Expanding Roles - was Dropping Roles

[StAlda]

I've been giving a lot of thought lately about dropping class roles.

My approach would be to combine all power source powers into one big bucket that any class with that power source could choose from. Since all the requirements/restictions would still be with the power, a specific Ranger power would still only work for them. But a high Dex fighter could get Sly Florish if he wants to use a light blade.

I know others on this board have stated their dislike of roles too.

I'm looking for comments... Pros and Cons

 

[Mentat55]

Each class still has the class features that actually define their role. For martial classes, the fighter still has Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority, the rogue still has Sneak Attack, the ranger still has Hunter's Quarry, and the warlord still has Inspiring Word. Basically, unless you address the class features along with the powers, you'll still have roles.

In fact, assuming that you mean to lump all at-wills, encounter, daily, and utility powers into one pool, you get some really deadly combinations that, right now, are at least partially limited by multiclassing or hybrid restrictions. The daggermaster rogue using Twin Strike becomes easily accessible. The tempest fighter becomes a defender with striker-level damage by taking all the ranger multi-attack powers.

Then you get the weird primary ability score interactions. A brutal scoundrel rogue would have practical access to all martial attack powers (since all martial powers use Str or Dex to attack). But an artful dodger rogue would be stuck with rogue powers and ranged weapon ranger powers. Every divine character would need to have a good Wisdom because so many powers are Wisdom-based.

And no one would play wizards, because you get all their controller abilities wrapped up in their powers. Just play a swordmage, artificer, or high Int warlock that takes wizard powers, instead -- they are tougher, better armed, and better armored.

 

[keterys]

The primary problem you'll run into are screwed if you or don't situations, such as someone who can mark given striker 'don't hit me' powers like Riposte Strike, Hellish Rebuke, and Eyebite.

For example, you can actually have a situation in which a character gets an attack every time the target _doesn't_ attack them _and_ gets an attack every time the target attacks them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think this really has too much to do with roles myself. A ranger is a striker mainly due to the class features it has. Allowing a wider variety of powers isn't really going to change that much. Perhaps even more importantly a given PC has only limited resources available to build on. You could make a fighter that uses a bow and takes "ranger" powers to use it effectively, but that fighter is going to have to pretty much specialize as an archer with high dex, etc. Its just going to look like a ranger does now except with a few more hit points and some class features it can't make use of. You'll still be better off making that PC an actual archer ranger.

The issue I have with all the 'we don't like roles' statements is the people making them are missing fundamental points about the game. 4e did not invent roles. They always existed due to the very nature of type of game being played. Even in pure point-buy systems actual characters fall into roles. Even in the real world the game is emulating this is true. All 4e did was acknowledge fact and make it work in a positive direction for the game.

Finally the whole issue only arises because people insist on being fixated by the names of the various classes. If you want to make a character that holds the front line and uses melee weapons to do it, then the character is best modeled using the fighter class. Arguing that fighters should be able to fill any role is nonsensical because it comes from looking at the game backwards. Start with a character concept and pick a class to fit, there is no issue.

Now, all that being said I think there are OTHER potentially good arguments for the game to have been designed without entirely separate per-class power lists. There's nothing inherently wrong with that concept. Its not easy to say exactly what the game would look like if it had been designed that way, but in thinking about it quite a bit I rapidly came to the conclusion that the existing power lists would not work well as-is in that kind of design. So essentially that boat sailed when 4e was published. It may well have been a mistake to design the game that way, but we will never know, at least not until the next edition if that ever happens.

 

[StAlda]

Right now, there is no "generic" Martial striker, you have to be a Rogue or Ranger. These classes are very specialized. So in a city setting if you want a non-light weapon martial striker - he has to be a Ranger? Seriously? All of the Archers on the castle wall are Rogues and Rangers? Dumb. (IMHO)

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think the only thing you will accomplish is that every melee character will have a ranger power like twin strike and a barbarian power like howling strike. In other words, you will see the same powers over and over again.

All of the Archers on the castle wall are Rogues and Rangers? Dumb. (IMHO)

No, they are NPC's and don't have any PC classes.

Last time I played a martial character it was a Fighter/Rogue* but I didn't introduce myself as one. If I had to describe what he was good at it would have been something like: fast reactions, mobility, heavy-hitting and squishy.

*It was in 3.5 and he was using a greatsword

 

[keterys]

Umm, most likely _none_ of the archers on the castle wall are rogues or rangers. NPCs don't follow PC rules.

Edit: Eh, sorta ninja-ed. But eh

 

[Saeviomagy]

Right now, there is no "generic" Martial striker, you have to be a Rogue or Ranger. These classes are very specialized. So in a city setting if you want a non-light weapon martial striker - he has to be a Ranger? Seriously? All of the Archers on the castle wall are Rogues and Rangers? Dumb. (IMHO)

Two things.
1. They don't need to be strikers. The average person will drop from a hit with a bow without needing additional damage.
2. Rogues and rangers are not nearly as specialised as you think they are.
3. Fighters do close to striker level damage anyway
4. They're not PCs, they're NPCs
5. It's the fault of whichever idiot decided there should be a primal power source and that barbarians fitted within it.

Anyway, your original idea is going to be pretty bad because of the differing primary and secondary attributes of each power. There will be a very narrow band of characters who become immensely more powerful (ie - high strength martial characters, high charisma arcane characters and high wis divine characters) and everyone else will basically be screwed (like... non-brutal rogues, wizards, barbarians etc).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right now, there is no "generic" Martial striker, you have to be a Rogue or Ranger. These classes are very specialized. So in a city setting if you want a non-light weapon martial striker - he has to be a Ranger? Seriously? All of the Archers on the castle wall are Rogues and Rangers? Dumb. (IMHO)

Well, others have already mentioned the invalidity of the concept that NPCs say anything about classed PLAYER CHARACTERS at all, but I add my voice to that. The NPCs on the wall are NPCs, they don't follow class rules and in any case even if they WERE classed what makes you think they use anything but MBAs?

Rangers and Rogues are NOT "highly specialized", that's ridiculous. Both classes can use either ranged and/or melee combat powers quite effectively, thank you. Beyond that you just illustrated what I was saying in my previous post PERFECTLY. You need to stop being fixated by the names of the classes. An urban non-light weapon martial striker is perfectly well modeled by the ranger class. Only your inability to let go of Ranger = Guy in the Woods stops you from doing that. What class feature do rangers have that forces them to be non-urban type characters? WotC went to great lengths in fact to allow for exactly these kinds of uses of the ranger class by leaving out anything that forces you to tie them to a rural sort of background. They don't even have TRACKING as a class feature for crying out loud! Same with Rogues, there's nothing specific to the class that ties it to one type of environment or background, they are just light weapon experts (which admittedly is best explained by use of weapons in an urban setting, but that's NOT the fault of the class design).

Admittedly the fluff for both of these classes generically describes them in certain terms and the names are evocative of a certain sort of background, but can you really not see past that? The 4e designers wanted to provide a visualization for each class that would let someone new to the class easily create a character concept. They had to describe it in SOME fashion, yet they assiduously avoided mechanically pigeonholing them. The issue isn't the game, its the way people are using it. The presentation may have encouraged this issue but they never expected you to be chained to that fluff.

 

[keterys]

Rangers have to pick either Nature or Dungeoneering, which is the one big thing that sticks out as 'outdoorsy'.

So in the urban game I'm running, the urban ranger got Streetwise instead.