Roles, Power Sources; unbalanced?

[Merlion]

I don't think so. The designers said one of their core design rules for 4e was "never punish someone for doing their role." They've also said the classes were all given abilities which make them better at their specific role.

I don't remember everything that was said, but I got the impression that the comment about "punishing people for doing their role" meant that, for instance, clerics were punished for healing since that's all they could do that round. So, if you allow clerics to fulfill their role WHILE still doing other things, you weren't punishing them. If you can make an attack and heal at the same time or buff as a swift action enabling them to also heal the same round, then you are excelling at that role. You can give the ability to heal to another class in a different role (say, paladin) but they will not excel in that role. It may take them standard actions to heal people thus "punishing" them for taking actions outside of their role(they don't get to attack that round and they aren't doing anything to prevent the enemies from getting to their allies that round like they should be as a defender).

They may not be straightjackets, but I've got the impression from all of the comments the designers have made that they will at least be jackets with big labels on them saying "Leader" and having bandages in one pocket, salve in another, cheerleader pom poms attached to the sleeves, and "Go TEAM!" written on the helmet. You can ignore all the cool abilities you get that are only useful as a Leader and put on full plate, pick up a greatsword and attack all you want though. You just might feel kind of dumb for doing so when you look over and see the fighter wearing his "Defender" shirt that is made out of adamantine, projects a force field around him, has the ability to make a shield appear at will and has "Hit me first" on his helmet in big flashy letters on it.

I think the very point of the leader role is to let them do support, while being able to do more "active" things at the same time...

I have my concerns as well, but for the moment I am extending the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that in the end, the roles will be primarily rules jargon and aimed at new players. And that the mechanics involved will be for either 1) making support abilities worthwhile and 2) making it so that classes can really be good at the roles they've always had anyway, without as much not just infringement upon, but usupring of those roles by other classes.

 

[Merlion]

Except that if you look at the Druid class, the druid can front-line fight with Wildshape/Companion, can buff like the dickens, and can throw around area effect spells. The druid can fill any role effectively, but he's just Not As Good as the classes purely focused to that job.


Then he's better off playing a different class.

Why use a wizard to play striker or leader when he could use an Arcane striker or Arcane leader? Why do yoU WANT to force a round peg into a square hole?

Well, I'd say the Wizard, at least as we know it, or rather as we envision is, is a sort of ever-shifting peg.

Even though the Cleric is more powerful with its invulnerable defenses, and is able to do some things Wizards can't but should be able too, the Wizard can probably produce more different effects than anyone. Of the D&D classes that are based on actual fantasy archtypes, the Wizard is the most likely to be limited by roles. Certainly, the Wizard could be Striker as easily as Controller, and "Defender" depending on definition wouldnt necessarily be a huge reach either. Leader would be the furthest off, since the Wizard can't heal and is somewhat mediocre at enhancing others...but if he had the Cleric spells that he should have this would be less so.


Again, hopefully the roles will not be straightjackets. Guidlines yes. Classes built to fit their roles fully, yes. Classes capable of nothing but their role, or reduced in other areas just for that purpose, hopefully not.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Again, hopefully the roles will not be straightjackets. Guidlines yes. Classes built to fit their roles fully, yes. Classes capable of nothing but their role, or reduced in other areas just for that purpose, hopefully not.

One of the most telling comments to me was one where a designer said that Fighters would have to gain a lot of power while wizards and clerics would be losing a lot.

I believe the prime way you'll see this being done is removing or increasing in level spells that are outside of the wizards role. A wizard is perfectly viable if they make his role "area of effect damage, hindering enemies, decreasing the power of enemies, and modifying the battlefield". Then they make it so individual damage spells in their list do less damage, and move their buff spells to the cleric list.

However, it means that a spell like Orb of Cold would have to be reduced in damage so it was less powerful than one of the Rogue or Ranger's special attacks.

 

[Merlion]

I. A wizard is perfectly viable if they make his role "area of effect damage, hindering enemies, decreasing the power of enemies, and modifying the battlefield". Then they make it so individual damage spells in their list do less damage, and move their buff spells to the cleric list.

I sincerely hope this isnt the case. The Cleric already has too many spells that wizards should have but don't. And I really, really hope the roles focus simply on the classes most common abilities, rather than paring the classes down to fit the role.

