Description of class roles

[Gloombunny]

I don't think we've heard/seen anything to suggest that roles will exist in the rules as anything other than something the developers keep in mind as they're writing a class.

And I really hope that's all roles are. I don't want to see them explicitly interact with any rules. I don't want to see every class having some massive stretch of logic trying to justify how it can be each role in some way. The only time I want to see roles mentioned in the rulebook is in a short "how to play this class" passage telling the reader what each class is meant to be good at and how.

 

[The Right Word]

The only time I want to see roles mentioned in the rulebook is in a short "how to play this class" passage telling the reader what each class is meant to be good at and how.

I don't know, there are only 4 roles, it seems that there are lots of options and ideas that could vary in mechanics and flavor to fill needs on the battlefield. Besides, the roles will help codify each class into the game experience. We can therefore leave behind the four man party of 'must haves'.

If the roles are not defined, I worry that you may have some of the same, somewhat ancillary classes in 3E.

 

[Gloombunny]

I don't know, there are only 4 roles, it seems that there are lots of options and ideas that could vary in mechanics and flavor to fill needs on the battlefield. Besides, the roles will help codify each class into the game experience. We can therefore leave behind the four man party of 'must haves'.

If the roles are not defined, I worry that you may have some of the same, somewhat ancillary classes in 3E.

Wait... are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? I'm confused.

 

[Baby Samurai]

My theory is that roles are going to define hit dice, bab, and at will abilities.

While that would be cool, it seems HD dose not exist in 4th Ed, and we have no idea how BAB will work, if it is even still in the game as we know it.

Whatever happens I hope they ditch d4 for a class's hp. Well, in fact I hope hp are not randomized and instead are a fixed number + your Con modifier.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Why don't we just call them Tank, CC, Nuker, Buffer and be done with it? At least that way everyone knows what's what.

Perhaps because those terms are meaningless to lots of people?

I know what Tank means because that has been used in D&D since time immemorial, but I've not got the faintest idea what you mean by the others (although I could guess at nuker and buffer).

I presume the names come from a computer game of some sort?

 

[Testament]

Perhaps because those terms are meaningless to lots of people?

I know what Tank means because that has been used in D&D since time immemorial, but I've not got the faintest idea what you mean by the others (although I could guess at nuker and buffer).

I presume the names come from a computer game of some sort?

These terms are everyday parlance in World of Warcraft, although I'm pretty sure they predate that particular game. Nuker or DPS (damage per second) or other such terms refer to characters whose role consists of doing lots and lots of damage. Buffer is pretty self-explanatory, referring to characters whose job it is to make everyone else do their job better, force multiplication etc. CC refers to Crowd Control, preventing the party from being overwhelmed by taking enemies out of the fight at least temporarily.

 

[Plane Sailing]

1. They have said several times that Roles are what the class can do without having to specially configure themselves. Leader seems to be about party buffing and healing, and clerics (and warlords) will always be able to do some of that, often without using up actions to do so. I imagine that this will be followed through for other roles too, so that all wizards will be able to do 'controller' things, regardless of how else they specialise.

2. It seems to me that the only clear watch words for strikers that we've seen before is 'bonus damage in certain circumstances'. The rogue has sneak attack against flatfooted or flanked opponents who have vital areas (or something similar to that, presumably). Rangers have favoured enemies in 3.x, and we know they killed the scout and took their stuff so maybe they get their bonus damage as long as they do a certain amount of movement. The last podcast talked about warlocks getting bonus damage in some circumstances, but the circumstances were under review (in one iteration warlocks got bonus damage against someone they had cursed, or something like that, but it has since changed IIRC).

Cheers

 

[Baby Samurai]

Perhaps because those terms are meaningless to lots of people?

To be honest, the terms defender, striker, controller and leader as roles are all new to me and I've been DMing/playing for 20 years.

It wasn't until my older brother started playing WoW that I heard the term "tank" for a meat-stick.

So I think unless you are familiar with MMORPGs, there's a chance you won't be familiar with any of these terms (like me).

 

[Belorin]

After reading what I could find on the roles, there was early mention of a grid that suggested what class fit best in what role, I'm doing this from memory so I could be wrong.

-------------Leader-----Defender-----Controller-----Striker

Martial------Warlord-----Fighter------XXXXXXX------Rogue

Divine--------Cleric------Paladin------OOOOOO------Ranger

Arcane------OOOOOO----XXXXXX-----Wizard--------Warlock

As you can see there are some gaps and there are some roles I believe that certain Power Sources can't fill. Like a Martial Controller or an Arcane Defender. Clerics could fill the Divine Controller slot and Wizard the Arcane Leader by judicious selection of skills, feats, talents, etc.
Now some may argue that the Ranger is a Martial Striker, but I can't see doubling up on those and leaving yet another open slot. There has been talk in other threads about there being more than 8 classes and if so look for them to fill in at least one of the emppty slots.
This is all conjecture on my part so far so take it with a grain of salt.

Bel

 

[Gloombunny]

To be honest, the terms defender, striker, controller and leader as roles are all new to me and I've been DMing/playing for 20 years.

It wasn't until my older brother started playing WoW that I heard the term "tank" for a meat-stick.

So I think unless you are familiar with MMORPGs, there's a chance you won't be familiar with any of these terms (like me).

The terms defender/controller/striker/leader aren't familiar to people who play MMORPGs either. WotC just made them up. Some of them correspond to terms MMOers use, but only in somewhat inaccurate and misleading ways.

Defenders are the traditional D&D meatshields. The guys with lots of armor and lots of hitpoints who fight at the front of the party, who the wizard tries to hide behind. They also get to do a lot of damage with their weapons while they're at it. (This distinguishes them from the corresponding MMO classes, who usually suck at dealing damage and rely on "taunt" abilities to make enemies target them. Mearls has explicitly stated that D&D4 defenders will not be like that. Thank gods.)

Leaders are an expansion of the healer role D&D has always had. They heal, but they also buff other PCs' stats (e.g., bard music, spells like bless) and grant extra actions and the like (think White Raven maneuvers from Bo9S). The name "leader" is probably just an attempt to make a support role sound cooler. ^_^

Controllers do what D&D players have taken to calling "battlefield control". Stuff like wall of spells, web, black tentacles, and other things that shape the surrounding area to the PCs' advantage. Area-effect damage is also part of the controller shtick, because you can use the threat of it to control how the enemies arrange themselves. Summoning might also be considered a controller thing, particularly if you have some choice over where your summoned dudes appear.

Strikers are about dealing damage, but we already know that controllers cover most of the area-effect damage and that defenders (or at least some defenders) are top-notch damage dealers, so what's left for strikers? They haven't told us clearly, but my impression is that strikers are about selecting key targets and dealing lots of damage to them in hopes of finishing them off quickly. For instance, a rogue who uses Tumble to get past the enemy's melee guys and hit their vulnerable spellcaster is acting as a striker. Even if they don't deal more damage than defenders, strikers can make a role for themselves by applying that damage where it does the party the most good.

The point I'm trying to make is that all of these roles have existed in D&D for some time now. All WotC is doing now is identifying them, naming them, and designing their classes to make sure that every character can adequately fill some role and thereby contribute to the party. They're not copying MMOs, they're just trying to avoid situations like the 3e monk, who isn't very good at doing anything except maybe staying alive.