've never described anything in terms of class. You can guess based on actions I take (IE the Weather Sage acts in a way that you'd assume is a Wizard until she gives an Inspiration Dice.) But the mechanics don't come up.

[kyoryu]

Not. At. All.

The concept for my goblin hand crossbow guy was to weave in and out of combat using his disengagement feature and create havoc with the battle master maneuvers. He didn’t want to stand there toe to toe with the enemy exchanging hits like a sword and board fighter.

Perhaps this was the play style the rogue player wanted to employ but saw that I was doing better than him?

As for my blade singer wizard, he just dance around enemies keeping the aggro on him instead of throwing fireballs as was expected by the barbarian player.

I mean a lot of it is team composition, right? So if people are making character decisions based on reasonable assumptions and you don't meet those assumptions? I think there's a reasonable level of irritation.

It's still your character. You still get to make the character you want.

But if you're not going to fill the implied role, and others are making decisions on that, I think it's a good idea to be clear about what you're doing.

If the person made a rogue figuring that with the fighter support they'd be in a good position to use their abilities, and then you're not doing that? You've made their lives tougher. You still have the right to do that, but being clear about what you're doing just makes it easier for everyone.

[Man on Fire]

When people sit at the table, they often introduce themselves by their class, and thus set up certain expectations of their role in the group. “I’m a fighter“ (read melee damage); “I’m a cleric” (read healer); “I’m a barbarian” (read tank). Or new to the table players may often ask “what does the party need?” (What role should I feel?).

Some people get so fixed to their expectations of the roles these classes are suppose to represent that they feel betrayed when a person plays them “wrong”.

I’ve experienced this several times over the years and have involved me playing my character as oppose to my role.

For example:

Goblin battle master fighter with crossbow expert. Played him as a range fighter. This upset the rogue player bc he was expecting me to be the tank.

High elf wizard. Barbarian player got upset when I was on the frontline with bladesong.

Sun soul monk. Wizard upset because I’m not engaging enemies in melee allowing them to engage in melee with the whole party.

It’s interesting that for a game that oftentimes highlights the fact that your imagination is the only limit, people are still tied to the concepts that by only having a “well balanced” party ( with the holy trinity of roles being fulfilled - tank, damage, healing) does a successful party make.

Have you played in an unbalanced group and been successful? Have you experienced the “your playing your class wrong” mentality yourselves?

I would just tell people they have no right to tell you how to play your character. You do not disturb the game, you do not steal the spotlight or wreck anything, they have no right to demand from you to change how you play, especially when it reveals their own lack of flexibility.

[LudicSavant]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people treat an entire class (especially the more versatile ones) as if they were a single character, and always filled the same role.

[Corran]

I would just tell people they have no right to tell you how to play your character. You do not disturb the game, you do not steal the spotlight or wreck anything, they have no right to demand from you to change how you play, especially when it reveals their own lack of flexibility.
It can be a little more complicated than that:
John is excited to start playing in his friend's new campaign, and after much thinking he decided he wanted to play a very cool two weapon fighting ranger. He joins the game and finds out that the rest of the players are playing a mix of casters skirmishers and archers. He doesn't think too much of it. The game starts, and when finally it's time for the first combat, John has his character charge at the enemies. When it's the enemies' turn, John's character (let's call him John the Awesome) drops unconscious from the enemies' blows. John does not think too much of it. The second battle is a similar story, and now John starts blaming the dice and his bad luck. But after a few more fights, he realizes that John the Awesome is not that awesome at engaging all the enemies by himself. He is understandably upset, dreading the moment when the GM throws fights at them, and every time his character goes down, he thinks less and less about him. John thinks that having a little more melee support would help tremendously in actually starting enjoying his character more, but none of the other players is willing to change their character, and the DM does not seem very keen on adding any DMPC's or in adjusting the difficulty of the encounters.

Who is at fault here? Is it John? He could very easily just change character, but he doesn't because he wants to stick with John the Awesome, both because he likes the character, but also because he likes the idea of playing a nimble dual weapon wielder fighter of the wilderness. Is it the fault of the other players? If John is not willing to change his character, why should the other players be held responsible for doing exactly the same thing? Should we pass the buck to the GM then? That's an easy solution to this problem, but I'd say that it's not exactly fair to do so. The GM might very well not want to add any DMPC's, because they think it would make the fights last longer and he doesn't want that. Neither does he want to have to roleplay these extra bodies. Nor is it the DM's responsibility to spend additional hours making sure that every encounter is well suited against such an imbalanced party, and even if the DM has the time and the skill to do so, they might just not want to, because that's not their style.