The class itself, its concept and history should come before the roles concept.

 

[Deverash]

My basic idea is that classes would have built in variants, centered on what kind of role of the character has.
<snip>
And when they are not in their classes designated role, that characters potential is limited. More resources are used, options are more limited, and less fun is had. If role were something independent of class the character could be set as any role he chose, and would be less effective and consume more resources filling any other.

The only problem with this is now they have to design 24 more classes, effectivly, since now they fighter(who is currently designed to be a good defender) now needs enough stuff to make an effective controler(however that would work), striker, or leader. But, if you want to do that...multiclass. yeah, the fighter himself can't do those things, but if multiclassing works the way I think it will, a fighter/wizard will be able to defend his allies, and control the battlefield. Not as well as either of those classes alone, but able to do the job.

In 3e, you cannot have a fighter who is a controller. Or a leader(using the defination of leader as buffer/healer). period. There's no way to do it. The lack of that possiblity in 4e isn't a drawback anymoreso than it is in 3rd. Having the game designers say, "Ok, this class is designed to do THIS in combat, not THAT." Isn't a bad thing. From everything I've seen, the roles are merely descriptive. "This role does THIS well, " not "This role does ONLY THIS well." If you want to play a rogue who tanks(which is just a derivation of 'brick' from superhero comics/rpgs, in use before there were MMOs), I'm sure you can, just like you could in 3e. The ruleset may not make your easy, but you can try to fill the role. If you want to have every class be able to fill every role, then the definition between your classes disappears, except for flavor(or you play a wizard, see my pet peeve below).

<begin pet peeve>A party of 4 wizards, with the right spells, needs no other classes. Invisibility(or Clairvoyance)/Knock/Unseen Servant completely negates the need for a trapfinders. Summon Monster spells remove then need for front-line fighters. Wizards have just as good, if not better single-target buffs than clerics have, and a high enough int to be able to cc UMD to use wands/etc.

Clerics can replace the fighter and do nearly as good of a job at it. With a good enough search and disable device, they can replace the rogue. And they already have decent damage spells, plus a wallish type spell. It may not be elegant, but it's doable. And that's wrong, in my opinion. One class should not be able to do everything, or why have classes at all? We'll just call the game Wizards & Clerics and be done with it. Hopefully the new class design will get away from that, but time will tell.<end pet peeve>

 

[Merlion]

The only problem with this is now they have to design 24 more classes, effectivly, since now they fighter(who is currently designed to be a good defender) now needs enough stuff to make an effective controler(however that would work), striker, or leader. But, if you want to do that...multiclass. yeah, the fighter himself can't do those things, but if multiclassing works the way I think it will, a fighter/wizard will be able to defend his allies, and control the battlefield. Not as well as either of those classes alone, but able to do the job.

In 3e, you cannot have a fighter who is a controller. Or a leader(using the defination of leader as buffer/healer). period. There's no way to do it. The lack of that possiblity in 4e isn't a drawback anymoreso than it is in 3rd. Having the game designers say, "Ok, this class is designed to do THIS in combat, not THAT." Isn't a bad thing. From everything I've seen, the roles are merely descriptive. "This role does THIS well, " not "This role does ONLY THIS well." If you want to play a rogue who tanks(which is just a derivation of 'brick' from superhero comics/rpgs, in use before there were MMOs), I'm sure you can, just like you could in 3e. The ruleset may not make your easy, but you can try to fill the role. If you want to have every class be able to fill every role, then the definition between your classes disappears, except for flavor(or you play a wizard, see my pet peeve below).

That depends somewhat on the class, and on the nature of the roles. Some classes have always only really been suitable for one role. Some have always been able to fill multiple roles, in a balanced way. Some have attempted to be the "jack of all trades, master of none" in a balanced way, such as the bard, and come out sucking because without extreme rules knowledge and min/maxing, they can't actually do much of anything well.

It's also tied to the concepts behind the CLASSES. I think some of us have a fear of the "roles" eclipsing the actual nature and concept of the classes. As I mentioned, some classes have always more or less filled one role or type of role, both mechanically and conceptually, within combat. The Fighter would be the big example of this. However, if you look at the Wizard, its a bit different. Coneptually, the Wizard is supposed to be a master of magic, one who spends his life studying the arcane in order to basically muck around with reality. By nature, he can and should be able to create many different effects, and therefore potentially fullfill multiple roles. And the Wizard has built in vulnerabilities that balance this, such as low hit points, Fort saves, AC, and extreme vulnerability to grappling and the like.

