5e Role Matrix

[ChaseC311]

Ive always heard the term "role matrix" thrown around by a few of my friends whenever dnd was brought up. By my 2 minutes of research, I was able to find 4 types of classes in the role Matrix: Defenders (Tanks), Leaders (Healers), Strikers (Damage Dealers), and Controllers (Area Control/Denial). I was wondering how a type pf matrix would adapt to 5e with the more flexible roles of the 14 classes (including artificer and bloodhunter, excluding mystic). Where would each class fit into the matrix? Would the matrix need any updates to the 4 roles?

[Unoriginal]

Ive always heard the term "role matrix" thrown around by a few of my friends whenever dnd was brought up. By my 2 minutes of research, I was able to find 4 types of classes in the role Matrix: Defenders (Tanks), Leaders (Healers), Strikers (Damage Dealers), and Controllers (Area Control/Denial). I was wondering how a type pf matrix would adapt to 5e with the more flexible roles of the 14 classes (including artificer and bloodhunter, excluding mystic). Where would each class fit into the matrix? Would the matrix need any updates to the 4 roles?

Never heard or read the term "role matrix" in my life, I have to say. Not seeing in which way those 4 roles constitues a matrix, either, at least in the context of D&D.


More to the point, that kind of role definitions doesn't work with 5e very well, or at least not in the way those role definitions were thought for.

[Petrocorus]

I myself divide the Matrix in 5 roles in-combat and 5 roles out-of-combat.

In Combat:
The tank
The DPR
The buffer
The debuffer
The BFC

Out of Combat:
The scout
The tracker
The healer
The face
The utility

In 5E, it difficult to assign a class to each role because each role can be filled by several class and each class can potentially fill several role.
And you can live well without every role filled.
With the addition of backgrounds, feats, spell selection and other options and class features, an individual PC can fill roles that seems antithetic for its class, like a chainlock filling the role of the scout thanks to his familiar.

[OldTrees1]

In all honesty, ditch those 4 roles before you start. D&D has much more than just combat and even combat is much more complex than those roles would lead you to believe.




Out of Combat:
The scout
The tracker
The healer
The face
The utility


Sidenote: A trapfinder rogue would tend to fall under Petrocorus' scout category. In that case they are trying to detect ambushing traps instead of just ambushing ambushes.

What about knowledge?

Sidenote 2: Healer includes recovery from nasty long term ailments.

[Unoriginal]

In all honesty, ditch those 4 roles before you start. D&D has much more than just combat and even combat is much more complex than those roles would lead you to believe.

True. Trying to classify any of the classes with their many subclasses into those roles is kind of a "square hole, round peg" situation, even in the cases where the ressemblance is obvious (like Cavalier and Tank).

[Aett_Thorn]

True. Trying to classify any of the classes with their many subclasses into those roles is kind of a "square hole, round peg" situation, even in the cases where the ressemblance is obvious (like Cavalier and Tank).

I mean, you're not wrong, but even then I can make a lightly armored sharpshooter Cavalier and make it more of a Striker than a Tank. Not optimal, but doable.

[Petrocorus]

And i could use a samurai to make a performing archer that is also a good face.



Sidenote: A trapfinder rogue would tend to fall under Petrocorus' scout category. In that case they are trying to detect ambushing traps instead of just ambushing ambushes.

Indeed. I do consider this is part of the scout role.



What about knowledge?
I'd stuff this into utility, since this is not part of the other four, since the wizard is usually the best at utility and knowledge, and since the lack of it will often be supplemented through spells.

[Unoriginal]

I mean, you're not wrong, but even then I can make a lightly armored sharpshooter Cavalier and make it more of a Striker than a Tank. Not optimal, but doable.

Indeed, that's part of what makes it a "square hole, round peg" situation.

[Nhorianscum]

Ive always heard the term "role matrix" thrown around by a few of my friends whenever dnd was brought up. By my 2 minutes of research, I was able to find 4 types of classes in the role Matrix: Defenders (Tanks), Leaders (Healers), Strikers (Damage Dealers), and Controllers (Area Control/Denial). I was wondering how a type pf matrix would adapt to 5e with the more flexible roles of the 14 classes (including artificer and bloodhunter, excluding mystic). Where would each class fit into the matrix? Would the matrix need any updates to the 4 roles?

