Now, the reason there’s value in categorizing these roles is to clarify the decisions you're making as well as identify gaps in the party’s performance. Oftentimes, I find that when a party underperforms in combat, it means that somehow the flow of these four roles has been disrupted, either because a party member has been incapacitated or the best person for the role is not fulfilling it (which usually stems from someone unwilling to pivot into a role their character is not built for). That being said, the best combats I’ve participated in have had a combination of understanding with these four roles, as well as having characters built to fulfill them. To understand how to identify characters built for them, here are some characteristics:


+  Damage Per Round     Maximizes the amount of damage they inflict on a single target. Also values a higher attack roll bonus and rare / changing damage types.

+ Tank     Draws attention and potential damage away from other party members. Values a high Armor Class, Hit Point maximum, damage resistance, and damage reduction.

+ Support     Strengthens and heals allies. Usually a spellcaster, although there are some non-casting features that fulfill this role (like a Mastermind Rogue’s Master of Tactics feature).

+ Control     Weakens enemies and influences their behavior. Area of effect spells, like fireball tend to fall in this category because not only can it wipe out many smaller enemies earlier in the fight, “smart” enemies will avoid certain positional patterns to avoid falling into an area that encourages its use.

    And, like I said, there will be some overlap. For example, the druid’s entangle spell creates an area of difficult terrain which can hamper an enemy’s movement (which falls under Control). However, if an enemy gets restrained by the spell, the druid's allies have Advantage on attack rolls against them  (Support). 
    Certain classes will also fulfill these roles more obviously than others. A Barbarian’s high hit points and resistance-granting Rage ability make it a great Tank, and a Rogue’s sneak attack make it great for DPR.  I've also found that players get frustrated when a character class doesn’t perform well in a role the player expects it to (like when a Cleric isn't the best Healer option). 
    Now let’s dive a little deeper into the roles and find character classes that fit them.

Damage Per Round

    This is a short-hand term Adamus and I use with each other to describe when a player is trying to deal the most amount of damage that they can. It comes from the MMO term DPS (Damage per Second), but because 5e is played in rounds instead of real-time, you get Damage Per Round.
    Now, this can also be the hardest role to categorize because it’s by far the broadest. Most characters can deal some kind of damage to an enemy, and there will be times where it’s more efficient to just attack the darn thing instead of create a cockamamie scheme that probably won’t work. However, there are some statistics to consider when optimizing a character for DPR.
    First is the attack roll bonus. It doesn’t matter how much damage you can do if you can’t hit the target’s AC. Usually, this is as easy as investing in the ability score that governs your attack rolls. This same ability score will usually also help you lean into your secondary role, but we'll talk more about that later.
    Second is selecting features that contribute to the amount of damage you can deal. For Fighting Styles, this is usually Dueling or Great Weapon Fighter. For Warlocks, it’s the Agonizing Blast invocation. For Rogues, it’s just investing in more rogue levels to progress your Sneak Attack.
    The third factor is damage type. You either want a damage type that’s rarely resisted to or two damage types you can switch between. For example, eldritch blast is such an effective cantrip because almost nothing in 5e resists force damage (unless you homebrew something), and its damage die is also pretty high. Another example might be picking up Elemental Adept as a caster, meaning that if you love your fire spells, you can ignore resistance a creature may have to fire damage. In baseline 5e, as a weapons class, most creatures aren’t resistant to magical bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, so if you can find a magic weapon you’re usually good for the rest of the campaign (unless your DM homebrews something to make you ineffective).
    And that’s pretty much it for DPR. Like I said earlier, most classes have some kind of DPR option, but that doesn’t mean every class is optimized for DPR. It’s great that a Bard can Vicious Mockery (Psychic is one of those damage types that’s rarely resisted to). However, the 1d4 damage is pitiful, even at low levels, and pales in comparison to a Divine Smite or Sneak Attack. That doesn’t mean the Bard shouldn’t try to deal damage; it just means that they aren’t the “DPR” character of the party.


