An Overview of Combat Roles in RPGs (Part 1)

 In my previous essay, I discussed the five “main” fantasy RPG classes (Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, Cleric and Mage), as well as other RPG classes (including those in sci-fi and contemporary settings) and how video games have reinterpreted tabletop ideas. In this essay, I will be focusing on something different: roles of each class in a party. Basically, whereas a class defines the general tools of your character, how they got those tools and what their background is, a role defines what they use those tools for. Roles are an interesting concept in RPGs, because they vary so much game-to-game, and opinions about them vary from person-to-person. 

I am currently designing my own tabletop RPG, and I wanted roles to play a big part in it, like D&D 4E. In this essay, I’m going to analyze how many other games, writers and content creators have handled the concept of these roles, and then I’m going to put forth my own framework at the end. This essay will be divided into four parts: Part 1 will cover the background on combat roles in other games; while Part 2 will cover my theoretical framework for combat roles. 

Combat Roles in WOW and Overwatch:

In MMOs, like World of Warcraft and EverQuest (and other games they inspired like EVE Online, Final Fantasy XIV, etc.), there’s no real debate about roles, so they are a good place to start. MMO parties have a trifecta of roles with numerous subroles, but there’s an almost universal consensus among people who play MMOs about what these roles are and what they do.  

• The DPS (which stands for Damage-per-second), the fragile damage dealers of the party. Their goal is to deal as much damage as possible through a variety of means without getting hit themselves. Subdivisions include:

1. Melee DPS

2. Ranged Physical DPS

3. Ranged Magical DPS

4. AoE DPS / Nukers / Blasters

5. Burst DPS

• The Tank, massive characters that block attacks meant for the rest of the party. Specifically, they spend most of their time blocking for the more fragile DPS characters.

1. Single-Target Tanks

2. Small-Group Tanks 

3. Large-Group Tanks

• And the Healer, which is pretty self-explanatory. Healers will focus primarily on healing the Tank, as they are the ones getting hit the most, and they can only focus on healing the DPS characters when the Tank is sitting on a decent amount of health.  

1. Single-Target Healer

2. Raid Healers / Burst Healers

While this trifecta is serviceable and a logical conclusion of MMOs, I find it to be very unsatisfying as a classification system. Tanks and Healers have limited functions, which isn’t a problem in of itself, except DPS is too broad of a function and overwhelmingly more popular, which skews the triangular relationship. Look at Final Fantasy XIV, for instance. Square Enix has gone to the liberty of classifying its 20 classes as either DPS, Tank or Healer. Looking at an overview of their classes, we can clearly see that the end result is that we have four Tank classes, four Healer classes and twelve DPS classes. 

I think this makes complete sense. Because combat is all about doing damage and reducing an enemy’s health to 0, it stands to reason that DPS classes are going to be most prevalent. Plus, there’s a lot more design space for developers to work with in dealing damage, which is why lots of the DPS sub-roles function so differently that they barely even feel like the same role. One particularly egregious example is the notion of “Burst DPS.” Burst characters, by definition, are characters who do lots of damage all at once, which completely contradicts the whole point of a DPS character: they are supposed to be someone who can deal consistent damage on a regular basis, hence the phrase “damage per second.” 

What I find most bizarre about this trifecta is, even though this is upheld as the gold standard for MMO roles, most players (and even developers) would also agree that there are several “smaller” roles that don’t fit neatly into these three. These include Crowd Controllers, whose abilities disable and hinder large groups of weaker enemies so their teammates can focus on more important ones; Area Denial characters, who block off certain parts of the area; Buffers, who boost teammate abilities; Debuffers, who reduce the abilities of the enemy; and Hybrid characters, who can fulfill more than one of the above functions. The DPS-Tank-Healer trifecta is ultimately so unsatisfying to me because even in the context of MMOs there are obviously so many smaller roles and sub-roles that function completely differently. 

Much like how they officially classify every class in WOW as Damage, Healer or Tank; Blizzard classifies every hero in Overwatch as either Damage, Tank or Support. Sniper is a subtype of Damage that excels in long-ranged damage, Builder is a subtype of Support that excels in creating constructs that aid the rest of the party, and Healer is a subtype of Support that obviously heals the allies of damage. 