Roles really don't work in games designed for them and really don't even exist as a viable or applicable concept outside of those systems.

A 1 role character is generally considered exceptionally bad in DnD.

Example: The barb has decided to be the bestest tank, he has all that hp, the damage resistance, he can kinda sorta taunt 1 thing with his sweet ancestral guardian passive....

And all the enemies just rush past him to smack the cleric.

Except the cleric has 20 AC, and is using the dodge action with 3 passive/bonus action damage effects that also control the battlefield running in the same space dealing a crapton of damage.

[Man_Over_Game]

Except the cleric has 20 AC, and is using the dodge action with 3 passive/bonus action damage effects that also control the battlefield running in the same space dealing a crapton of damage.

I think that's a pretty bad example, though.

Clerics are probably the single most versatile class in the entire game (full casters, melee combat support, heavy/medium armor, healing/damage/buff spells), while Barbarians are the least.

As far as showing off when being versatile is being better than being specialized, you chose one of the most tilted scenarios possible. Between Barbarian features, background features, a single feat and maybe skills, there's not exactly a whole lot of "versatility" a Barbarian's going to have at level 5.

[LudicSavant]

Ive always heard the term "role matrix" thrown around by a few of my friends whenever dnd was brought up. By my 2 minutes of research, I was able to find 4 types of classes in the role Matrix: Defenders (Tanks), Leaders (Healers), Strikers (Damage Dealers), and Controllers (Area Control/Denial). I was wondering how a type pf matrix would adapt to 5e with the more flexible roles of the 14 classes (including artificer and bloodhunter, excluding mystic). Where would each class fit into the matrix? Would the matrix need any updates to the 4 roles?

One of the most self-limiting things you can do in 5e optimization is to view entire classes as building only a single narrow type/role of character.

Classes are a broad set of tools which can be used to build a wide variety of things. Some classes are narrower than others, but some are incredibly broad -- for example a Wizard can be a heavy main tank, a full lockdown controller, a healer that outheals most Clerics, or a heavy damage dealer depending on how you build them. Often more than one at the same time.

One Bard might go full support spamming buckets of temporary hit points, bonus movement, and use all their Magical Secrets to get even more support. Another might be a Swords Bard with 30+ active AC, plenty of damage, and a lockdown/tanking abilities. And so forth.

One Fighter might be a not-too-durable archer that just steadily dishes out streams of ranged damage, while another might be an extraordinarily tanky lockdown melee fighter which punishes enemies for trying to move away from them.

These are just a few of countless examples. Two characters of the same class can sometimes fill more distinct roles from each other than two characters of different classes.

So the very first thing I'd do is to abolish the idea from your mind that 'classes' have roles. Individual builds have roles, yes, but those roles are not determined merely by your choice of Class.

[cutlery]

An idea made more central in 4e, drawing from one of the worst design traditions in MMO games: the holy trinity.

DND doesn’t really need it, and lots of classes can be built do do lots of things, and groups totally missing what might be considered a “tank” or “striker” can work just fine.

Plus, there are other pillars outside combat and those old role concepts don’t really fit that well.

[Nhorianscum]

I think that's a pretty bad example, though.

Clerics are probably the single most versatile class in the entire game (full casters, melee combat support, heavy/medium armor, healing/damage/buff spells), while Barbarians are the least.

As far as showing off when being versatile is being better than being specialized, you chose one of the most tilted scenarios possible. Between Barbarian features, background features, a single feat and maybe skills, there's not exactly a whole lot of "versatility" a Barbarian's going to have at level 5.

Oh that was entirely the point.

[Man_Over_Game]

The 4e roles don't work in 5e, as 4e was designed entirely around combat, and balanced around those roles being fulfilled. However, 5e has two major differences from 4e's philosophy:
What a character does out of combat is very important.
Each character is generally replaceable with any other in combat, so it doesn't really matter whether you have a Healer or a Blaster.

So the big thing is that you're not overly redundant. And in that regard:


You can actually calculate exactly what is and isn't acceptable as far as redundant classes, but it takes some explaining:


There are "Labor" jobs, and there are "Puzzle" jobs.