The thing is, that if you are playing a team game, in which what you do affects others and not just you, you have a responsibility to do things while thinking of others too, instead of just thinking about yourself and hiding behind a selfish ''no one tells me what to do'' attitude . Dnd is like any other team game. Consider football. Nobody wants to be the goalie, but it's not like everyone can do as they like, because if there's no goalkeeper you wont really be able to play and enjoy the game. So you might have to take turns at being the goalie, or figure something else out. The point is that in any team game, your decisions affect more than just yourself, so you should make them with that in mind too.

[Man on Fire]

It can be a little more complicated than that:
John is excited to start playing in his friend's new campaign, and after much thinking he decided he wanted to play a very cool two weapon fighting ranger. He joins the game and finds out that the rest of the players are playing a mix of casters skirmishers and archers. He doesn't think too much of it. The game starts, and when finally it's time for the first combat, John has his character charge at the enemies. When it's the enemies' turn, John's character (let's call him John the Awesome) drops unconscious from the enemies' blows. John does not think too much of it. The second battle is a similar story, and now John starts blaming the dice and his bad luck. But after a few more fights, he realizes that John the Awesome is not that awesome at engaging all the enemies by himself. He is understandably upset, dreading the moment when the GM throws fights at them, and every time his character goes down, he thinks less and less about him. John thinks that having a little more melee support would help tremendously in actually starting enjoying his character more, but none of the other players is willing to change their character, and the DM does not seem very keen on adding any DMPC's or in adjusting the difficulty of the encounters.

Who is at fault here? Is it John? He could very easily just change character, but he doesn't because he wants to stick with John the Awesome, both because he likes the character, but also because he likes the idea of playing a nimble dual weapon wielder fighter of the wilderness. Is it the fault of the other players? If John is not willing to change his character, why should the other players be held responsible for doing exactly the same thing? Should we pass the buck to the GM then? That's an easy solution to this problem, but I'd say that it's not exactly fair to do so. The GM might very well not want to add any DMPC's, because they think it would make the fights last longer and he doesn't want that. Neither does he want to have to roleplay these extra bodies. Nor is it the DM's responsibility to spend additional hours making sure that every encounter is well suited against such an imbalanced party, and even if the DM has the time and the skill to do so, they might just not want to, because that's not their style.

The thing is, that if you are playing a team game, in which what you do affects others and not just you, you have a responsibility to do things while thinking of others too, instead of just thinking about yourself and hiding behind a selfish ''no one tells me what to do'' attitude . Dnd is like any other team game. Consider football. Nobody wants to be the goalie, but it's not like everyone can do as they like, because if there's no goalkeeper you wont really be able to play and enjoy the game. So you might have to take turns at being the goalie, or figure something else out.

This is literally the problem that can be solved with two words: session zero. Talk to other people what they're making. Thow a "test" fight so you can see if your concept works and be allowed to change it. It's literally "we could have avoided all of this" scenario if everyone just talked what they're making.

Also, there is a difference between the two scenarios. In your scenario the problem can be solved by John simply changing his stratery, maybe talking with DM to change few feats or styles to be be able to execute hit and run tactics or stop enemies who charge his allies. In OP's case there is no indication any of these characters wasn't there to support the others, the other players were just mad they do not fit a stereotype. Battlemaster with a crossbow who shoots people still makes a good tank, even if probably a dodge type of a tank, not a meatshield. Battledancer Wizard still casts spells normally, just isn't afraid of going into meele. These people demanded that other player forsakes their fun for not fitting into an outdated idea of d&d stereotypes

[Corran]

This is literally the problem that can be solved with two words: session zero. Talk to other people what they're making. Thow a "test" fight so you can see if your concept works and be allowed to change it. It's literally "we could have avoided all of this" scenario if everyone just talked what they're making.
Sure. It can even be solved by the GM, by fudging a few rolls, or by giving John the Awesome a few extra magic items, or in many other ways. My point was not to find solutions for the problem presented. It was to highlight what caused it. Specifically a lack of team spirit, exhibited from everyone involved in that situation.