I dont want to see the Wizard spell list being stripped down to consist almost entirely of "controller" spells....battlefield control, area effects, and mind control. Likewise, I don't want to see Fighters given almost exclusively defensive options because they are "defenders." The Fighter should be the Fighter, and the Wizard the Wizard first and foremost, before any specific role. As long as they remember that, I think the roles will be helpful.

A party of 4 wizards, with the right spells, needs no other classes. Invisibility(or Clairvoyance)/Knock/Unseen Servant completely negates the need for a trapfinders. Summon Monster spells remove then need for front-line fighters. Wizards have just as good, if not better single-target buffs than clerics have, and a high enough int to be able to cc UMD to use wands/etc.

A 4 Wizard party wouldnt be nearly as effective as a 4 Cleric party. Because, as I mention above, while wizards can do many different things, they still have weaknesses...including weaknesses that they can't really address. In particular, their low HPs, low Fort saves and vulnerability to grappling monsters/effects are major weaknesses, and since they lack Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Spell Resistance or hardly any spells to boost saves or HPs, they are ongoing vulnerabilities.

Clerics can replace the fighter and do nearly as good of a job at it. With a good enough search and disable device, they can replace the rogue. And they already have decent damage spells, plus a wallish type spell.

The Cleric is far and away the most powerful class in the game. Not only can a Cleric do most of the things the other classes can do...often as well or better...they have no meaningful ongoing weaknesses. Good HP, good AC, Good Fort saves and really good Will saves, plus Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Spell Resistance, energy resistance spells, save boosters, healing etc etc.

The Cleric is an example of a class that goes too far the other direction. The Cleric is a super-class that not only can do almost anything, but more importantly has no mechanical drawbacks of any kind. It will need to be addressed in 4e.

One class should not be able to do everything, or why have classes at all? We'll just call the game Wizards & Clerics and be done with it. Hopefully the new class design will get away from that, but time will tell

This is true. But I dont think classes should be locked into a single "role" either. Many of the actual concepts of the classes allow for balanced mutability and variety in abilities and aproach, and this should not be changed for the sake of "roles"

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I sincerely hope this isnt the case. The Cleric already has too many spells that wizards should have but don't. And I really, really hope the roles focus simply on the classes most common abilities, rather than paring the classes down to fit the role.

Unfortunately, options create imbalance by their very nature. I've noticed this heavily in 3rd edition due to my group of powergaming players. The more options I give them, the more powerful they get. And the ones that can powergame better than the others become significantly MORE powerful due to synergies in the rules, making everyone feel they need to powergame to stay effective.

The class itself, its concept and history should come before the roles concept.

If you approach each class in terms of class first, role second then you have an inherent imbalance in the classes. After all, if I said "What powers should a wizard be able to get?" and I got an answer from as many people as I could, I would likely get answers like "Individual damage, area of effect damage, charming, walls, illusions, protection for himself and allies, buffing for himself and allies, flying, teleporting, shape changing, summoning, animating the dead, creating items out of nothing, battlefield control, making enemies weaker, etc"

If I asked the same question about fighters, it's likely I'd get the answer "They should be good with weapons and armor. And they should be athletic and tough."

However, that's the thinking that created the imbalance in the first place. There's simply no way to make "good with weapons and armor" as powerful as all of the above wizard abilities.

Instead, the only way to fix it is to think in terms of balance first and class second. If you instead think of it in terms of "What types of things do people want to do in a group? What things are fun to play?" You tend to naturally come up with a list very similar to Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader. So, then you ask yourself...who should be the best at being a Defender? Well, it should classes like the Fighter and Paladin.

You can come at this list a different way, but it comes to the same thing. Instead, if you asked "What makes a fighter fun to play? Why do people play them?" The answer is (on average) that the player likes being the kind of character who stands toe to toe with the enemy and protects their allies from damage they wouldn't be able to survive. When isn't it fun? When the rest of the classes don't need your protection or can survive better than you can.