Tank

    Tanks are much easier to build to. Invest in Constitution to get higher hit points, find some armor or features that grant you damage resistance, and do what you need to in order to invest in Armor Class. I’m a sucker for Unarmored Defense. It’s easy to maintain, can often be stronger than Plate Mail, and it can’t be destroyed by rust monsters.
    With all that being said, viable options for tanking are much fewer than DPR. Barbarians are excellent tanks because of their Rage ability, and their Unarmored Defense keeps their AC competitive. Most of their subclasses also have ways to get more bang for your buck when you Rage, sometimes dealing damage and sometimes increasing the amount of resistances you have. Paladins are also excellent tanks because of their heavy armor proficiency, and because at 6th level their Aura of Protection grants them bonuses to their Saving Throws. Either way, both classes get great durability for relatively little action-investment.
    Now, some critics of the term “tanking” in 5e compare the function of tanks to MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, where such characters have abilities that program bigger threats to target them, relieving pressure from a less durable ally. There are some abilities like this in 5e, but because enemies are controlled by a human (the DM) rather than programming, the DM can always choose to target a less survivable ally. 
    This doesn’t mean that building a tank doesn’t have value. In D&D, tanking refers to a character’s survivability, and I’ve seen some ridiculous stunts in my time with 5e. I’ve seen a Barbarian swim through lava, a Barbarian/Rogue multi-class shrug off 100+ points of damage because of stacking resistance with evasion, and a well built sorlock take a meteor swarm to the face and maintain concentration (that was my Sorlock). Accounting for RAW and math, these things can happen, and even if you can keep one ally up by the end of the fight, they can run around and use healing potions to keep incapacitated allies alive. 
    This is also why oftentimes the best support characters also invest in their survivability. A Druid’s Wild Shape is a great tanking feature, and many Clerics have a heavy armor proficiency that lets them avoid damage and heal their allies. Healing does no good if the healer is down, so many forward thinking players build their healers accordingly.


Support

    Speaking of Support, I’m of the belief that this is the most difficult role to play effectively in combat, and is why many players avoid it. It can be a thankless job, and your impact on the party isn’t always immediately felt. A well timed bless spell can be the difference between an attack hitting and missing, and that attack finishing a dangerous enemy or giving them another turn to use legendary actions and wipe the team. There are also many overlaps with Control, so we’ll work to clarify which is which.
    Support is defined as “buffing” your allies and healing. A “buff” is any spell that makes them better at their job, or strengthens them in any way. For example, the bless spell allows those it targets to add a d4 to attack rolls and saving throws, making them slightly more accurate and more survivable. If we look back at the entangle example earlier, if a character can restrain an enemy, it allows attacks against that enemy to have advantage, meaning that rogues get Sneak Attack and everyone is more likely to get a critical hit.
    Healing is a much more nuanced topic. Healing and damage are not created equal in 5e, and it’s always more efficient to prevent damage than to try and heal damage taken. Let’s go back to our example of cure wounds. For a 1st level spell slot, cure wounds heals between 4 and 12 hit points with an average 1st level character. With a 1st level spell slot using inflict wounds (the same resource expended), the spell deals 3d10 damage on a hit, with a yield of between 3 and 30 damage. The ceilings aren’t even comparable. 
    What makes healing so difficult is the required sense of timing on the player’s part. An ill-timed healing word or cure wounds could have no effect at all, especially if the enemy is a real bruiser. Say you see an ally get hit for 15 points of damage. You cast healing word as a bonus action, healing 5 points of that damage. Then the next round they get hit for another 15 points, and get knocked unconscious. That healing word you casted was wasted.
    That being said, let’s look at a counterexample. You see an ally get hit with 15 points of damage and fall unconscious. They make a death saving throw, and unfortunately roll a Natural 1, meaning they have two failures. By casting your healing word at range, the failures are negated, and the ally needs to get knocked to 0 before being in danger again. You probably just saved that character’s life.
    Like tanking, there are few characters that can dedicate themselves to Support, although there are plenty of smaller features that allow an ally to support as a secondary role. Bards, Clerics, and Druids have a plethora of buffing and healing spells, with the Bard’s defining class feature (Bardic Inspiration) being one of the most efficient buffs especially at low levels. However, the aforementioned Master of Tactics feature from Mastermind Rogue and Aura of Protection from Paladin also are great support features. 


Control

    Control characters look at combat differently than the other three. Rather than seeing exchanges as dealing and healing damage, control players view combat as a series of choices and possible outcomes, and work to remove choices from their opponent. While Support is about strengthening allies and allowing them to be better versions of themselves, Control is about hampering the effectiveness of their enemies.
    Is there a major bruiser in the enemy team that’s being a pain? Hold Monster can remove them from the fight. Is the real threat the group of goblins shooting at us from that ledge? Fireball can take them all down at once. Control is about figuring out the enemy’s strengths and using that strength against them. Like Support, what makes Control difficult is that it’s a mindset more than a set of obvious mechanics.
    Some classes are easier to use control strategies than others. The Wizard’s sheer amount of spell access allows it to be an excellent controller, because it can cast the right spell for the right situation. The Druid spell list is similar, in which many of its best support spells also hamper the enemy’s effectiveness (again, just look at entangle). 
    However, that doesn’t mean that to be a Control character, you need area of effect abilities or spellcasting to play this role. If you’re playing a Tank, and you manage to distract an enemy from hurting your less survivable allies, you’re influencing their behavior and removed a choice, leaving their effectiveness up to the luck of the dice. That’s a Control role even though it’s outside of the game’s mechanics.
    Oftentimes, when I design my set-piece encounters, I try to have my enemies not only have a mechanical weakness (like a low stat or some kind of damage vulnerability), but also some kind of personality flaw the party can take advantage of through role-playing. Sometimes that flaw is aggravated through taunting, empathy, or targeting one of their possessions. However, it’s a way to allow any player to assume the control role if they’re clever enough to figure it out.