Also, there is a difference between the two scenarios. In your scenario the problem can be solved by John simply changing his stratery, maybe talking with DM to change few feats or styles to be be able to execute hit and run tactics or stop enemies who charge his allies. In OP's case there is no indication any of these characters wasn't there to support the others, the other players were just mad they do not fit a stereotype.
I am not sure I would necessarily agree with your conclusion, though I think it's possible that you may very well be right. I was not responding to the OP though, I was responding to your post. When your decisions affect others, then those others have every right of demanding whatever they might want of you. Sure, they cant make you do anything (nor should they, at least within the context of what is just a game). But saying they have no right to be upset or happy or whatever else, and expressing that sentiment, and suggesting solutions to what they might (for good or bad) perceive as a problem, is missing the simple truth that your decisions/actions do in fact affect others. Ignoring it or not understanding it does not make it any less selfish (cause it's just a game) if you do things without thinking how these things affect everyone else. I understand I may come off as rather obnoxious, so let me add, that there have been several occasions where I simply played just the character I wanted, without even thinking to ask what anyone else would be playing. In short, it seemed to me that your post defended what I would call an everyone for themselves attitude in what is actually a team game, and I find such a stance very counterproductive, at least if it is a permanent deal.

@Man on Fire: Perhaps the thread is more about the roles/stereotypes each class is assumed to cover, and all I am doing is accidentally derailing it. I'll read any reply you might want to give, but I'll hold back from responding to it.

[HappyDaze]

There are ways to keep the other players engaged while a rogue does the rogue stuff. Saying that certain tables aren't geared for that style of play is a fair statement, saying the game system isn't is flat out false.

"If you want to play infiltration, don't play it with us because we don't want to" is fair. "If you want to play infiltration, don't play DND" is not.



What rules aren't there? You can disguise, pick locks, sneak, surprise people and even subtly poison people.

Again, not being at the right table for that kind of game is a fair point, but the system is plenty capable of running that kind of game.

Nonsense. Does the game provide you with a procedural process for resolving anything with the level of detail that combat gets? No, it flat-out doesn't. The game has several pieces of rules that cover identities and disguises, but nothing coherent. Does it take a Deception check? How many? What DC? Is it opposed? Is there a range or an area of effect? For these the rules are either silent or minimal.

[Warlush]

You don't really need to optimize for combat in 5e.

The most important thing is to have a good "session 0".

Everyone making a character should talk to everyone else during the creation process. Make sure that your intentions for your PC are made clear to the other players.

This is literally THE answer to every example problem listed. 5e is a mutually agreed upon illusion. If you all know what you want, and none of the expectations contradict there is know reason why it can't be done. It's an imagination based game.
Yeah we've all played with people who drive us nuts, but it has nothing to do with 5e or classes or spell selection or party roles. It's because our desires and expectations conflict.

[D.U.P.A.]

This is why I like 5e. You can make a tanky wizard, a sneaky barbarian or support fighter. People should stop to assume a role just based on a class and ask the player directly what does his character do. A good role variety for a party is definitely needed, but do not just solely on class.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Nonsense. Does the game provide you with a procedural process for resolving anything with the level of detail that combat gets? No, it flat-out doesn't. The game has several pieces of rules that cover identities and disguises, but nothing coherent. Does it take a Deception check? How many? What DC? Is it opposed? Is there a range or an area of effect? For these the rules are either silent or minimal.

Stealth/Disguise Kit Check vs Passive perception, Deception vs Insight. The rules are minimal because outside of combat you don't need such rigorous coverage, you are encouraged heavily to rule within your own interests.

Can you imagine how difficult it must be for characters to get drunk in game? There are literally no rules about it. Let's not even bother with trying to get someone else drunk to loosen their lips for information, that's a 200 IQ move and I don't know if I could handle it without the book having a step by step process of the saving throws and alcohol percentages by race/weight you would need to get someone drunk enough to spill information but not drunk enough to pass out. It's a fine line and I'm worried I'd cross it if I didn't have the rules to guide me, best just to not let my players do that period. Phew, they almost did something fun and creative, that's not really what DND is about though.

