My thoughts of Roles - from Races and Classes

[FireLance]

My own concern about role is much more general. While it's possible a useful tool to define these roles, it has a high danger of becoming a restriction. I think that unwise designers will try to "remove" abilities from characters because "they don't fit with the chosen role". So instead of roles serving game design, we'll have game design serving the roles.

Frankly, I would prefer to have the roles restrict game design in this way. I would rather have neat, well-defined packages of abilities that I can put together to create the character I want than to force-fit my character into some game designer's perception of an interesting class. If I want a character that is part Striker, part Defender, and a little bit of Controller, give me pure Striker, Defender, and Controller classes, and tools like multiclassing and class training feats to put that character together, instead of trying to give me a pre-packaged bundle of abilities that I may not want in its entirety.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I agree on your considerations about Leaders. I'm pretty sure that many gamers who choose to play a cleric or warlord, will make the mistake of assuming that they should be treated as the leader of the group out of combat too.

Except that if races and classes is any indication, there's going to be a big fat "leader, not boss" text box next to the role description. Not that that stopped people with alignments, but here's hoping.

My own concern about role is much more general. While it's possible a useful tool to define these roles, it has a high danger of becoming a restriction. I think that unwise designers will try to "remove" abilities from characters because "they don't fit with the chosen role". So instead of roles serving game design, we'll have game design serving the roles.

Except Clerics have flame strike and fear effects, and Warlocks can move characters around, and Paladins can heal, and it's been said by developers at least twice "you role is what you get automatically, all classes can do things outside their role".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, that's *easy.* The cleric (divine leader) doesn't look anything like the warlord (martial leader) and they'll both look, feel, and play different than the bard (arcane leader). Power source aside, there's plenty of design space to make them distinct.

Are the power sources then going to mechanically affect play? Or is this just a "feel" thing?

(Personally, I'd rather see the power sources mechanically affect play.)

RC

 

[Lackhand]

I'm curious about Raven Crowking's question, too.

Are certain effects reserved for certain power sources, or enhanced from being used within certain power sources?

Consider a cleric of the God of Burnination. Assume that "big burnery fire effects" are Arcane only. What should I do? (I'd assume "multiclass" or "file the serial numbers off of a class that does what I want")

Same question for the more concrete example of enchanter wizards versus psychics: If I want to play a super-mind-controller, is that something reserved for the Psi power source, enhanced by classes using the psi power source, or something both sources can acheive?

My secret guess is that effects are reserved for power sources when justified by the fluff. ("Martial characters will *never get* long-term domination effects")

Sometimes, they're empowered or nerfed by specific classes within a power source when justified, if it seems like the power source can support a power of that type. ("Enchanters and Psychics are equally good at mind-control, but Wizards and Psychokinetics, not so much. And none of them ever get a 'backstab' power!")

 

[Najo]

WOTC has flat out said, they didn't want to use the term supporter because it sounded secondary to the terms defender, striker and controller.

Supporter is the opposite role to controller. Supporter buffs the party and protects it, the controller strikes with debuffs and suppression against the enemy.

Defender is the opposite role to the striker. Defender protects the party and keeps enemies off of the group, while the strike takes the fight to the enemy and deals massive amounts of damage to remove threats.

Leader does not describe what the supporter does. It mislabels the role and creates confusion.

It is obvious, and so far the arguments for the clerics being a leader because they use spells that force players to make good or bad decisions is silly. Every character in 4e is going to do things like that, every round.

So, seriously. Supporter is really so negative of a term that those who prefer playing supporter classes like the cleric and warlords have to have an ego boost by being called leader? Seriously?

 

[Scribble]

WOTC has flat out said, they didn't want to use the term supporter because it sounded secondary to the terms defender, striker and controller.

Supporter is the opposite role to controller. Supporter buffs the party and protects it, the controller strikes with debuffs and suppression against the enemy.

Defender is the opposite role to the striker. Defender protects the party and keeps enemies off of the group, while the strike takes the fight to the enemy and deals massive amounts of damage to remove threats.

Leader does not describe what the supporter does. It mislabels the role and creates confusion.

It is obvious, and so far the arguments for the clerics being a leader because they use spells that force players to make good or bad decisions is silly. Every character in 4e is going to do things like that, every round.

So, seriously. Supporter is really so negative of a term that those who prefer playing supporter classes like the cleric and warlords have to have an ego boost by being called leader? Seriously?

Does it matter?

If my arguments are just going to be pushed off as "silly" then my input is of little use.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Supporter is the opposite role to controller. Supporter buffs the party and protects it, the controller strikes with debuffs and suppression against the enemy.

The Leader is the opposite role to the Controller. Leaders dictate which actions might be beneficial to the party, the Controller dictates which actions might be a hinderence to the enemy.

The Controller has an ability to make difficult terrain. The Leader has an ability that allows characters to ignore difficult terrain.

I don't see the semantic problem.

Supporter is really so negative of a term that those who prefer playing supporter classes like the cleric and warlords have to have an ego boost by being called leader? Seriously?

It's a difference of action vs. reaction.

A supporter asks his friend what his friend wants to do, his friend says "I want to hit things!" the supporter makes him hit things harder.

A leader doesn't ask. A leader says "I think it'd be a good idea to hit things, have a bonus to that." The friend can then choose to hit things and get the bonus (like the leader asked) or not (presumably, he's got a better idea in mind, like drinking a healing potion or moving beyond the trap).

If I give you a +2 to saves vs. fear, am I a supporter, bolstering your defenses? Or am I a leader, telling you to stop sniveling and go face that dragon's aura, I don't care HOW paranoid you are.

It's the same thing, and "supporter" carries more "second class citizen" baggage. Active voice is better than passive voice. Acting is more fun than buffing.

Because when I think support, I think bras, and when I think leader, I think Alexander the Great.

Which do you think I'd rather play in a fantasy setting?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because when I think support, I think bras, and when I think leader, I think Alexander the Great.

Which do you think I'd rather play in a fantasy setting?

Do you really want me to answer that?

 

[helium3]

Take out the healing (the way it was handled so far) and bring back the religious with the cleric! And for those who don't like religious leaders in their group, there's the warlord to default to now. Makes all sense IMO

You know, they're already sort of working on this. With every class able to heal itself to a fair degree, the onus is no longer on the Cleric to be the walking band-aid.

 

[AncientSpirits]

WOTC has flat out said, they didn't want to use the term supporter because it sounded secondary to the terms defender, striker and controller.

I wish WotC had visited www.dictionary.com to find an alternate term, like say:
Booster

Yeah, I know rockets instead of bras.

That said, booster is more active than supporter, describes even better what (we think) they'll do, etc. Of course, it's not a familiar term to online gamers or table toppers.

Anyway, English has 200,000+ words. Surely we can get more than 2 options!

That's my 2 cents