My thoughts of Roles - from Races and Classes

[Najo]

Alright, Races and Classes is awesome. I am so excited for 4e and looking forward working with it in our business.

I am thoroughly impressed with the human flaw too. Brilliant and very thought provoking. I would love to have been there when the designers hit that idea, and knew it was the one. It stirs something inside when you read it.

My concern though, is with the roles for player characters. Defender, Striker, Controller and Leader. I think there is a mistake made.

Leader is improperly labelled. It should be Support (or something to that effect). Here is my reasons:

1) It is misleading: the party leader should not default to cleric or warlord. It should be the player whose character naturally feels takes on leadership roles, which any class should be able to do. Leadership is not a unit function in the same reagard as defender, striker or controller is.

2) Leaders don't always lead: Clerics are not really the party leader and their function is not to direct the other members. Likewise, the warlord (who is mislabeled to) is intended to coordinate and support the rest of the group. He takes on the 3.5 bard's role to a degree.

Support classes are the classes that buff, remove negative effects, heal, use their actions to aid or guide other party members. They also coordinate group activity and have a flexiblility to change from frontline to behind the lines role.

When looking at both the Cleric and Warlord in this light, I think the defination of Support makes more sense.

Another point I like to add. I think your team should look at dual role classes. For example, the paladin is really a defender/support, the bard a controller/support, the druid a defender/ controller, the sorcerer could be a striker/ support, the swordmage a striker/defender or defender/controller.

This makes the classes much more verstile and interesting to design.

 

[Elphilm]

I believe Leader only describes the combat roles of certain classes, and it has little to do with which character makes the big decisions in the party. The Warlord and the Cleric seem to be the prime 'party enablers' - not only do they buff the other characters, but also give them opportunities to do more than they could otherwise do. The 'Feather Me Yon Oaf' ability seems to be one example of the latter. When you take that into account I don't think it's terribly misleading (pun intended) to say that the two classes lead the party in combat. Coordination and support are parts of combat leadership, after all.

Furthermore, I believe the Leader role is named thus to remove the negative connotations of 'support' from the Leader classes. Perhaps it is an unnecessary distinction, perhaps not.

I also seem to remember that there has been some talk about classes with multiple roles, so I imagine we will see such classes somewhere down the line.

 

[Voss]

Furthermore, I believe the Leader role is named thus to remove the negative connotations of 'support' from the Leader classes. Perhaps it is an unnecessary distinction, perhaps not.

This. The role is fundamentally one of support, but its rebranded to get people playing them. (Beyond CoDzilla)

It also doesn't have anything to do with actual party leadership. Its just, at most, tactical leadership.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I personally think the roles are going to last as long as it takes the players to read it, think about it and then ignore it.

Not trying to threadcrap, but it seems that there is a lot of angst about something that is only four words in the book. When players start using the books, I think those four roles will be diluted or ignored as needed, just like the 4 person party that was a 3.5 game has been changed and largely ignored when someone did not want to take up one of h roles.

 

[infax]

I agree with Elphilm to a degree.

I think the main reason to label the role as Leader was an attempt to entice players to take on those classes. Support has acquired a terrible conotation in the last edition (in no small part due to the way the Bard and the Cleric were expected to behave in combat situations).

Coordinator or Enabler could be more appropriate designations (if less flavorful). 'Feather Me Yon Oaf' does not guarantee that party members will launch arrows and bolts at the target, but only that they are allowed to do so. Hence I am in line with Najo in thinking that, depending on the personality and abilities of the player or the specific character taking on the class of Warlord or Cleric, the character can make for a terrible leader.

On the argument on dual roles, I like the perspective.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I like the leader role. I think it's the best addition yet in 4E (with limited info). Also, I think it's a good idea to remove the support tag and add leader instead. Support has always been Leader. -You follow whomever keeps you alive. If the cleric says "I'll go right", death awaits to the left.

For sure, leaders don't always lead. Sometimes the party will follow any character with an idea and a goal. But in the end, if the cleric says "I'll go right", death awaits to the left. Follow the obsessed warlock if you dare...

Making the classes fill more roles than one is a mistake. Unless you plan on playing with one or possibly two players. What's the point of classes if every class can do anything? Don't succumb.

 

[FireLance]

With respect to the "Leader" role, I think the "Cheer" is silent, and invisible.

 

[xechnao]

The supportive abilities of the "leader" are not under question.
The commanding ones are.
The question is how much of a captain's role a "leader" is intended to have.

 

[erf_beto]

Well, perhaps not the leader of the adventuring party, but clerics and priests are supposed to be leader of the masses, guiding people spiritualy. They could guide the party, but not necessarily through commands in battle, but rather in the moral/ethics/spiritual sense. The warlord, OTOH, is a leader of troops and warriors, therefore also fit to be the leader of an adventuring party, but he might not be the guy telling them what's right from wrong, or good from evil...

It's different kinds of leader-ship, the same way rogues and rangers are both strikers, but don't necessarily step into each other toes. I know these are party roles, but as someone already said, 'support' isnt a very nice name for a role, so putting the cleric (who IS a sort of leader) with the warlord was their best bet.

 

[xechnao]

Well, perhaps not the leader of the adventuring party, but clerics and priests are supposed to be leader of the masses, guiding people spiritualy. They could guide the party, but not necessarily through commands in battle, but rather in the moral/ethics/spiritual sense. The warlord, OTOH, is a leader of troops and warriors, therefore also fit to be the leader of an adventuring party, but he might not be the guy telling them what's right from wrong, or good from evil...

Well, if there is a mechanical aspect to this role (as with defenders, strikers and controlers) it could be problematic if not secured with an alternative. What if players do not agree with these ethics or combat commands?

The warlord listens some creature in the bushes apparently stalking nearby...
"There!!! Feather me yon oaf!" ...
Now, do players have their choice of shooting or not shooting or is the order kind of spell like on them?