I'm getting the feeling that it's somehow become taboo to just role play a bit where there can be an ad lib interaction between the DM and a Player that isn't gone over in agonizing detail in a rule book. I'm not so cynical yet that I can't trust people to know how to improvise a response to "I want to attempt X thing".

[Pex]

Stealth/Disguise Kit Check vs Passive perception, Deception vs Insight. The rules are minimal because outside of combat you don't need such rigorous coverage, you are encouraged heavily to rule within your own interests.

Can you imagine how difficult it must be for characters to get drunk in game? There are literally no rules about it. Let's not even bother with trying to get someone else drunk to loosen their lips for information, that's a 200 IQ move and I don't know if I could handle it without the book having a step by step process of the saving throws and alcohol percentages by race/weight you would need to get someone drunk enough to spill information but not drunk enough to pass out. It's a fine line and I'm worried I'd cross it if I didn't have the rules to guide me, best just to not let my players do that period. Phew, they almost did something fun and creative, that's not really what DND is about though.

I'm getting the feeling that it's somehow become taboo to just role play a bit where there can be an ad lib interaction between the DM and a Player that isn't gone over in agonizing detail in a rule book. I'm not so cynical yet that I can't trust people to know how to improvise a response to "I want to attempt X thing".

You say it's vs passive perception. What if someone else makes it an opposed roll? Are they playing wrong? No, they're not, but how the game is played is different. A person can just roleplay, so is it an autosuccess then or does it matter how convincing the player is saying whatever he's saying?

[HappyDaze]

Stealth/Disguise Kit Check vs Passive perception, Deception vs Insight. The rules are minimal because outside of combat you don't need such rigorous coverage, you are encouraged heavily to rule within your own interests.


For some, that might work. For others, that would be as exciting as combat being resolved by a single attack roll vs. AC or forcing the enemy to make a single save. There's no particularly reason that combat needs more rigorous coverage other than than D&D being heavily focused on combat. Other games that place emphasis on other areas might just be superior games if those areas are more important than combat.

But, by all means, blue text all you like.

[Spriteless]

It seems like the OP had a communication issue, which other players took as a reason to blame OP for playing wrong. Just say your planned role instead of your class OP. I am going to be a melee skirmisher, never you mind what classes I use to build it.

It seems the thread is going off on philosophy of the game issues, that wouldn't have conflict in a real game that has good communication. Seems like the internet. Hey internet, maybe say 'set expectations' instead of 'have a session zero' because 'session zero' is kind of specialized language. About communicating expectations for the game.

And what is with all the confrontational blaming language? Oh wait.

[Pex]

In any case, it is bad form to say a class must be played a certain way. It's not new to D&D. Cleric is the king of expectations. To some people if you're not a healbot you're playing wrong. I've heard that since 2E. It's always possible a player can be taught not to stereotype, but I've found it's not easy for those set in their belief. To their eyes any time something goes wrong (a PC drops, the bad guy gets away, you miss an attack roll) it's proof of your fault instead of it being it happens sometimes.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You say it's vs passive perception. What if someone else makes it an opposed roll? Are they playing wrong? No, they're not, but how the game is played is different. A person can just roleplay, so is it an autosuccess then or does it matter how convincing the player is saying whatever he's saying?

The statement was made that DND can't/shouldn't be played in this way and the many examples given (some by you here) that it can be played that way in several different ways is more proving my point than arguing against it.

Making concrete rules for those is valid, using the existing rules and filling in the blanks as needed is valid. All approaches are valid, except for the one where you say it can't be done.


For some, that might work. For others, that would be as exciting as combat being resolved by a single attack roll vs. AC or forcing the enemy to make a single save. There's no particularly reason that combat needs more rigorous coverage other than than D&D being heavily focused on combat. Other games that place emphasis on other areas might just be superior games if those areas are more important than combat.

I suppose not, but the consequences involved in a combat encounter tend to be immediately more impactful than those outside of one. The rigid structure of the rules in combat goes a long way to make sure that players aren't feeling cheated without an opportunity to react to a creature attacking them.

I know it's a bit of an inside joke that 5E doesn't actually have 3 pillars of play, just combat, but I don't fault the rules for that, I fault there being an unwillingness for many people to roam outside of those rules even when given permission to do so. The multitude of different rulings only really becomes an issue when you're playing at many different tables, so perhaps my experience of having a steady group where my DM is consistent with his own rulings leads my perspective in a different direction.