Labor jobs allow redundant resources to contribute together. If the party rolls are 5, 10, and 15, the party is 30 closer to their goal. Characters that solve these are your damage dealers, your martials, your tanks. Not only do they contribute towards the same goal, but they synergize while doing so as they can make expectations of one another to act and think like themselves. This is how most labor jobs are in RL.

Puzzle jobs always defer to the smartest guy in the room. If the party rolls are 5, 10, and 15, the party is 15 closer to their goal. Characters that solve these are your utility specialists, your Rogues, your Rangers, your Wizards and Bards. For this reason, puzzles need to be simpler with fewer players, as only one player needs to get it right for a party success. This how technology works in RL.

Every single build does a little bit of both. Even Barbarians provide "Puzzle" solutions through using their physicality on the environment, and the Bard contributes on the "Labor" front through healing and handling damage prevention so the Wizard is casting Fireball instead of Wall of Force. All the classes are on a scale.

The only real limiter on party comp is just to make sure one character's "aspect" of Puzzle-Solving doesn't overlap with another's. So you can have two Rogues, as long as they don't have the same skills. You can have two Casters, as long as they don't have the same options for spells. You can have a Paladin and a Warlock as faces, as long as they're the Face equally and for different problems (such as Deception vs. Persuasion).

Of course, this sometimes gets impossible when classes like the Ranger and Druid are forced into Nature-related aspects, or that Rogues revolve around Stealth (due to Cunning Action), but it's easy enough to work around.

From most to least "Laborious":


LABOR-EMPHASIS
Barbarian (Strength)
Fighter (Strength/Dexterity)
Monk (Dexterity, Mobility)
Warlock (Charisma, Face, Manipulation)
Sorcerer (Charisma, Arcane Utility)
Paladin (Strength, Face, Divine, Cleansing)
Cleric (Wisdom, Divine, Cleansing)
Ranger (Dexterity, Stealth, Exploration)
Wizard (Intelligence, Arcane Utility, Crowd Control)
Druid (Wisdom, Exploring, Cleansing, Crowd Control)
Rogue (Dexterity, Stealth, Mobility)
Bard (Charisma, Face, Manipulation, Crowd Control)
PUZZLE-EMPHASIS


Those at the top of the list can stack with each other just fine, as most of their contribution are through things that can usually work together (like dealing or receiving damage, or Athletics Checks to carry stuff).
Those closer to the bottom are a bit more...delicate, and need some serious consideration to avoid overlapping too much with other characters.

Stuff in parenthesis are the "Puzzle" benefits of that class that you really only need one of to solve most "Puzzles", so you want those to overlap as little as possible.

For example, a Barbarian + Fighter + Warlock + Sorcerer team would naturally work well. However, a Druid + Ranger + Rogue + Monk team would not.

The reason for this is because labor problems are solved as a group, while puzzle problems are solved by an individual. You don't really care how much you contributed, only that you did, and "puzzle" solutions often leave you feeling like you didn't provide anything of value.

So it doesn't really matter if you have 4 Fighters, as they're all going to contribute towards any problem any of them could solve. Have 4 Druids, when you only need to talk to 1 tree, and there will be lots of pushing and shoving to see who's feels the most important.

And because there's not a party expectation like there was in 4e, both groups are probably equally valid for their respective tables. The difference is how valid those individual players feel.

[ThatoneGuy84]

Party "roll" can generally be decided at the table (if you play regularly with a group for campaigns) But they aren't specifically tethered to "A class" but multiple classes and subclasses mixed.

Often at our table, we as a group attempt for diversity in abilities, ect. That being said, we also "play what we want to" which means sometimes there is aggressive overlap in charactor archetypes.

I'm a generalist player, I genuinely like to fill a niche, but what niche is usually dependent on what the group as a whole is lacking.
Lack a tank? I'll play a tank, Lack nova? I'm happy to play nova, need a healer? I'll probably heal/tank combo. Want the team to be buffed and feel awesome about the charactors they are playing? Let me take a back seat and let everyone else shine. Building a charactor that makes the square post fit better into the round peg for me is really enjoyable.

