L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[DEFCON 1]

Well, why don't we look at the actual game mechanics that are given to a specific class to have it become a member of that Role.

The Defender classes: All have a Marking ability, and all have a punishment ability that occurs when the Mark is disregarded. They also tend to have high AC and high hit points.

The Striker classes: All have abilities or power add-ons that add extra damage or extra dice of damage on top of the normal damage their powers do.

The Leader classes: All have a 'Word'-esque power that allows them to 'heal' twice in an encounter. They also have powers that tend to buff their compatriots or let them do extra helpful things.

The Controller classes: All tend to have more frequent use of AoE abilities and attacks, and more abilities that debuff the enemies on the battlefield close and at range.

Now let's be honest here... is there any reason these abilities for these "roles" couldn't get layered on top of more classes than what 4E has? No, not at all. There's no reason why a Druid with an animal companion couldn't have a defender's marking mechanics for the companion, or why a Wizard couldn't have additional striker damage on their evocation spells (at the expense of losing some of his debuffing spells), or why a Monk couldn't lay on hands, or a Rogue couldn't control the battlefield with poisons, smokebombs, caltrops, alchemical fire and the like. After all... we've already seen this in Essentials, with some classes getting new roles (the Hunter Ranger being a controller, the Slayer Fighter being a striker, and the Sentinel Druid being a leader.) These choices don't necessarily need to be hardwired automatically into any specific class... the abilities that lend themselves to a certain role could easily be made available to all classes and chosen by the player during character creation to help do what they want to do with their character. So that if the Cleric of the God of War wants to be heavily armored and punish those enemies who move away from him on the field of battle, can have the ability to do so.

 

[Harlekin]

Some types of options that were more combat centric were added while other options that provided problems or were not combat based were left out.

Illusions were a problem because a wizard that chose ONLY illusions might not be able to fulfill a combat role effectively. This is why illusions were relegated to only utility powers, chosen every few levels.

Necromantic and druid summoning presented a problem with regards to balance (in combat) of some players having multiple actions due to choices.

A comparison of the 3e PHB vs the 4e PHB will make it plain to see that powers and options that were problems to quantify in combat were either "siloed" away (as in utility spells) or relegated to a different subgame (as in rituals) or removed completely.

These changes are completely key to balancing each class in combat (a major goal in 4e). They used roles as a metric to achieve this goal. I personally believe achieving this goal is not worth the price of my wizard not being able to choose only illusion spells (and being worse in combat because of his choices).

I also find it interesting that the main examples being trotted out are always full spell casters, who in 3ed can switch from one set of spells to the next within 24 hours. Hence, they can typically decide from day to day, which role they want to fill out. Non-spell casters on the other hand settle on a role by their choice of class and overall feat/attribute choices.

 

[Dausuul]

Some types of options that were more combat centric were added while other options that provided problems or were not combat based were left out.

Illusions were a problem because a wizard that chose ONLY illusions might not be able to fulfill a combat role effectively. This is why illusions were relegated to only utility powers, chosen every few levels.

The funny thing is that an illusionist-wizard should be a formidable combatant. The ability to manipulate the enemy's perception of reality is extremely potent. Unfortunately, early 4E couldn't cope with the idea of "non-damaging combat spells."

 

[hanez]

Agreed. 4ed, even more than 3ed, made sure that every character could contribute in combat without being overpowering. I still don't understand what that has to do with roles.

The way 4ed did this was that it removed choices. Both quantity of choices (for casters) and troublesome choices that required DM adjucation. Choices that were left fit into neatly described boxes that fit into combat roles. We are quickly heading to another tangent relating to players stating that many 4e classes felt and played the same.

Its all related. The focus on combat, the focus on balance, the ease of DMing, the roles, the similarity of powers all the powers, the siloing. Its hard to have balance and everyone having there time in the spotlight if half the powers don't fit into a classes particular role, or are not combat related in the first place.

 

[Minigiant]

I think I found a good analogy between Advice and The game.

A game show.

The player is the contestant create the character.
The game system is the game show host. He shouldn't force the player to choose Door 1. Nor should he allow the player to choose Doors 1, 2 and 3 without taking away some other prize.

The game can give advice to the player of what Door to take, suggest a course of action, and hint to what is behind the door. But the game shouldn't make the deal for you.

Now whether the doors have fake prizes, that is between you, your DM, and Monty Hall (or Wayne Brady). Personally I don't like booby prize choices and wish their are none by default. But you should be able to switch out to less optimal choices via modules.

 

[Harlekin]

The difference is a practical one. Each one of these 5 hypothetical classes would require a page or two for a write up, whereas my way only requires a few short paragraphs on one page, thus freeing up space for maneuvers, or a Robear Berbil player race write up, or whatever.

Also, it packs more decision points into smaller packages, rather than spreading them too thinly, thus it saving on the: "Wahhhhh *sob* classes are too rigid and inflexible. How can I play the character I want with only 100 classes to choose from. All Elven Archers play the same now! I'm gonna complain on the internet and then cut myself in the dark *sob*". Psychology.

Fair enough. On the other hand, each being its own class allows designers to fine-tune your design toward the need of each playstyle. But I take your point about the perception of flexibility.

 

[Harlekin]

The way 4ed did this was that it removed choices. Both quantity of choices (for casters) and troublesome choices that required DM adjucation. Choices that were left fit into neatly described boxes that fit into combat roles. We are quickly heading to another tangent relating to players stating that many 4e classes felt and played the same.

Its all related. The focus on combat, the focus on balance, the ease of DMing, the roles, the similarity of powers all the powers, the siloing. Its hard to have balance and everyone having there time in the spotlight if half the powers don't fit into a classes particular role, or are not combat related in the first place.

I would argue that for every choice 4ed removed for a caster, it added a choice for a martial class. But that is often overlooked.

Really all I can hear you say is roles are bad because they are in 4ed. I'm afraid we're not getting any further with this.

 

[Choranzanus]

Guys....

After all he said the only thing that interest you is that roles are out? This forum isn't what it used to be.

What about advice for new players in the books. What kind of advice it should be?

He even claims to give us a flowchart for crafting an adventure. Don't you think that is a tad bit more interesting?

 

[Bobbum Man]

SO, from my reading....
It sounds like the CR type stuff is in (but feel free to ignore like always)

Uuuugh...

Dear WotC Lurkers,

Please don't bring back 3rd editions CR system. Pretty please?

The encounter budget system was better (though not perfect), and there was less bookkeeping and cognitive dissonance.

Thank you for your time.

Love,

Bobbum Man

 

[Janaxstrus]

SO, from my reading....
It sounds like the CR type stuff is in (but feel free to ignore like always)
QUOTE]

Uuuugh...

Dear WotC Lurkers,

Please don't bring back 3rd editions CR system. Pretty please?

The encounter budget system was better (though not perfect), and there was less bookkeeping and cognitive dissonance.

Thank you for your time.

Love,

Bobbum Man

I like the CR, and since they said "feel free to ignore", it shouldn't be an issue.