The blue text was in hindsight a poor way at communicating my point. It is, in my opinion, just as much nonsense to say that the rules must cover every conceivable situation with the same rigidness as they do combat. Citing the lack of rules supporting something is a poor argument against the system not being capable of doing those things, especially when you're not actually citing a strict lack of rules but a lack of rules you find "good". That isn't to say there aren't aspects of the game rules that are definitely lacking, I just don't find the espionage rules to be lacking so much that using them isn't an option as they are now.

[Nifft]

It seems like the OP had a communication issue

At least 3 such issues.


Anyway, it's worth noting that "subverting expectations" can be the accidental result of innocent miscommunication, or it can be the deliberate result of a jerk acting in bad faith (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0022.html). I've seen both IRL.

Session Zero is always a good idea, and in this case helps reduce the chance of innocent miscommunication and also reduces the cover for bad-faith jerks.

[KorvinStarmast]

during Session Zero it is not sufficient to ask what class a player intends to play, but what role they intend to fill in the party.The party is supposed to form a team - that's an underlying assumption of the game. I like the way you put that.
Unbalanced play can be great, but upsetting fellow players sounds kinda awful. Teamwork is even better, though.


Eh, it's your character. But if you're taking a cleric and know the party is expecting you to heal, and you have no intention of healing, then tell them. -snip-
Letting your party believe you're going to do something that you don't is much less cool. That's another good way to put it.


Consider football. Nobody wants to be the goalie, Huh? I liked playing goalie.

Anyway, it's worth noting that "subverting expectations" can be the accidental result of innocent miscommunication, or it can be the deliberate result of a jerk acting in bad faith (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0022.html). I've seen both IRL. Also a good point.
For the OP:
Most important thing to do is be a good team mate and make the team's success your overarching goal. Communicate: that's how good teams functions well.

[Tanarii]

I played in AL. I ran an open table at three different stores for my own campaign.

In official play it's almost expected that everyone that isn't a new player will bring some bizarre race/multiclass/feat combination to the table, often designed to be good at something niche, and it doesn't necessarily have much to do with preconceptions of their class. Every once in a while I saw someone bring an attitude.

I saw this occasionally IMC too, because pick up groups were the standard. Typically some variation of "you should be healing/in melee/out of melee". But it was rare because we had large groups, they had henchmen, so roles were often covered.

And of course I shut it down, because that's not acceptable attitude. Either stop or gtfo the table.

[FaerieGodfather]

And of course I shut it down, because that's not acceptable attitude. Either stop or gtfo the table.

Pretty much this. One warning, zero tolerance: play your own character and mind your own business.

[JNAProductions]

Classes have default fluff and expectations. If the only thing you say before the game starts is "I'm bringing a Cleric," I'd expect at least some heals and buffs. If you show up with a Light Cleric who does absolutely nothing but blast, never prepares Bless or Healing Word, I'll be a bit miffed at you, because you didn't provide enough information.

If, on the other hand, you say "I'm bringing a Cleric, and I'll be the artillery," then I know that I shouldn't expect a standard Cleric. Tempest or Light with lots of boom.

To whoever said earlier something along the lines of "Don't even mention your class, just say what role you're filling," that's not a bad idea. As a player (and DEFINITELY as a DM) I'd still want to know what class you are, mechanically, but the role being filled is of more importance.

I definitely will echo those saying it's a result of communication issues. Work together as a team, and most importantly, make sure everyone is having fun.

[Nagog]

I've been in a great deal many unbalanced parties, typically missing the Healer or Tank. I've typically been the one to fill both, but whenever possible I ask what they party is lacking, then fill that role with a class that can also fill in elsewhere (Hence by love of Bards).

Playing in an unbalanced party just requires the DM to be a bit more aware of what they're throwing at the party. I'm currently DMing a party of a Hexblade, Battlesmith, Vigilante (homebrew rogue/ranger type), and arcane trickster. Without a dedicated healer, I have to be sure that they have resources like healing potions, npc access to restoration sells, etc. As long as that happens, everything tends to work out ok.