Combat Roles in D&D, Lancers and FFXIII:

In my opinion, D&D did this division of roles better with its fourth edition. Many have criticized the fourth edition as playing too much like an MMO and they enjoy 5E more for returning to the style of earlier editions. That’s fair, but I actually really enjoy a lot of 4E’s ideas. 5E is in a really awkward place where it isn’t particularly smooth (narrative-driven and freeform) or crunchy (rules-heavy and combat-driven), it’s in an odd middle ground which makes combat monotonous and puts too much work on the DM. In contrast, 4E’s relatively balanced classes and grid-based combat are exactly what I look for in a TTRPG.

Even if the overall gameplay was too different for your taste, I still think the ideas behind 4E have merit. In 4E, classes are sorted into one of four roles, based on the first four classes of 1E (Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard). 

• Strikers are speedy glass cannons who can inflict lots of damage in a short amount of time. They are based on the Rogues, and they are equivalent to DPS characters in MMOs. Striker classes include: Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Sorcerer, Avenger, Barbarian, Monk, Assassin and Vampire. 

• Defenders can absorb lots of hits from the enemy, based on Fighters. They are equivalent to Tanks in MMOs. Defenders include: Paladin, Fighter, Swordmage and Battlemind. 

• Leaders navigate the rest of the players, strategize, heal, and use a variety of buffs. They are based on Clerics, and equivalent to Healers and Buffers in MMOs. Leaders include: Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Shaman, Ardent, Runepriest and Artificer. 

• Controllers disrupt enemy movements, either using AoE attacks to control where they can safely move or slowing them down via status effects. They are based on Wizards. Controllers include: Seekers, Wizards, Wardens, Druids, Invokers and Psions. 

To start with the positives, this system has a “Controller” role that encompasses Crowd Controllers, Debuffers, Nukers and Area Deniers in MMOs, which is great. And yet, I can’t help but criticize the choice to base the Striker on the Rogue and the Defender on the Fighter. 

I explain this in my essay “A Brief Tangent on Rogues, Fighters and DPS.” In that essay, I put forward the claim that Fighters being the archetypal Defender and Rogues being the archetypal Striker doesn’t make sense for either party’s thematic identity. As a class all about, well, fighting, the Fighter’s role in any party should be to do lots of damage up-close, not defend the rest of the party from harm. The notion that it would be upstaged in this regard by nimble unarmed thieves wielding smaller weapons doesn't make logical sense and it doesn’t gel with the design of D&D’s other damage-dealing classes. Rogues actually do lots of “burst” damage, to be fair, but WotC’s player’s handbook made it clear that all Strikers are supposed to be agile Burst damage-dealers, which is why it was so off-putting when future Strikers (Barbarian, Warlock, Sorcerer, etc.) didn’t follow this rule. 

If I had to guess, I’d say WotC did this because they anticipated ahead of time that people would criticize 4E for being too much like an MMO, so they tried to justify it by saying that each role was based on one of the first four classes in D&D even though they were obviously based on MMO roles. Of course, that doesn’t make sense because even if Wizards do make for great Controllers and Clerics do make for great Leaders, Rogues and Fighters don’t map cleanly onto Strikers and Defenders. 

I wish that, rather than trying to shoehorn those two iconic classes into those two roles, WotC was more transparent about their MMO-inspired gameplay and just ran with it. Or, alternatively, I wish they broke away from MMO tradition and created several other “damage-dealing” roles that were distinguished based on their consistency, positioning and methods. 

I’m also a bit mixed on how buffing and debuffing was handled. Buffing is now a function of Leaders, and debuffing is often done by Controllers (but occasionally done by Leaders, too), both of which is a result of WotC changing their goals for those two roles as 4E was further developed. While this does contribute to that feeling of “balance,” I also feel like buffing and debuffing could have been made a role on their own. 

The Lancers TTRPG handled the role division in a similar way. It kept the same framework as D&D 4E, but changed things by adding a fifth role: Artillerists, who are heavy damage-dealers like Strikers but who operate exclusively from afar. This is a great idea to me for the same reasons as the Artillery enemies in D&D, and I think it’s a good idea to split up damage dealers based on range, as different classes are going to have radically different playstyles depending on how far away they can attack from. 

