My thoughts of Roles - from Races and Classes
Scholar & Brutalman
First Post
They should have gone back to the source when naming these roles: Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery and General.
Then when your cleric gets taken out all the other characters get morale penalties and a chance of going into rout.
Then when your cleric gets taken out all the other characters get morale penalties and a chance of going into rout.
Scribble said:
The leader in music guides the whole band, the leader of a business guides the company. If anything, the term leader is deeming to the other terms of striker, controller and defender.
The 4e rules set is covering the entire gamut of roleplaying. Social encounters, fluff, story and history, character roles, all of it. It is being made for new players to easily hop in and play, the term leader says "boss" to someone who does not play games or is familiar with the class system in D&D.
The leader in a tactical situation is the one who directs the actions of their forces. The leader tells the other components beneath them what to do. I realize it is not a passive thing, which is why I think the term doesn't apply to the cleric as the cleric's powers, at best, leads passively in the way some people are presenting the class as a leader. Healing, buffing and running away are not leading.
All of the character's actions are causing things to happen. That is what occurs in a fight. Your tactics are used to minimize your reacting and maximize your opponent's reacting, while minimizing losses in resources, capabilties and lives. All classes make choices together to use their tactics, it is the leader of the party that enables this to occur and acts as either the hub or the voice for it in battle. The cleric is rarely in that role, more often the fighter or wizard type characters are, as they oversee the key moments of the battle and act on the offensive.
The cleric is not directly affecting the character. The character can choose to do whatever they want. Just because the cleric says I am buffing you now, doesn't force a fighter to attack. It is just as easy for the fighter to bark and order to his cleric buddy to buff him, since he is moving in to fight.
The healer/ support is as important as the defender. They both protect and guide the party. The strikers and the controllers then manage the pacing of the party. All classes have moments where they will take on leader roles. The term supporter is more appropiate and no less deeming than defender.
This cleric's role being defined as leader is a stretch. I get that the term doesn't matter in the big picture, but I am thinking of the transition new players go through and feel this creates a unnecessary snag. It could also effect the designers though, as the team changes or 3rd parties build for the game, leader is a misrepresented role.
One final note: The queen in chess is not a leader. She is a controller. The king is the only leader, as all of your moves are based on protecting him over anything else.
Ironically, the bishops are support, while the rooks are defenders, the knights are striker and the pawns are minions.
Scribble
First Post
Najo said:
And the "leader" in a tactical game guides the actions of the other players. (players being PCs and DMs.)
It's not demeaning in any way. It's simply a way to classify how its powers work. Because the cleric's powers make certain options more or less effective, good tactics say to follow what it creates.
Yes, the game will consist of tactical rules, and role playing options, story, and fluff. All of these elements will be put together in a way that is hopefully easier to work with then previous editions, and smoother in play as well.
However, when I say ruleset I do not speak of the game as a whole. I speak of the numbers elements, the tactical rules, and how they are used.
If you are playing a halfling, and decide not to use a squeaky high pitched voice, you are not breaking any rules.
If you have a BAB of +5 and instead you decide to add +32 you are breaking the rules.
In terms of the rules the "leader" is being explained in a tactical way (the second example) in order to help new players understand that in terms of roleplaying, you can give your dude a squeaky voice or a constant wheez, or whatever you want. roleplaying is yours. In terms of tactics, the cleric is best understood in the role of a leader. One who's choices, and powers effect not only what your character can choose to do, but the choices of the others in your group as well.
You are in effect telling them what or how to do something by adding or removing options. It's not a passive thing. It's also seemingly being turned into a more active role then ever before.
For instance, say a cleric has a healing "field." if you are an ally, and within 10 feet of the cleric, you can be healed. The cleric is effectively telling his allies to remain within 10 feet.
Sure, you can go off on your own, but then you'll pay the consequences. Just like if you decide not to do something the way your boss wants you to at work you'll pay the consequences. (It might work out, but it might also get you fired.)
But again, the way the powers work are changing. The Cleric (it seems) will have more powers and abilities to function as the one that works as the hub.
And still, all characters can effect the battle. The cleric will most directly effect the tactics involved and which options are best taken.
The fighter barking is a "boss" role. He's giving an order.The cleric casting the buff spell is a "leader" role because it is changing the best tactics for the fighter to use.
I'm a fighter facing two opponents. One is an outsider. The other is a Humanoid. Let's say both of them are capable of dealing roughly the same damage each round.
The cleric casts protection from outsiders on me.
I'm fully able to choose to attack the humanoid, but better tactics would suggest confronting the outsider, who cannot deal any damage to me. In that way I can hopefully dispatch it before confronting the humanoid.
That is how the cleric leads. By in a sense choosing the best tactics for you to use.
And they've already stated that all classes will have some elements of the other roles built into them. The cleric is simply built around the idea of the leader role. It's not a demeaning thing. It's just a tactics term.
It's not misrepresented! As long as the new designers are doing their job and keeping consistent with the cleric having "leader" powers, things will be fine.