[Nagog]

It can be a little more complicated than that:
John is excited to start playing in his friend's new campaign, and after much thinking he decided he wanted to play a very cool two weapon fighting ranger. He joins the game and finds out that the rest of the players are playing a mix of casters skirmishers and archers. He doesn't think too much of it. The game starts, and when finally it's time for the first combat, John has his character charge at the enemies. When it's the enemies' turn, John's character (let's call him John the Awesome) drops unconscious from the enemies' blows. John does not think too much of it. The second battle is a similar story, and now John starts blaming the dice and his bad luck. But after a few more fights, he realizes that John the Awesome is not that awesome at engaging all the enemies by himself. He is understandably upset, dreading the moment when the GM throws fights at them, and every time his character goes down, he thinks less and less about him. John thinks that having a little more melee support would help tremendously in actually starting enjoying his character more, but none of the other players is willing to change their character, and the DM does not seem very keen on adding any DMPC's or in adjusting the difficulty of the encounters.

Who is at fault here? Is it John? He could very easily just change character, but he doesn't because he wants to stick with John the Awesome, both because he likes the character, but also because he likes the idea of playing a nimble dual weapon wielder fighter of the wilderness. Is it the fault of the other players? If John is not willing to change his character, why should the other players be held responsible for doing exactly the same thing? Should we pass the buck to the GM then? That's an easy solution to this problem, but I'd say that it's not exactly fair to do so. The GM might very well not want to add any DMPC's, because they think it would make the fights last longer and he doesn't want that. Neither does he want to have to roleplay these extra bodies. Nor is it the DM's responsibility to spend additional hours making sure that every encounter is well suited against such an imbalanced party, and even if the DM has the time and the skill to do so, they might just not want to, because that's not their style.


I think the go-to answer for me as a DM is to give John the Awesome some kind of magic item/ability that shores up his defenses/hp a bit more. As a DM, it's my job to ensure each of my players has fun, whether that means a combat against enemies they're specifically prepared for, or a social interaction that highlights the skills they enjoy using, or whatever situation helps them to have the most fun.

Another approach to this issue would be have the party face enemy archers/spellcasters. Counterspell and cover are gonna give the party a hard time, except for John the Awesome. He's perfectly capable of engaging the enemies up close, where he has the advantage.

[HappyDaze]

Playing in an unbalanced party just requires the DM to be a bit more aware of what they're throwing at the party. I'm currently DMing a party of a Hexblade, Battlesmith, Vigilante (homebrew rogue/ranger type), and arcane trickster. Without a dedicated healer, I have to be sure that they have resources like healing potions, npc access to restoration sells, etc. As long as that happens, everything tends to work out ok.

I'll argue that it instead requires the players to be more aware of their capabilities and weaknesses and to plan around them. The challenges don't have to be tailored by the DM to the group's strengths. Some groups just can't hack it, and failure should always be an option.

[kyoryu]

It can be a little more complicated than that:
John is excited to start playing in his friend's new campaign
...
Who is at fault here

John is at fault. 100%. But not for the reasons you mentioned.

John's character may be fine, but John is making very poor decisions. John built a light, non-tanky fighter (so some inherent tankiness, but that wasn't emphasized), and is charging solo into the midst of all the bad guys.

This is just dumb.

John should be thinking "Hey, I've got a character here who is fast and nimble. His goal should be to engage on the periphery of the fight. He can take some blows, but isn't a tank. Okay, I'm playing with a bunch of other skirmishers. Hrm, this could be tough but I can't take all the damage myself."

Probably the best bet in this case is for John to be near the fight, but only go in with the support of the rest of the party. Creating a situation where he will be the sole target of focus fire is just stupid. Hang back a turn or two, hold between the bad guys and the squishies. Let the bad guys take some damage as they draw in, and then start wiping them out with support.

Even for the tankiest character, drawing the fire of every enemy at once is a bad idea. It's doubly so for a character that was explicitly not designed to be tanky.

Tactics, people. They're just as important as the numbers on your sheet.

[prabe]

John is at fault. 100%. But not for the reasons you mentioned.

John's character may be fine, but John is making very poor decisions. John built a light, non-tanky fighter (so some inherent tankiness, but that wasn't emphasized), and is charging solo into the midst of all the bad guys.

This is just dumb.

{snip}

Tactics, people. They're just as important as the numbers on your sheet.

