D&D 4E 4E Roles

[Rhiarion]

It has been pointed out to me a Role is linked to a class at creation.

I want to go on record saying clerics or fighters, for example, could work well as defenders or leaders depending on your PC's stat build and other party members choices.

I hope for balance a party needs one of each role, and the players pick thier classes, rather than needing certain classes and being forced into roles.

I say this because in my group (3 out of 6) certain folk IRL have the confidence and conversational skill to almost always 'float to the surface' and become leader/spokesperson regardless of class or race.

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, I just wanted people to share thier thoughts with me.

 

[KrazyHades]

The Leader roles only represent leaders in the sense that during battle they help with support (healing, morale, etc...like 3e bards and clerics). Unlike the 3e 'leaders' the 4e ones will be able to use their buffs and heals and the like while still participating in combat. Leader has nothing to do with social encounters or the like. Races and Classes, for example, specifically mentioned that one can build rogues that excell at social interaction rather than in other areas (such as lock picking).

Creating roles does not really change anything. In 3E there were also some rolls that many parties tried to fill. If a party didn't have a cleric, it had a harder time, but it wasn't as if they were totally screwed. Ditto for Wiz/Sor. Defining the Roles just helps newer players understand the concept that a party tends to work better with one of each. The traditional 3E party, for example, consists of a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard, covering all of the "roles" of 4e.

You will not HAVE to have all of those roles, but it will make life easier.

 

[Henry]

In a way, this part has kind of gone back towards AD&D, and I like this: The classes have more sharply defined archetypes associated with them, even if they multiclass or have other abilities with feats. I do miss using one or two descriptors to define most of your character's thrust in the direction you intend him or her to go.

 

[Sitara]

This is due to a heavy mmorpg influence. Now this will lead to annoying situaitons where gm's advert their games as needing "a divine controller, a divine defencer, a defender, etc etc' *roll eyes*

 

[Lucius Drake]

It may lead to that. It also may lead to a much faster way of introducing the game to new players. Once they know what the roles basically do they have a clearer idea of how to answer the "Well what do you want to be able to do?" question.

Doesn't make much of a difference to me. I never advertise for players. They just seem to keep coming out of the woodwork!

 

[NewfieDave]

Roles are not new. The classes have had these "defender" and "leader" labels since 1e, they just haven't been described as thoroughly as we've seen in 4e previews.

The new system, if it works as advertised, should be just what I'm looking for. When I played 2e, I found the class system to be too rigid and inflexible. The only 2e character I was totally satisfied with was a specialty priest I made with help from our DM, because I was able to customize him to my desires. In 3.X, I loved the customization involved in making a character, but prerequisites usually got in the way of my concepts. Some concepts just needed way too many feats to work (thanks to some needless feat prerequisites), so my characters didn't feel like they should until high level (few ever got that far). Also, prestige classes made the core classes seem weak and unimportant. Sorcerer and Cleric really stick out to me as classes who gain nothing special after 1st level.

4e seems to be solving all these problems. Picking your class is an important choice now, because you're stuck with it your whole character life. No more "I'll just take 2 levels in Paladin for this overpowered bonus to all my saves then switch class." Adding more feats/powers and removing most of the needless prerequisites will allow the customization I desire. If all this works as so far advertised, I'll be a happy panda.

 

[FourthBear]

I believe the primary motivation for making more explicit class roles is to address some of the "problem classes" in 3e. There were many complaints about classes like the bard and monk not being very effective in combat. I've often seen players complain that these and other "oddball" classes had a hard time contributing since they didn't seem to have a clear place to shine in combat.

For better or ill (I generally think better), the 4e designers went back to tactical class roles in D&D, looking at previous editions and CRPG design. By breaking it down into a few general classes of tactical roles, a class can be designed to have the minimum competency to work in that role. It should be noted that a class need not be designed to serve *only* in that role, but that it have as a default the attributes to serve adequately across all levels. From descriptions of the warlock, it will have the ability to serve as a ranged striker, able to do sizable damage to particular opponents, depending on tactical circumstances. Some of the other revealed class abilities of the warlock are appropriate for a controller or other class role. However, the warlock's class description will include default abilities that will allow it to serve as a ranged striker at all levels.

I think this is a reasonable way to think about designing classes such that they have something to contribute while not greatly restricting them. It also aids in knowing if classes will overlap in central combat responsibilities. Will it be impossible or even difficult to have a party of all strikers? About as troublesome as having an all-one-class party in previous edition, perhaps less so. I find a more interesting question beyond whether considering combat roles is appropriate: are there any class roles that have been missed beyond the ones that the designers have named? Or are the class roles given too broad are there any that should be split up?

 

[FireLance]

I think a class's role is the purpose that the majority of a class's powers are will be built around. I don't think it is a strict limitation - I believe that paladins (Defenders) will have some Leader-type abilities and warlocks (Strikers) will have some Controller-type abilities. I think it is a design principle to give each class an explicitly defined strength and purpose to help beginning players know which class to select for and what to do with their characters. A player who wants a Defender-type character should not select a rogue or ranger (Strikers) for example, and a player with a rogue or ranger character should not play it like a Defender (barring exceptional circumstances, of course). In 3e, I think this was a problem with the monk class - quite a few players thought (and played it like) it was an unarmed fighter, and were disappointed at the results.

That said, I think multiclassing will still be an option, so players will still have the choice of creating characters with a varied slate of abilities. If you want a character that mixes Defender and Striker abilities, it should still be possible to create one either as a multiclasses fighter/ranger (say), or a fighter with the Ranger Training feat.

 

[Sitara]

The monk was quite effective, only problem is that players tend to plump their points around too much instead of focusing. Another key to enjoying the monk is at lower levels ignore flurry (you will usually miss) and use standard attacks. Start using flurry at level 4-5+ regularly.

Also, use stunning fist to good effect; a good tactic is to use stunning fist successfully, then follow up with flurriers in the following rounds on the same stunned target.

 

[FireLance]

The monk was quite effective, only problem is that players tend to plump their points around too much instead of focusing. Another key to enjoying the monk is at lower levels ignore flurry (you will usually miss) and use standard attacks. Start using flurry at level 4-5+ regularly.

Also, use stunning fist to good effect; a good tactic is to use stunning fist successfully, then follow up with flurriers in the following rounds on the same stunned target.

Oh, I'm quite sure it's possible to play an effective monk. It's just that a monk is seldom effective if played like a fighter, only unarmed. What roles might do is to make that clear right from the start. If the monk is (eventually) re-done as a Striker class, that's a pretty good hint that he shouldn't be played like a Defender. If the monk is re-done as a Defender, he ought to have class abilities to allow him to absorb or avoid damage and encourage opponents to direct attacks to him.

Incidentally, mathematically speaking, a monk is usually better off flurrying unless he requires an 17, 18 or 19 to hit his opponent (the average damage is actually the same on a 17 or a 19, but he uses a full-round action instead of a standard action to do so). And since Stunning Fist stuns an opponent for just one round (until just before the user's next action), a monk who stuns an opponent has to take advantage of it in the current round, by attempting a stun on the first attack in a flurry, for example.