​Now, after identifying the four roles, the hidden fifth role is that of pivoting. Fifth Edition has classically rewarded characters that are built to specialization rather than versatility. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for adapting to circumstance.
    Let’s say you build a powerful melee weapons character, but you end up in a combat where there’s a ravine or pool of lava separating you and your target. You may have to play a different role in that combat than you’d like to. 
    To prevent circumstances where you’re only viable option is “I take the Dodge action” and don’t participate, I usually advise my players to think through a Primary and a Secondary role their character can play as. This can be as simple as “I have a melee character but I keep a crossbow on me” to “I play support but I can pivot to control as the need arises”. This also doesn’t mean to devalue the specialization this edition rewards. 
    Let’s look at a character I built, Kurama, as an example. Kurama, a higher level Druid, was built in order to cast healing spirit and thorn whip. However, in a well constructed party like Knight Owls, healing spirit isn’t always the most appropriate. Oftentimes, healing is covered by other characters. This means that if enough other people are willing to play Support, I’m freed to pivot to Control in order to maximize our party’s effectiveness. I can’t tell you how awesome it is to hit a big bad with contagion, or pull an enemy with thorn whip so the paladin can smite it. Also, there have been times I’ve been known to deal damage. It’s laughable that I've finished multiple big bads with a 1st level ice knife just because everyone else did such a good job of covering us that I as the Druid was left to just damage deal. These things happen, and the memories made are cherished.
    Hopefully you’ve found some value from this perspective of play, and if you choose a less optimized style of play, you’re doing so intentionally. That’s the whole point of this: clarify your decisions so when you make it, you do so with intention.


Study Hard, Play Hard. 
-John

And that's all I can say for now.  Adults can make their own decisions as to the level of buzz they want to ride, and that changes from individual to individual, night to night.  The only things I can do is maintain my own control level, be consistent, and stay kind.  My players will sort themselves out as long as I keep a good table with clear expectations.  Speaking of which...

See you over there.
​-Adamus

Gender-bending is a foregone conclusion when you are a Game Master.  Unless you're running a completely male or female world (I mean...why?), the assumption follows that if you are playing as every character that is not another player-character, you will undoubtedly play a character that is the opposite sex that you are.  
  And we've all seen some cringe-worthy elements come out of this with newer DMs.  A dude that plays all the ladies like lascivious harlots with high-pitched voices (because all women CLEARLY sound like THAT), or an awesome dudette playing all the men similarly but down two octaves.  I get it, we're learning, and their range will (I hope) increase.
  I'm happy to say I came from the middle when it came to voice.  I was blessed with a love of the theater, and I adore trying out new voices, dialects, and accents.  Some I've blended into regional accents for my fictional world, and that took some time!  It's great to look back, and when I play ladies, they run the gamut of high to lower pitches.  Most tend to sit in soft palette, and elevate slightly.  But...it's not about the voice.
  Characters are EMBODIED.  A lot can change by a simple shift in posture and position.  How a person moves, in face and body language, is even more important than how they sound.  A shifty urchin looks shifty (regardless of gender), and a stoic knight is no less stoic with feminine features; both can also be seductive, or monstrous, or terrifying.  Their actions and body language speak more than any masculine or feminine features would at their base.  A lot of it ties more into the variables of communication, interest, and an alignment of style.
  I'd be lying if I said gender DIDN'T play a role, but for me, I find it a little more complex.