Interestingly, D&D also did something similar in the same edition, but with enemies instead of player classes. These enemy roles had even more variety than the player roles or Lancers, and even though 4E’s role system was criticized for being restrictive on the players, the monster role system was well-received enough for adding variety to enemy encounters that many DMs have since reused it in 5E. The roles for monsters are:

• Artillery: Ranged combatants. 

• Brutes: The monster equivalent of Tanks. 

• Controller: Obviously the same as the Controller for players, using AoE attacks and shutdown to restrict movement options. 

• Leader: Again, obviously the same as the Leader for players. 

• Lurker: Stealthy enemies who sneak to the back and deploy burst damage on the party’s Controllers and Leaders. 

• Skirmisher: Fast, mobile fighters who employ hit-and-run tactics. Basically equivalent to the 4E Striker, considering 4E’s Strikers were intentionally designed as glass cannons. 

• Soldier: More balanced combatants, who still employed the melee combat of Strikers but with a mix of offense and defense. 

I like this a lot more. I feel like the decision to distinguish between Soldiers (the most conventional damage-dealers), Skirmishers (who are characterized by mobility), Lurkers (who are characterized by stealth and burst damage), and Artillery (who are characterized by range) makes combat feel more dynamic and fun. In general, I think specialization is a great way to flesh out roles. Since a role obviously defines what your character does, we want it to be as simple and succinct as possible, even if that means creating a couple extra roles. 

As a longtime fan of Square Enix who never got around to playing FFXIII, I was pleasantly surprised when researching this topic to find that Final Fantasy XIII had its own take on combat roles that did this exact thing, which I liked a lot. It had a little more specialization, and ended up with six roles: 

• Commandos more-or-less fill the role of Strikers and DPS characters

• Ravagers act as the magic-users and crowd-controllers

• Sentinels are the Tanks/Defenders

• Medics are the healers

• Saboteurs can debuff the enemy

• And Synergists can buff the rest of the party. 

Combat Roles in MOBAs and GW2:

Because so many MOBAs and Hero Shooters are heavily inspired by MMOs, it's no surprise to find that they have a similar layout of roles, albeit much more varied. League of Legends combat roles are as follows:

• Controllers keep enemies at bay. 

• Enchanter

• Catcher

• Fighters do consistent melee damage at close-range.  

• Juggernaut

• Diver

• Marksmen do ranged damage. 

• Slayers specialize in single-target burst damage. They are LOL’s equivalent to the Strikers of D&D and the DPS classes of WOW. 

• Assassin

• Skirmisher

• Tanks protect their allies. They are LOL’s equivalent to the Tanks of WOW and the Defenders of D&D. 

• Vanguard

• Warden

• Mages do AOE damage, discouraging the enemy team from moving down certain areas. 

• Burst

• Battlemage

• Artillery

• Specialists encompass every character who does not fit neatly into any other role. 

SMITE’s combat roles are as follows:

• Assassin characters specialize in single-target burst melee damage. 

• Warriors are, on paper, the tanks of the game. In practice, the fast-paced and offensive nature of smite means that Warriors are both offensive and defensive powerhouses, with a balance of both, specializing in consistent multi-target melee damage to contrast with the Assassin’s single-target damage. 

• Guardians are the game’s crowd controllers, with lots of abilities to slow down enemies and keep them from moving. 

• Hunters excel in consistent ranged damage. 

• Mages excel in AOE attacks. 

Both of these systems are distinct from D&D and WOW because, as is the case with many other MOBAs, they lack a true Support/Healer class and they’ve split up Mages and Guardians/Controllers into two separate classes. 

SMITE is also notable because it splits most of the classes based on range and consistency: Warriors are consistent melee damage-dealers, Assassins are inconsistent melee damage-dealers, Hunters are consistent ranged damage-dealers and Mages are inconsistent ranged damage-dealers. 

It’s obvious how SMITE and League of Legends took the ideas present in MMOs and TTRPGs and fleshed them out. Of the two, I prefer League because it distinguishes between Fighters (who specialize in consistent melee offense), Slayers (who specialize in inconsistent melee offense) and Tanks (who specialize in defense), whereas SMITE’s Warriors basically try to fulfill the function of both melee damage-dealers and tanks. 