I don't entirely disagree, but if John is new to the game (which was my interpretation but may not be explicit in the text) then someone needs to sit down with him and explain this to him. Not necessarily the DM (though there does seem to be some implicit understanding that the DM is going to be the one teaching players who need it), but someone. Heck, even if John has been playing the game for a while he might have tactical blind spots.

[HappyDaze]

I don't entirely disagree, but if John is new to the game (which was my interpretation but may not be explicit in the text) then someone needs to sit down with him and explain this to him. Not necessarily the DM (though there does seem to be some implicit understanding that the DM is going to be the one teaching players who need it), but someone. Heck, even if John has been playing the game for a while he might have tactical blind spots.

Or we can accept that failure is a good teacher. Let John fail and learn from it. If he fails to learn from it, then that's John's fault.

[prabe]

Or we can accept that failure is a good teacher. Let John fail and learn from it. If he fails to learn from it, then that's John's fault.

Perhaps it depends on whether John recognizes his own shortcomings? Trying to help someone who doesn't realize he doesn't need help isn't likely to work out well.

If John does realize he needs help, though, he should be able to get it. Even if it's just someone handing him a copy of Live to Tell the Tale.

[Bobthewizard]

Goblin battle master fighter with crossbow expert. Played him as a range fighter. This upset the rogue player bc he was expecting me to be the tank.

High elf wizard. Barbarian player got upset when I was on the frontline with bladesong.

Sun soul monk. Wizard upset because I’m not engaging enemies in melee allowing them to engage in melee with the whole party.

These all seem to me that they had set expectations about a class without looking further into your character. Of course a goblin is going to be ranged, BA disengage is too useful for that. Of course a bladesinger is going to be in melee and a sun soul monk is going to use their 30' ranged attacks. I think you played all of your characters exactly as they should be played. There just appears to have been some miscommunication about what you were really playing.

[kyoryu]

I don't entirely disagree, but if John is new to the game (which was my interpretation but may not be explicit in the text) then someone needs to sit down with him and explain this to him. Not necessarily the DM (though there does seem to be some implicit understanding that the DM is going to be the one teaching players who need it), but someone. Heck, even if John has been playing the game for a while he might have tactical blind spots.

For sure. "Letting him fail" is a bad solution.

But it's not really something like the situation as described in the OP.

[Yakmala]

I've played plenty of characters that can heal, so I've heard the arguments that healing is my role multiple times.

I put that to bed pretty quickly.

I tell them my job is to keep you in the fight, not to keep you healed.

Healing spells rarely outpace incoming damage. Fortunately, a character in 5E fights just as efficiently at 1 HP as they do at 100 HP. And unless a hit takes you down to negative max HP, you are simply at 0 HP.

So when a party member does go down, I quickly get them back on their feet. But if they are still in the fight, even at low HP, I usually have better things I can be doing with my action and bonus action.

[Zetakya]

I think I'm on my third underdark Drow-only campaign in a row at the minute.

Tell me again about how Clerics have healing spells. /s

[False God]

Have you played in an unbalanced group and been successful? Have you experienced the “your playing your class wrong” mentality yourselves?

I encourage my players to play whatever they like and learn what sort of comp works best for them. I also tend to encourage having multiple characters, and the party trading them out (good old RPG mechanics, return to camp, select a new companion) as the situations change. I typically find this approach to be successful. I like to run some level of intrigue in all my games, and I consider character information (beyond the visibly obvious) secret information unless the player wants to disclose it.

A character may very well dress like a cleric, behave like a cleric, and....be a rogue. They're simply an intelligent, clever, charismatic religious-person. Which frankly, may be far more dangerous than a guy with glowing fingers.

I have also played in an unbalanced group, because my approach to character building are *ahem* politely: what sort of character I build is none of your business.(unless we've agreed ahead of time that it is) I tend to find it is successful because I build character who don't really require "party support". Or at least aren't niche-characters. Yeah they might not be the best at anything, but they're pretty good at a variety of things. 2/3rds of skill point cap is usually good enough for me.

And yes, I have experienced "build expectations", which is why I take the approach above, and try my hardest to keep my character sheet hidden, and describe my character by their appearance and demeanour rather than class-based terms, and encourage others to do the same. I've also found this approach results in a lot less PvP(and all forms of inter-party antagonism), because players make decisions on the basis of what they think your character is capable of, rather than running the math on your bad saves and low scores in their head. And when they make a mistake, well, once bitten twice shy....also dominated vampire spawn.

