Roles, Power Sources, & PHB1 Classes

[FickleGM]

Y'know, this whole "you are your role" thing really grates at me, and at the risk of trotting out a cliché, reminds me of one of the worst aspects of MMOs.

To use an example, I picked up Lord of the Rings Online and made an elven Champion, whose "role" as I understand it, is DPS. His job is to do damage in melee.

As such, the character, though a martial character and a trained soldier, could not learn to use a bow until he was 20th level, because bows belong to the "nuker" class.

This made my head spin. An elven warrior who didn't know how to use a bow? WTF?

Only in this "you are your role" context could it possibly make sense -- doing damage at range is the "damage at range guy's job" and not the "melee damage guy's job". Setting-wise, story-wise, and character-wise, it was crazy nutso.

Now I know that D&D has always had some of this, and I certainly think that "fighter / magician / skill-user" broad categories are both useful for players and GMs. But I don't think they should trump other design considerations, and especially not those of setting, story, and character. I would hope the 4E team won't be so fatuous as to make the Fighter unable to use bows because he is a "defender" and not a "striker" or whatever -- but I would have hoped they wouldn't be so fatuous as to kill Dragon and Dungeon too, thus I have no real faith in them on that score.

-The Gneech

Ditto.

We have my first actual concern for 4e. I know that I am amongst those who seem to have partaken in the WotC Kool-Aid and believe that everything we've heard is either really cool or not a big deal. The pidgeon-holing of class-to-role grates on me, as well. Heck, one of the things that comes with any class-based game is some level of pidgeon-holing...I don't know that we need more.

One of the reasons I hate playing (aside from being a control freak) is that I don't like to play "inside the box". This attitude doesn't always mesh with the other players, so I am better off running the games.

You comment about LotRO is a very good analogy. I just started the 7-day trial a couple days ago and I don't like some of the limitations based on assumed role that a class is supposed to fill (on the other hand, I like almost everything else about the game and am leaning toward plunking $15/month on it).

I would much rather they describe what each role is, what it normally does and how it normally does it. Then give advice on which class(es) fit each role the best and how to fit any class into the role. Then again, I'm not an optimizer.

 

[Ktulu]

That looks pretty good. I hope it's more of a matrix where we can see the fighter being controller, leader, or striker even though their primary role would be defender.

Essentially, what feats/ability/talents you chose would put you into these possible roles. You'd excell best in the primary role, but tat there were still strong options for the others as well.

Ktulu

 

[FickleGM]

That looks pretty good. I hope it's more of a matrix where we can see the fighter being controller, leader, or striker even though their primary role would be defender.

Essentially, what feats/ability/talents you chose would put you into these possible roles. You'd excell best in the primary role, but tat there were still strong options for the others as well.

Ktulu

Yes, if they do that, then my concerns will have been addressed.

 

[Khaalis]

Er... read the second paragraph I quoted above. It's kinda right there.

I did read it, but to me, it doesn't definitively answer the question. Ok, yes it says all leaders will do "some" healing. However, they state the Bard can fill the role of the cleric. Does that mean that All leaders will heal as well as a cleric? So a bard, a paladin and a cleric would all be interchangeable as healer? Because this is what the quote basically says. If that is so, and all power sources have an equal healer... whats the point of different types of leaders other than flavor and thematics?

 

[Branduil]

I did read it, but to me, it doesn't definitively answer the question. Ok, yes it says all leaders will do "some" healing. However, they state the Bard can fill the role of the cleric. Does that mean that All leaders will heal as well as a cleric? So a bard, a paladin and a cleric would all be interchangeable as healer? Because this is what the quote basically says. If that is so, and all power sources have an equal healer... whats the point of different types of leaders other than flavor and thematics?

Paladins aren't leaders.

 

[Khaalis]

Paladins aren't leaders.

My bad. End of my day, and brain not fully functional. I meant Warlord.

 

[breschau]

I did read it, but to me, it doesn't definitively answer the question. Ok, yes it says all leaders will do "some" healing. However, they state the Bard can fill the role of the cleric. Does that mean that All leaders will heal as well as a cleric? So a bard, a paladin and a cleric would all be interchangeable as healer? Because this is what the quote basically says. If that is so, and all power sources have an equal healer... whats the point of different types of leaders other than flavor and thematics?

Yes. Sans paladin, replace with Warlord. That's the point of using roles, so that players can make something other than just cleric but still be the designated healer. This is the most brilliant piece I've heard about 4th Edition yet. Finally, a party sans cleric that isn't in for a world of hurt and massive amounts of healing potions.

They will also have different class features. The Warlord will not have turning or spells. The Bard will likely have some spells, but no turning. Neither will have a need for a deity. The roles are meant to ensure that some class features are universal amongst the same role, but not all class features.

 

[Khaalis]

Yes. Sans paladin, replace with Warlord. That's the point of using roles, so that players can make something other than just cleric but still be the designated healer. This is the most brilliant piece I've heard about 4th Edition yet. Finally, a party sans cleric that isn't in for a world of hurt and massive amounts of healing potions.

I'm not entirely sold on it. I'd personally rather see any Divine Power Source character be able to heal rather than any Leader Role. It just doesn't sit well with me that a Martial or Arcane power source character can heal equally as well as the cleric/Divine. I guess it will come down to what other abilities the classes will get. As it is it sounds like the cleric can wade into melee and still heal. At 1st glance its a carbon copy of the warlord. Both can heal and melee. I guess it will be the 'little things' that will make the difference. I'll reserve judgment till December when we get the preview book, but it just currently sounds like the classes are washing out and losing the uniqueness and definition that they say they want to keep. We shall see.

 

[Felon]

The need to "fill in the slots" is one of the things that has always annoyed me about D&D design, actually. "There are four elements, we need genies for each element! There are nine alignments, we need Outer Planar beings for each alignment!" Bah.

And the biggest offender of all, "if demons are chaotic evil and devils are lawful evil, there has to be a neutral evil branch to fill in the hole". There's a lack of subtlety to that symmetrical way of thinking. It's choosing the perfunctory and obvious ways to go.

Having said that - I'd like to see what a creative designer could come up with to fill a "martial controller" class. Not because I want to see all of the slots filled, but because I just have no idea where to start with something like that given what we've heard about the controller role so far.

Well, crowd control and tanking are similar roles. In both cases, you want to minimize the enemy's offensive capability. From that point of view, a martial character that affected an area with a fearsome presence or a taunting presence is exercising a degree of control, although the latter is closer to what a defender does. This could work for the barbarian.

A ranged specialist could serve as a controller as well. Think of Iron Heroes' archer, able to disarm, trip, and debilitate foes with shots. As stated in Wyatt's interview about roles, there are various kinds of control, and sometimes just spreading some damage over an area (a la fireball is the way to do it), so a rain of arrows or throwing knives could serve in this capacity as well.

Certain melee weapons, like the spiked chain and whip, could allow for a fighter to exert control, but see this is where symmetirical thinking is problematic, because the fighter has been cast into the defender role. We can't go screwing up our compass. Paladins aren't leaders, wizards aren't strikers, and fighters aren't controllers.