[Frogreaver]

Ive always heard the term "role matrix" thrown around by a few of my friends whenever dnd was brought up. By my 2 minutes of research, I was able to find 4 types of classes in the role Matrix: Defenders (Tanks), Leaders (Healers), Strikers (Damage Dealers), and Controllers (Area Control/Denial). I was wondering how a type pf matrix would adapt to 5e with the more flexible roles of the 14 classes (including artificer and bloodhunter, excluding mystic). Where would each class fit into the matrix? Would the matrix need any updates to the 4 roles?

You need more roles. You need out of combat roles. Theoretically, you could make a matrix with classes on one axis and roles on the other and weight each classes ability to meet that role on a scale of 1 to 10.

[cutlery]

You need more roles. You need out of combat roles. Theoretically, you could make a matrix with classes on one axis and roles on the other and weight each classes ability to meet that role on a scale of 1 to 10.

One trick with that, though, is not every table needs or will even make use of every role.

(Which is a good reason not to make a role matrix, or to make decisions based on one, at least independent of ones own table.)

[OldTrees1]

One trick with that, though, is not every table needs or will even make use of every role.

(Which is a good reason not to make a role matrix, or to make decisions based on one, at least independent of ones own table.)

It can get even more confusing since some roles are only needed if the solution is already present. In other words the solution creates their own need. (Which is similar to but subtly different from "a solution in search of a problem")

[cutlery]

It can get even more confusing since some roles are only needed if the solution is already present. In other words the solution creates their own need.

Yep, which is why a lot of the language and thinking about roles (that is now heavily and irrevocably influenced by the MMO holy trinity) is just not that useful for putting together a DND party.

[Frogreaver]

not every table needs or will even make use of every role.

Agreed.


(Which is a good reason not to make a role matrix, or to make decisions based on one, at least independent of ones own table.)

There's an implicit assumption here that I reject - that a role matrix reason to exist is to ensure every role gets filled. A role matrix is just an informational tool and provides an interesting summarization of the various classes capabilities.

[Unoriginal]

So the very first thing I'd do is to abolish the idea from your mind that 'classes' have roles. Individual builds have roles, yes, but those roles are not determined merely by your choice of Class.

Quite true.

Always annoys me when people go "the Rogue is the one that check for traps" regardless of any other factors.

[OldTrees1]

Quite true.

Always annoys me when people go "the Rogue is the one that check for traps" regardless of any other factors.

I had a ex criminal Paladin that could do that, although I will admit we had a Noble rogue that did the task that campaign.

[cutlery]

There's an implicit assumption here that I reject - that a role matrix reason to exist is to ensure every role gets filled. A role matrix is just an informational tool and provides an interesting summarization of the various classes capabilities.

(1) I don't see that happening without some sort of "ranking" for how good class X is at role Y

(2) I also don't see such a document as being that accurate, as tables vary widely.

A fighter can be a face. A wizard can be a tank, and a Bard can be a dpr/striker.

Particularly when multiclassing and feats are on the table, any such matrix would necessarily have nearly every class in every role, and an "effectiveness" rating that depends on the table.

So, pretty much pointless. It makes much more sense to instead describe the three pillars, how combat works, and how resources get replenished.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Snip long quote about puzzle-focus vs labor-focus

In regards to the quoted stuff in this post, I don't like this idea (of puzzle-focus vs labor-focus). Because, to me, everything, puzzles included, should benefit from adding more people even if they're not specialists. Puzzles (and similar stuff) that can be solved by one person aren't good D&D scenes. They're components of scenes, but every scene should have multiple pieces that all require different specialties or labor. "And now it's the [face|lock-picker|arcanist|whatever]'s turn while everyone else watches" is, to me, not what D&D is about. D&D is about teams of people, working together at obstacles. Whether that's combat[1], exploring a dungeon, handling traps, dealing with a social situation, whatever. If it's just "insert <skill>, roll dice, win", it's a badly-designed obstacle.

So just getting through a door is, by itself, a bad obstacle. Combined with other things (which may or may not involve combat-like things), it can be a useful obstacle. This also forces everyone to get involved and gives incentives not to build super-narrow characters. If you can only contribute in one small specialty, then you're an active liability in the rest of everything that requires at least reasonable participation from everyone. It also gives much more chance to find quirky "third option" ways through things.

/rant