As for new players, clearly defining how their powers effect the party and opponents (you lead what they do) is the best option.
Actually I'd very much disagree here.
The King functions as the controller. If he moves, the battlefield changes. I can arrange the "perfect" trap for the opponent's king, but as soon as he moved 1 space over, my trap can be foiled, and I have to rethink exactly how to move my pieces in order to once again trap the king.
This is similar to the wizard. Say he casts a spll that causes the terrain to become difficult. Suddenly options like charge become less effective, or impossible.
The queen, however, when I move her into a space, you either have to find a way to take her out, or back off, because chances are, due to her many movement options she'll be able to get you.
I'd agree with most of the above, however, pawns might be controllers in a way. When they move into a space, they limit the spaces your opponent can go... (maybe they're just a terrain effect...
)
Li Shenron
Legend
I agree on your considerations about Leaders. I'm pretty sure that many gamers who choose to play a cleric or warlord, will make the mistake of assuming that they should be treated as the leader of the group out of combat too.
My own concern about role is much more general. While it's possible a useful tool to define these roles, it has a high danger of becoming a restriction. I think that unwise designers will try to "remove" abilities from characters because "they don't fit with the chosen role". So instead of roles serving game design, we'll have game design serving the roles.
Najo said:
My own concern about role is much more general. While it's possible a useful tool to define these roles, it has a high danger of becoming a restriction. I think that unwise designers will try to "remove" abilities from characters because "they don't fit with the chosen role". So instead of roles serving game design, we'll have game design serving the roles.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I think SOME might. Others will play timid clerics who are afraid of being the boss but love to be support.Li Shenron said:
What it comes down to it is that support and leader are pretty much the same term. It's a matter of the images that it invokes.
A leader casts a spell to increase his own accuracy and his allies then he attacks the enemies and yells out, "Join me, my allies, we can defeat them!"
Support casts a spell to buff his allies accuracy and says, "Alright guys, I made you better, now go kill them. I'll be back here if you need healing."
One invokes images of heroic people risking their life to lead their comrades to defeat their enemies. The other invokes images of a medic who sits back at camp waiting for the wounded to be brought to him or a supply officer who delivers ammo to the front line.
One is the officer who says, "You flank to the left and you flank to the right, I'll charge at him to distract him." The other is the guy who stays in the rear waiting for the battle to go bad enough that the real adventurers need support.
Even if they had the exact same powers, the first one just SOUNDS more appealing. And(if I'm not remembering incorrectly) one of the designers has already said that this is why they are named Leaders.
However, I think that Clerics already fit this role pretty well. They tended to be the center of most combats with no one wanting to get too far away from them to make sure they were in range of buffs and healing. Often, they were in the position to survey the battlefield since they had to keep constant track of hitpoints of all of their allies as well as the damage being done by enemies so they could estimate who needed healing first and approximately when they would need it. I've found that often they managed to see tactical weaknesses before others. Not that every class and every character didn't participate in the tactical portion of the game. It's just that clerics made the difference between winning and losing in most cases.
Most armies need good soldiers, good weapons, but they also need good leadership to tie it all together or it won't matter. That's where the cleric and warlord come in.
I know the designers have stated time and again that the roles are descriptive not proscriptive. However, I agree with you that it is very likely that the roles have partially shaped the classes.Li Shenron said:
On the other hand, I have no problem with this since my main problem with 3e is that the classes don't have any roles and that it is too easy to design any class to fill any role or to multiclass yourself into a character who fills no roles at all.
To me, if this form of game design causes someone to look at spells like Tenser's Transformation, Polymorph, and Divine Power and say, "These spells can singlehandedly cause one class to equal or surpass another class in a role they shouldn't, maybe we need to remove that ability." I am all for it.
I've always viewed D&D as a cooperative game where everyone should HAVE to work together to succeed. I've seen what happens when a group of people made up characters and figured they were well balanced because they have a Fighter, Barbarian, Druid, Cleric, and Wizard only to find out they were basically all playing the same character with a different class.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Or...maybe they just all work together like good leaders should:Sitara said:
Cleric: I give you all bonuses to hit!
Warlord: Now, everyone take a free attack!
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
Probably the same when this happened:Sitara said:
Fighter: *charge the hobgoblin patrol*
Wizard: *fireball at all of them*
It's always better to coordinate actions.
(Both scenarios might also work out cooperatively - maybe the Warlord helps a different character then the Cleric, or the party actually needs both abilities. And the Fighter in the second example might have an Resist Energy spell from the Wizard or wears a Ring of Fire Protection)
Hussar
Legend
Sitara said:
It's no different than having a cleric and a bard in the party. Cleric hits you with a buff, the bard hits you with haste, and off you go to the races.
In your example, it would be something like this:
Warlord: Attack! (Everyone gains +2 to hit for 1 round)
Cleric; Defend! (All allies within 15 feet of the cleric gain +4 AC)
((Note, these are just examples, not meant to be any prediction for actual mechanics))
So, the party stays close to the cleric and attacks. Better yet, they move up as a group and mob a single large target.
Similar Threads