It all comes down to the same thing. The ONLY way to create a TRUE balance between Wizards (or Clerics) and Fighters is to reduce the power of wizards a lot and increase the power of fighters a lot.

So you define wizards as "the arcane casters who use magic to be a controller". Then you give them spells and special abilities that let them accomplish their goal. They can be as good as you want at it because they aren't competing against any other class for that role except other controllers.

Then you define fighters as "the class that uses their martial prowess tp protect their allies". So you likewise give them abiltiies that accomplishes their goal. Instead of "being good at weapons and armor" you redefine it as "extremely good to the point of being at or surpassing the human maximum in physical abilities". So they get to jump 10 feet as an immediate action to come between a weapon and one of their allies, the ability to shield both themselves AND an adjacent ally at the same time with their shield, the ability to trip enemies and do damage at the same time. This makes the class more versatile than they were before, more interesting than they were before and more in line with the wizard.

What happens if you give the wizard the ability to, say, cast a mage armor on his allies in this system? Well, either the ability stacks with the fighter's ability to protect someone or it doesn't. If it doesn't stack, then why would the fighter stand next to someone to protect them when the wizard can do it better? If it DOES stack, then you start creating not only a stacking problem (when you can add +4 from a mage armor and +5 due to a plus 3 heavy shield, then you increase an ac so much that there's no way to counter it without just as many bonuses stacking...then you are adding to the Christmas Tree effect) but a problem with conflicting roles. If the wizard is spending his time buffing people's AC and so is the fighter, who is the one doing the damage to the enemy? Who is it that actually needs the protection, since the wizard can defend himself with his powers? If 4 points of AC from the Mage Armor is good enough, then the fighter doesn't really need to USE his defensive powers and should have made up an offensive fighter. Only, the wizard is better at that as well.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I dont want to see the Wizard spell list being stripped down to consist almost entirely of "controller" spells....battlefield control, area effects, and mind control. Likewise, I don't want to see Fighters given almost exclusively defensive options because they are "defenders."

The problem with that is that the fighter is already relegated to the Defender role. As a straight classed fighter, there is no way to play another role. Well, they might have a total of two roles: Defender and Damage Dealer. Only they aren't the best Defender. If I wanted a really high AC and to protect my party from harm, I'd go with Cleric, Druid, or Wizard first. For the most part I seem them relegated to damage dealer and hit point sponge.

A 4 Wizard party wouldnt be nearly as effective as a 4 Cleric party. Because, as I mention above, while wizards can do many different things, they still have weaknesses...including weaknesses that they can't really address. In particular, their low HPs, low Fort saves and vulnerability to grappling monsters/effects are major weaknesses, and since they lack Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Spell Resistance or hardly any spells to boost saves or HPs, they are ongoing vulnerabilities.

Except that wizards (depending on which version of the rules you are using) were able to polymorph to increase hitpoints and fort saves. If they start with a 16+ con, take Improved Toughness and cast a (empowered/maximized) False Life they can have hit points pretty darn close to those of most fighters. They can cast teleport and dimension door even while in grapples with a half decent concentration check allowing them to leave grapple when they want. They can cast bear's endurance for more hitpoints, better fort saves, etc. Plus, they can plug the disadvantages with magic items.

I admit the clerics WOULD be more powerful, but not THAT much more powerful. The wizards have such a huge benefit in being able to target the exact weakness of every enemy in order to take them out in a round or two(force spells for incorporeal creatures, damage for glass cannon creatures, will saves against brutes, fort saves against casters, etc)

This is true. But I dont think classes should be locked into a single "role" either. Many of the actual concepts of the classes allow for balanced mutability and variety in abilities and aproach, and this should not be changed for the sake of "roles"

So you end up with two options: Change the concept of the class OR Accept that fighters will never be as powerful or as versatile as wizards.

If you simply state that magic is too hard to learn in its entirety in the "current D&D world" and that people who dabble in it have to specialize, since no one person could learn it ALL, then it solves a lot of problems. Wizards are the ones who learn controlling magic, Swordmages specialize in protection magic and using their abilities with a weapon, Some other class specializes in magic that increases the strength of their allies and helps them to work together.

Then no ONE class eclipses the rest since it has the role of "Whatever I want to do I'm the best at it."