I think I played Vanora to feel sexy at a time in my life that I certainly didn't.  As frame, many of my men were shy and awkward (like me), or far too exuberant and annoying (like a cartoon version of what not to be), and my women, though cool, had what I thought was lacking in personality.  Now, Vanora was not flirtatious; she was confident.  Not once did she hit on anyone in the game, but I knew she could rock it if it came up.  She was sensual in her movements, almost animal-like (Aasimar Shifter, Pathfinder), and I wanted to experience an otherworldly perspective, separated yet powerful, and highly feminine.  And the perspective was...neutral.  In fact, it became a piece far more about characterization; the subtle aspects of a person - their flaws, ideals, and the deeper shifting layers of emotional sand.  It was a lesson in HUMANITY most of all.  As the campaign fizzled out, her lessons reformed in the creature known as Lorelai in Gray Owls, except ten-fold, and much more complex, dangerous, and alluring.
  And I end up playing a lot of women in my games, and not to feel sexy.  Actually, I'm very proud of the women of Io in every age.  I find I play them like people, rather than women or men, which might sound silly to some of you, but I think that that's the best way for me.  Instead of gender first, it's always character.  There's no sexism in Io (at least not in any frame that is acceptable), so a good leader is a good leader, regardless of gender.  A ruthless tyrant is still a tyrant, whether it a man, woman, or anything in between.  Yet, my players have had little trouble identifying who I'm playing and when (there is a family of strong women that all sounded a little similar early on, but I've adapted), and usually grasp their gender quickly.
  In a lot of ways, playing women helped me consider people as people.  I didn't want to box myself into tired narrative cliches or tropes, so to break free I played a person who just happens to be female, male, or something else.  Their gender is secondary to their personality.  What a concept to consider, yet I do believe - as a clearly heterosexual man - that women hold certain extra powers over those that would be interested in them, and the same is true for any gender that interests another.
  So of course this swings toward orientation, at least at first.  Love is love in Io; you love whom or what you want (as long as you're not hurting anyone), so the societal pressures that surround one's orientations that we feel so viscerally today...don't exist here.  And it doesn't define someone's prevalent or lack of partners.  Let's take Cecil, a high-elf bard of the court in Gray Owls, who, despite being married to probably one of the most frighteningly-powerful women I've ever played, has to play the field of information, favors, and rapport in order to sway the odds in the favor of his family and his assets.  Cecil is a listener, first and foremost, and can flip on a dime whether to be masculine or feminine and all levels between as the situation allows so he can make the other in the room feel the most comfortable...whether that's manipulative or not.  But for me, it forces me to wait and pick my moves carefully, embracing whatever side I need to and being open to multiple possibilities; a perspective of a tactically sound mind who will wield physical and mental intimacy to position others is a thing of beauty. 
  Contrast this with Obidia Skurr, the Master Slate Duelist of Feathertongue, who is concretely gay yet classically masculine, and chooses partners rarely, if at all.  He never uses his sexuality overtly as a tactic; it is a subtle piece of himself that he chooses to save for only his most vulnerable times.  A private person; willing to help, but only willing to open himself up to those that truly matter, yet he is pursued for his mystery.  (Not the mystery of his orientation, mind you, because that doesn't matter).  Whereas Alejandro Esuarve, definitively pansexual, can't get anything in bed due to his aggressively abrasive and annoying personality.  Neither is a commentary on either orientation, and such an orientation is secondary to who they are as people.  Whom we choose to love is really only a small piece of who we completely are, and we can choose to wear that intimate choice on our sleeve or express it only in the quiet, special moments.  Neither is hiding, and both are completely normal.  And yet still I can play the strong and masculine Lyla Ironwood, who (at this point in the campaign) hasn't expressed any shred of sexuality or interest in anyone, and still get hit on by the party's Barbarian, even though he knows she can rip his heart out.  People are interested in who they're interested in, and each of those is a layered person (which I dare say is MUCH more attractive).  ;)

Too often, we find ourselves in camps of judgment, across picket lines of which fun is most "right."  We view one side in a given context, and omit others, yet we forget key powerful facts of the human identity.  A person using their sexuality as a weapon is empowering and a person wielding a great sword in a huge battle is also empowering.  The existence of one does not belittle or negate the existence of the other.  And you know the best thing?  That can be the same person.  True agency is having a say in how you portray yourself in every given moment; a badass soldier can be a sexy seductress, and a sexy seductress can be badass soldier, and people WANT TO BE BOTH at different times, and run the oscillation between many others.  The ability to pivot to what is most appropriate given the situation is an adaptable skill that so many desire, yet have little practice in.  Wouldn't it be great if we could feel strong AND sexy?  They're not exclusive, people.  
  I guess my main point in exploring this deeply is that, similar to my post on Boundaries, I build and play characters from a state of ideal representation.  I'd be silly if I didn't reference the cruel fact that we fight for empowerment and representation because of a long history where it was taken from us, and how cool would it be if the core aspects of ourselves could be expressed without the barriers we have to punch through today.  If I want to look good, I will.  My choice to be fabulous.  My choice to fight.  My choice to breathe.  My choice to express myself however I see fit.
  And I choose unhinged Druid Assassin who believes she's descended from a long line of Tabaxi, despite being human.  :)  That fun is not wrong, and I'll probably learn something from it, too.

