Roles and Classes...still a bit confused.

[Cbas_10]

Okay...I'm really not trying to troll or be negative about 4E, but I'm still confused about something. I may say things in 3.x terms, but...well...that is the experience we players have to go on, so far.

What do roles have to do with classes? I've read all about one class being a striker, another being a leader, and so on. The roles of having a striker and a leader and the others makes sense to me. Especially to new players entering the game, having suggested party composition and structure could really help. Yes, it certainly helps to have the heavy hitter, the sneaky guy, the face-man, and the behind-the-scenes support. Wait....in 4e, they are Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller (still not sure what exactly that means in this context). Why should roles be dictated to classes? Why not provide suggestions about playing the class you think is cool with the role you want to play in the game?

What about playing a wizard with charisma and the drive to lead the party? How 'bout the fighter with the right weapons and combat style for effectively trying to "herd" opponents in a fight or provide cover support (instead of straight up assault)? Maybe even the cleric of war that believes his god-given duty is to lead the fight on the front lines of battle (would that be a striker or leader?)?

How important are "Roles" going to be in the game when it comes to role-playing? Is it a concept that can be fairly easily ignored, or is it to be hard-wired into the game, telling us that "Since you are playing a fighter, you are a striker...so get up to the front and bash things really hard" ?

 

[kennew142]

Okay...I'm really not trying to troll or be negative about 4E, but I'm still confused about something. I may say things in 3.x terms, but...well...that is the experience we players have to go on, so far.

What do roles have to do with classes? I've read all about one class being a striker, another being a leader, and so on. The roles of having a striker and a leader and the others makes sense to me. Especially to new players entering the game, having suggested party composition and structure could really help. Yes, it certainly helps to have the heavy hitter, the sneaky guy, the face-man, and the behind-the-scenes support. Wait....in 4e, they are Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller (still not sure what exactly that means in this context). Why should roles be dictated to classes? Why not provide suggestions about playing the class you think is cool with the role you want to play in the game?

What about playing a wizard with charisma and the drive to lead the party? How 'bout the fighter with the right weapons and combat style for effectively trying to "herd" opponents in a fight or provide cover support (instead of straight up assault)? Maybe even the cleric of war that believes his god-given duty is to lead the fight on the front lines of battle (would that be a striker or leader?)?

How important are "Roles" going to be in the game when it comes to role-playing? Is it a concept that can be fairly easily ignored, or is it to be hard-wired into the game, telling us that "Since you are playing a fighter, you are a striker...so get up to the front and bash things really hard" ?

Any character can probably play in different roles, but each class has some roles it is better at. The concept is nothing new. Many players have been using the concepts of roles for a long time. D&D 4e will actually discuss the concept in the game rules.

From what we've seen so far, a striker is a character who does lots of damage to a single target. They are high damage characters who rely on mobility to protect them from damage. The warlock, the ranger and the rogue have been mentioned as strikers. Controllers control the battlefield. A wizard who uses area effect spells to deal damage to large groups of a foes at once, or who uses spells to create obstacles (solid fog, cloud kill, wall of fire, etc...) is a controller. A leader is not necessarily the party leader, but the character whose abilities improve their allies abilities. In 4e, they also can heal others in the party. Clerics and warlords have been mentioned as leaders. Presumably bards (when they appear) will be arcane leaders. Defenders are those characters who are hard to take out of a fight. They protect the strikers and controllers, either through their large number of opportunity attacks (preventing foes from getting around them), or by charging foes and engaging them, making it very difficult for them to get past them.

The idea is not to limit characters abilities, but rather to enhance their abilities when operating within their role.

 

[Xethreau]

The way that it was explained over the summer was that each class gets their "role in the party for free, so they will never be punished for doing what they do. They will get other stuff on top of that" or something along those lines. So, what the person who said this meant was that class roles are not a dictation of what you have to do, but an assurance that the class will have a place in party dynamics.

For instance, in 3e, if you didn't have a cleric, a Leader by 4e measure, you would not be able to heal as efficiently, since clerics are the best in that regard. Druids made a passable substitute, and bards might get the bills payed, barely. If you already have a cleric, most parties of four would just assume not have a druid, and few would ask for a bard. In 4e, all classes have Roles so that you CAN switch a Cleric with a, say, warlord or bard or druid, and they would all be just as good and viable at doing what they do, even though their methods are all different.

I hope that cleared it up a bit.

 

[Cbas_10]

Gotcha.

So, it is more of a "cheat sheet" or suggestion for newer players so they can make sure they have the main bases covered? Thus, more of a descriptive tag-line than something mechanically important?

