Roles

ideasmith · Mar 30, 2008

Known

Defender: Prevents others from taking damage, absorbs damage.
Leader: Buffing & Healing
Controller: Area affect hindering/damage.
Striker: Inflicts heavy damage, usually against single target, avoids taking damage.

Probable
Hybrid: Combines two more other roles.

Hypothetical

Noncombat: For those players who don't want their characters doing much in combat.

None: Probably won't be official, but I'll be using this when updating one of my 3.5 homebrew classes.

Fallen Seraph · Mar 30, 2008

I highly doubt we will see a non-combat Role, given that the current Roles will have equal non-combat opportunities.

It be like saying we should have a Combat Role.

Hybrid, yeah most definitely, whether or not it be called that. I dunno.

None - I don't think they will make a official one, but there could be supplement rules for classless D&D (which that would fall under).

withak · Mar 30, 2008

Since the roles are combat roles, it seems a bit silly to have a Noncombat role.

AZRogue · Mar 30, 2008

This is a somewhat related questions (and I apologize if it's considered a derail):

Are there that many people who really don't like everyone being effective, but in different ways, in combat?

I've read several different posts across the various boards complaining that each Class would be effective in combat, even if each Class was effective in a different way. What I want to know is, how many players actually set out to design a combat-useless character and what prevents them from doing so in 4E?

If I wanted to make a character who wasn't effective it shouldn't be too hard to place my Ability scores in areas that won't help me and then choose Feats that won't give me any benefits. You could even decide to use weapons that you weren't proficient in and then, in combat, decide to make poor choices.

I suppose I'm just surprised because I've been playing DnD since I was a kid, since the red box set that set me on the path as a player and then a DM, and I've never, ever, over the years, seen anyone decide that they wanted to not be any good. Certain concepts might call for a person to not be good at PHYSICAL combat, which is something I've seen a lot, but these characters usually have something else to contribute, usually magic. I have never seen a player who wanted to be ineffective in combat in every way. I suppose I'm just surprised that some people feel strongly about that.

And now back to your originally scheduled thread.

VannATLC · Mar 30, 2008

I doubt you'll get any true Hybrids.

I think you'll get Classes who's archetypes fall into one of 2 roles, and while the abilities of the other archetype will be available, they won't actually be very good, outside of the chosen style.

As opposed to be as good at both, but not as good as a dedicated.

There will be no noncombat rule. There's no need to be.

Having 'no' role is actually impossible. You can create a generalist, but that just means that something else is going to be better at everything they do. That's not necessarily a problem.. but its not 'no' role, either.

Fallen Seraph · Mar 30, 2008

To add to what AZRogue said.

Even in low/no-combat campaigns what does it matter then if your character has a fair amount of combat ability, it won't be tested so it is simply out of the picture.

While in a campaign with lots, hey you got your combat ability right there, and can put all your feats and such towards that.

In middle-ground, well that is basic 4e character right there, equal parts combat and non-combat.

Irda Ranger · Mar 30, 2008

Fallen Seraph said:
Even in low/no-combat campaigns what does it matter then if your character has a fair amount of combat ability, it won't be tested so it is simply out of the picture. <snip> In middle-ground, well that is basic 4e character right there, equal parts combat and non-combat.

Do we really know if all classes have good non-combat options?

Ranger: track, nature skills
Cleric: social rank, rituals
Wizard: rituals, research, utility magic
Rogue: thievery, low society connections
Warlock: rituals, "scare people", utility magic (?)

But what about the Warlord, Fighter and Paladin? If you're playing a campaign that spends even 1/2 its time in non-combat situations, there would be a strong urge to not play one of these guys and just take the attitude of "When we need meat-shields we'll hire some."

Hmmm .... maybe there should be a Silo for certain social skills. Intimidate, Gather Info, Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. Those skills aren't needed in combat, so you could assign them freely to any Role. Then each character would be a unique combo of "Combat Class + Non-Combat Skills." I'm a Bluff-Rogue (aka, Han Solo), or Intim-Rogue (aka, Boba Fett) or a Intim-Wizard (aka, Do Not Meddle In My Affairs).

I realize that lots of D&D players don't spend so much time in non-combat situations, but perhaps that's because non-combat situations aren't as exciting, given the rules as they are. Perhaps some support here could really encourage a new depth of play.

EDIT: You can probably ignore the above. I just realized I just re-invented Non-Weapon Proficiencies. Ugh.

Fallen Seraph · Mar 30, 2008

Well, there are going to be utility powers for all classes that can be used outside of combat.

Also all classes are going to have some non-combat oriented skills they can choose. Which with the new skill-system can be progressed at a steady rate, so your rogue may be good at sweet-talking but when you need to intimidate a guy you bring in the fighter.

MaelStorm · Mar 30, 2008

Irda Ranger said:
Do we really know if all classes have good non-combat options?

Ranger: track, nature skills
Cleric: social rank, rituals
Wizard: rituals, research, utility magic
Rogue: thievery, low society connections
Warlock: rituals, "scare people", utility magic (?)

But what about the Warlord, Fighter and Paladin? If you're playing a campaign that spends even 1/2 its time in non-combat situations, there would be a strong urge to not play one of these guys and just take the attitude of "When we need meat-shields we'll hire some."

Hmmm .... maybe there should be a Silo for certain social skills. Intimidate, Gather Info, Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. Those skills aren't needed in combat, so you could assign them freely to any Role. Then each character would be a unique combo of "Combat Class + Non-Combat Skills." I'm a Bluff-Rogue (aka, Han Solo), or Intim-Rogue (aka, Boba Fett) or a Intim-Wizard (aka, Do Not Meddle In My Affairs).

I realize that lots of D&D players don't spend so much time in non-combat situations, but perhaps that's because non-combat situations aren't as exciting, given the rules as they are. Perhaps some support here could really encourage a new depth of play.

EDIT: You can probably ignore the above. I just realized I just re-invented Non-Weapon Proficiencies. Ugh.

It's nice to see this POV about non-combat D&D. I really agree 100% with you. I'm waiting to have the Core Books in my hands, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to modify the game a bit so it encourage more non-combat activities. So far I like the change for awarding XP, and the addition of non-combat activities like: skill challenge and rituals.