I expect it at every one of my tables now; especially the one-shots.  One of the gals is going to play a guy, and I'm totally down.  Maybe it's just to be different, gain a new perspective, or to practice their own identity.  Yeah.  Practice.
So much of what we do at each table involves communication, problem-solving, complex fantasy cooperative storytelling...and social interaction.  I'd be an idiot if I said my characters were not related to me SOMEHOW, as each will undoubtedly represent or be manifested from an aspect of oneself.  They may grow and change, but, actually, so are you (the player).  Each character we play is intrinsically tied to a piece of us, and will affect us in ways we may not have planned for.
  Which is why when I witness players step outside (or inside) their comfort zones with new characters or explorative decisions I internally squee with glee.  You now get to experience, in a safe and imaginative space, actual feedback on character choices, orientations, responses, communication...  And if you offend, or miscommunicate, or cause a mass genocide - it's okay, because this is a game, and you can try again.  That's one rep.  Take the feedback, apply where you can, and we'll continue to grow together.
  
  And 5th Edition has done quite a lot for representation.  Couple this with Io's world, and my players have a lot of opportunity to explore themselves (as theme and appropriate for each age group in campaign, of course) in the shoes of each character.  Maybe you're a girl that's figuring out if you like girls...so you play a guy character and try flirting out.  Or you play a girl character who is bisexual, or lesbian, or pan.  Who knows?  Maybe you're a guy that would like to see what happens if you play a girl; will your perspective change, your thoughts, your motivations?  What if your character is asexual?  What does that mean, how would I play that?  What if I'm a boy, and I identify as a girl?  How do I explore that?
How does the group react to your bend, or your orientation?  Do they support you, reject you, or are just uncomfortable?  Are they uncertain, and need to consider a few things for themselves?  

Maybe they're actually decent people and accept you for who you are, and try to help wherever they can.  :)  
  I'm happy to say that I have players that decided, through their experiences pursuing an orientation they were uncertain of, to come out to their family and fight for agency in their own life.  They used their character to harness the warrior inside, and actually fight for what made them happy.  That's the beauty of this game; it's an opportunity to find your Sword and Shield, and rise above the walls you built around yourself.  It is a forge, and when building yourself, you can always start over.  You can always rewrite your narrative; tell yourself a new story.

And what we're seeing, more and more, is how little it actually matters at the table what sort of orientation, gender, or identity you wish to pursue.  Those aspects of yourself (as long as they don't hurt others, and respect each other's boundaries) will be accepted at my table, and many others.  However, those aspects are only tiny pieces of a much greater YOU.  

What becomes possible when we expunge the social gender norms present today in what separates the expectations of a boy or a girl or the spectrum between, and embrace only the commonality of character and the sliding gradient of alignment point to point; decision to decision? Then, we are only measured by our actions, not solely by our gender, and we are but people drifting together.  Sometimes we have a heading, others not, and either way, the journey is our own as we grow and learn and love together.  
Huh.
​
Forever pride.  Forever human.
See you at the table.
​-Adamus

If players are escalating each other, and failing to take responsibility for such actions, instead citing the other as the problem...  Congratulations, you're kindergartners.  I'm so proud.  Take responsibility for your own actions; if you're perpetually late, fix that.  If you seem to clash with another player, discern why (don't just let it sit there, this is an opportunity to grow), and ACT on it.  If you always cite others as the problem, and evidence suggests the contrary, then you might be playing victim - own that and grow up.  
  This might seem like some tough love right now, but a role-playing group is a vulnerable thing.  Playing with others can be hard, and this setting is especially beautiful in how accepting it can be.  I am so honored to have cultivated a community that legitimately cares about its members and their wellbeing, mental health included, and am horrified when I hear of the awful experiences people have come from.  And yet, none of us are perfect.  We are all seeking our best selves through play with others, and because we all come from different places, there are bound to be some clashes.  These moments, as difficult as they might be, are opportunities to grow, pivot, and reflect.  And the community will be there to help you.

  However, if you find yourself UNWILLING to grow or adapt to smooth things over, if it rallies against your own concept of yourself and "you've tried everything," then maybe this isn't the group for you.  Sometimes taking space IS the best course of action; removing yourself from the situation gives context and perspective where none were present before.  
Luckily, we DO exist in a space where there is always another group to try.  :).  We'll wait for you.

See you at the table.
- Adamus

PS: keeping this blog and site running takes time, energy, and funding.  Consider helping out by visiting my Patreon, The DM's Den, found HERE, for extra benefits, rewards, and products.  Have an awesome day.