[Pex]

I've played plenty of characters that can heal, so I've heard the arguments that healing is my role multiple times.

I put that to bed pretty quickly.

I tell them my job is to keep you in the fight, not to keep you healed.

Healing spells rarely outpace incoming damage. Fortunately, a character in 5E fights just as efficiently at 1 HP as they do at 100 HP. And unless a hit takes you down to negative max HP, you are simply at 0 HP.

So when a party member does go down, I quickly get them back on their feet. But if they are still in the fight, even at low HP, I usually have better things I can be doing with my action and bonus action.

It's only tangentially related, but I once was in a gaming group that lasted a long time - 12 years. Never had a group last as long before or since. Anyway, for the first two campaigns (3E) I played a Lawful Good cleric. The third campaign I played a Chaotic Good warlock. It was jarring to the DM. The problem wasn't not being a cleric but not being Lawful Good. He felt I was being Chaotic Neutral. I then switched to a Lawful Neutral Crusader, and he felt I was being Lawful Evil. It caused a row, but we eventually patched things up which meant I had to play Lawful Good again. Being Lawful Good for 10 years across two campaigns I was typecast. I like playing Lawful Good and still do in some 5E games I'm in, but sometimes I just don't want to be Saint Righteous the Philanthropist.

[Laserlight]

I'll ask what combat role (tank, skirmisher, ranged, AoE, support) and non-combat role (face, infiltrator, lore, etc) people plan to be. Ideally that should be all I need, and in fact I've DM'd campaigns without knowing what class someone had.

However, sometimes a person takes a class/subclass which just isn't suited to the role he wants to play. Example: One guy persisted in charging singlehandedly into melee, with an archer ranger. In another campaign, quite short, we had a bard tank, monk tank, rogue tank, sorcerer who avoided fighting and sometimes wandered off during combat, and my extremely frustrated warlock who had to learn Tensor's Disc so he could get the unconscious bodies out of the dungeon, yet again. I'd rather offer them a character rebuild from the ground up so that John the Awesome can be functional while fulfilling the role he wants to.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I'll ask what combat role (tank, skirmisher, ranged, AoE, support) and non-combat role (face, infiltrator, lore, etc) people plan to be. Ideally that should be all I need, and in fact I've DM'd campaigns without knowing what class someone had.

However, sometimes a person takes a class/subclass which just isn't suited to the role he wants to play. Example: One guy persisted in charging singlehandedly into melee, with an archer ranger. In another campaign, quite short, we had a bard tank, monk tank, rogue tank, sorcerer who avoided fighting and sometimes wandered off during combat, and my extremely frustrated warlock who had to learn Tensor's Disc so he could get the unconscious bodies out of the dungeon, yet again. I'd rather offer them a character rebuild from the ground up so that John the Awesome can be functional while fulfilling the role he wants to.

How could they be tanks if you needed to get them out of the dungeon?
It sounds like their character concept was not tanks but bad tanks(which is totally reasonable thing to do in my opinion).

I write it as someone who like to make unusual tanks that function well(some of us are slaves of the minmax spirits and I don't want to bring characters that will overpower the other PCs. So I force myself into a difficult (sub)class-role combo in order to lower the ceiling).
That is why my group don't ask what my class is, they always ask what my role is.

[Azuresun]

I know it's a bit of an inside joke that 5E doesn't actually have 3 pillars of play, just combat, but I don't fault the rules for that, I fault there being an unwillingness for many people to roam outside of those rules even when given permission to do so. The multitude of different rulings only really becomes an issue when you're playing at many different tables, so perhaps my experience of having a steady group where my DM is consistent with his own rulings leads my perspective in a different direction.

The funny thing is, the majority of RPG systems that I've ever seen don't handle stealth much differently from 5e. Here's your stealth skill, here's your detection skill, it should be obvious what happens when they clash.

[poolio]

The group I DM for routinely lack a front line of some sort and seem to really enjoy when they have multiple players of the same class lol, but my group is far from the norm so they may be the exception.

[Laserlight]

How could they be tanks if you needed to get them out of the dungeon?

That's why I said "sometimes a person takes a class/subclass which just isn't suited to the role he wants to play." They didn't intend to be bad tanks, but that's what they did. T P K.