As I mentioned before, SMITE and LOL are notable because neither has a clear Support/Healer class. Despite its popularity, not everyone likes the Healer-DPS-Tank trifecta in MMOs (myself included), to the point that Guild Wars 2 made it an explicit design goal to create a complex role system that doesn’t use those at all. GW2 has nine roles players can take on, each sorted into five categories. 

• Nuker and Spiker are both in the Damage category, with Nukers using AoE attacks and Spikers using Burst damage. 

• Lineback characters are all in the Pressure category. In other words, they are midranged damage-dealers who specialize in “aggro” (attacking enemies to draw attention away from the better damage-dealers of the party). This forces enemies to expend resources and take inefficient actions, wasting time on them instead of dealing with bigger threats.

• The Support category encompasses Healers and Protection, with the latter using protection (“prot”) skills that preemptively stop damage from occurring to allies. 

• The Control category encompasses both Shutdown characters and Tanks. Tanks have been covered already, but Shutdown characters use skills that prevent the enemy from using their own skills. 

• The Utility category encompasses Callers (who call the shots for the team and lead everyone) and Toolbox characters, who RPG fans often refer to as “Skill Monkeys”: people with a miscellaneous array of non-combative skills that no one else has the time or space in their character to learn. 

I don’t feel terribly confident in saying that the DPS-Healer-Tank trifecta has been completely broken since the Damage category, Support category and Tanks all still exist, so by that measure I would have to say that the folks over at ArenaNet didn’t fully succeed at their goal. Even so, I…actually like this system quite a bit. I think it’s a bit redundant to break things into five categories and then each category only has 1-2 roles, but I think that GW2 has done a good job of making sure each role has a specific niche, and they don’t try to tack multiple niches onto the same role. 

I’m a particularly big fan of the acknowledgement of Toolbox characters as an actual role, since this is a role that fans have acknowledged for years (tabletop fans have always called this the “Skill Monkey”). I also love the Lineback role, since it cleanly separates characters who aid the party by tanking attacks vs characters who aid the party by distracting the enemy; both are referred to as “tanks” in a lot of MMOs, which I’ve always found strange and a bit unhelpful. 

Tanking and Crowd Controlling:

Though, that does lead into another discussion on its own. The Control category in GW2 is really interesting to me. It’s a category based all around controlling the battlefield and the enemy’s movements, obviously, but it plays completely differently from the Controllers of D&D 4E and Lancers or the Ravagers of FFXIII, since it includes Tank characters (highly-defensive damage sponges generally recognized as their own class) and Shutdown characters (who, true to the name, just stop the enemy from using their own abilities). Also, the Control category notably does not include Nukers, who are instead classified as a type of damage-dealer. In this regard, the Control category of GW2, at least conceptually, is almost closer to the Guardians of SMITE. 

This is something RPG fans have debated about for a long time: what is the relationship between tanking, AOE attacks, debuffing and crowd controlling? “Crowd controlling” is a very broad term that can be best summarized as “anything that slows down the enemy or prevents them from playing at their best.” Defensive characters, large area-of-effect attacks and status debuffs are arguably all a form of crowd control, so where do we draw the line? 

The simple answer is it depends on the game. To be more specific, I think we need to look at our earlier definition of a “role” to truly figure this out. A role refers to a position that uses a class’ tools to accomplish a specific goal. Having not played GW2 I cannot confirm how different roles like Nuker, Tank and Shutdown are from one-another; but I know in D&D 4E, the Defender deserves to be a separate role from Controller because even when the Defender performs crowd control, it is only as a means to protect the rest of the party, rather than as a goal in-of-itself. Meanwhile, Nuker would not have made sense as a specific role in 4E because 4E (and D&D in general) has a blurry line between AOE attacks, status debuffs and attacks that stun and slow the enemy down. However, Mage does make sense as a separate role from Controller/Guardian in SMITE and League because the former can use abilities reactively to destroy large groups of enemies or preemptively to stop the enemy from moving to a specific spot, whereas the latter excels in slowing down enemies, stunning them, preventing them from using their abilities and inflicting lots of debuffs.