 

[Remathilis]

How important are "Roles" going to be in the game when it comes to role-playing? Is it a concept that can be fairly easily ignored, or is it to be hard-wired into the game, telling us that "Since you are playing a fighter, you are a striker...so get up to the front and bash things really hard" ?

The "roles" are really cute nicknames for what many have been doing anyway: trying to classify what each class does. Before we had simpler names: tank, nuker, healer, trapfinder/scout (and face, which was a 5th role that really anyone could fill). These pretty much align with the new "party roles" stuff from WotC:

DEFENDER: This is the "tank" role, or someone with a lot of hp, a decent AC, and a high damage output ratio. It's typically filled by fighters, paladins, barbarians, and some rangers (3.0 and before).

LEADER: Read: Healer/Buffer. You excel at making everyone else good at their job (or making yourself good at someone elses job). Clerics, bards, some druids, dragon shaman, favored souls, occasionally paladins, and other "divine" characters usually fit this role.

CONTROLLER: You specialize in "attack" magic; damage spells (over an area or multiple creatures), debuffs, terrain management, and movement magic (teleport) are the classic areas. Wizards, sorcerers, druids, some clerics, even warlocks (3.5) fit this role in some form or another.

STRIKER: This is the "combat" role of the trapfinder/scout, deal lots of damage to one creature, rely on stealth and movement to do so. Rogues (with sneak attack) are the ideal candidate, as were scouts (skirmish), ninja's (sudden strike), some rangers (when dealing with their favored enemy) all fill it.

To be fair: Striker replaces "trapfinder" now because of the way 4e is handling traps (and allowing more than one class to handle them) much like how Leader replaces "healer" since many more classes can handle healing (or at least self-healing).

Is it possible to break these molds? Absolutely. As with 3.5, you could have lightly armored dex-based fighters, no-evocation illusionists, negative-energy dealing clerics, and rogues with max ranks in social skills and none in disable device. However, you will be consciously playing against type, and you won't be as good at doing them as you were in your appointed role. In 3.5, that often meant you were inferior. In 4.0, I hope it means your just unoptimized, but not useless. (we'll wait and see).

 

[bonethug0108]

Gotcha.

So, it is more of a "cheat sheet" or suggestion for newer players so they can make sure they have the main bases covered? Thus, more of a descriptive tag-line than something mechanically important?

That is mostly correct.

They will still inform some mechanics, like how much damage a class does or if he can heal others. It does not inform how these classes go about performing their roles, though.

Look at one example. Ranger and rogue are both strikers. Strikers are mobile and deal tons of damage. Now the ranger may do this through increased proficiency with his weapons and using divine magic to jump about the field, while a rogue would do this through sneak attack damage and using tricks like jumping up walls, rolling through the legs of defenders, etc.

Now what I said is speculation about how the classes actually work, but they still show what I was talking about.

Also, the roles these classes fill are likely roles they would fill without using roles. The cleric would still heal and the rogue would still do lots of damage.

 

[Xethreau]

Gotcha.

So, it is more of a "cheat sheet" or suggestion for newer players so they can make sure they have the main bases covered? Thus, more of a descriptive tag-line than something mechanically important?

You are mostly correct. It is a suggestion for newbie players, but it is also a basis for the design of the class, and is therefor mechanically important in a sense. A cleric, for instance, will have many "buff" abilities, which were given to him because he was designed to be a leader. However, the cleric was also bestowed with powers that do not fit his designated party role: the Flamestrike spell, for instance, is a confirmed power for the cleric.

It would be reasonable to assume that an advanced player could build a character to be a different role than their class recommends. However, it might also be reasonable to assume that he will still have at least a couple of the "basic role" powers.

 

[architect.zero]

I really like the idea of having these roles used by the design team to inform the development of a class. I hope it is helping them to keep things focused.

I wish they would've used "Aggressor", "Assaulter", or simply "Attacker" instead of Defender. Defender implies reactivity/passivity. Active words help to generate a positive impression of the thing being described. All of the other roles have active names, even when their role, in reality, would be largely passive (e.g. the Leader role is really the "Supporter" role, but it's called Leader because no one wants to play a bystander, even if only implied through word choice). Ultimately though... I'm just picking very minor nits.

 

[bonethug0108]

The names you suggest would be good if it was striker you disliked. Tank would be a good alternative. Tanks are very sturdy but can povide a good boom.

 

[architect.zero]

The names you suggest would be good if it was striker you disliked. Tank would be a good alternative. Tanks are very sturdy but can povide a good boom.

To me, Striker implies precision and finesse whereas Aggressor or Assaulter implies brute force butt kicking. Truly though, it's really a super minor thing and it will fade to the background once in play so I'm not sweating it either way