I like Roles

[thecasualoblivion]

I think you're slightly misinterpreting my posts. I was probably not as clear as I maybe should have been.

4e's roles have a strong minis/tactical movement/positioning quality to them. This is good for 4e, because 4e loves it some minis skirmishes, and, like anything that the game considers important, it should have a lot of detail.

4e Roles, in part, define how, under what conditions, and with what effects, you move your piece of plastic, or others' pieces of plastic.

This is a "strong tactical movement quality."

It's not pure, that's not ALL the roles are about, but it is pronounced, the roles DO have this angle.

As an example, a "defender" in 4e is more than just a class with a high AC, or a class with a marking ability. It is also, in part, a class that limits the movement of enemies, after engaging it in melee.

That is a pronounced angle for minis combat to the role.

The defender does other stuff, too. But it has that angle. Every role has that angle. It is a big part of how they do their jobs. It's not the only part, but it's an important part, and it's not a part that can be easily overlooked (except by some Leaders, maybe).

That's part of why I don't see these as pure combat roles. The "actual" combat roles don't have anything to do with movement, because movement isn't a part of what combat is when you boil it down to its defining feature (a game of who gets to 0 first).

That's why I think the 4e roles are useful for 4e, and a great shorthand, but also why I resist the idea that "defenders have always existed!"

Not really. Not in the same way that 4e uses the concept. A 1e fighter is not a Defender because he has high AC. 4e's use is more specific than that.

1. I still don't buy your assertion that the minis focus comes from or is tied up in the roles themselves, as opposed to being an overall focus of 4E.

2. Defenders are all about marking. Defenders are the only class that can assert their own mark at will. While marking is new to 4E, it doesn't in and of itself require minis. You can add Combat Challenge, Divine Challenge, and Swordmage Aegis to AD&D Fighters, Paladins, and Fighter/Mages and they will all work seamlessly with or without minis. Defense is the other half of marking because if you are going to encourage things to hit you, you need to be able to survive doing so or you suck at life.

3. 4E itself is all about moving pieces of plastic. The roles are simply a reflection of this. They are not the source.

4. While Paladins and Swordmages have some powers abilities that limit enemy movement, they have no more or less than other classes/roles do. Denying enemy movement is a unique feature of the Fighter class, and not the Defender role as a whole. At-Will marking and high survivability(which is again not limited to AC) are the constants among all three Defenders, and are exclusive. Here is a list of At-Will movement denial:

Cleric-Str Clerics get decent opportunity attacks
Fighter-Combat Challenge and Superiority class features dominate enemy movement
Paladin-Str Paladins get decent opportunity attacks
Ranger-TWF and Beastmaster Rangers get decent opportunity attacks
Rogue-Brutal Scoundrels and Ruthless Ruffians get decent opportunity attacks
Warlock-Dire Radiance damages enemies who move closer to you
Warlord-Decent opportunity attacks, Viper's Strike makes shifting provoke opportunity attacks
Wizard-Ray of Frost slows
Swordmage-Assault Swordmages and Intelligent Blademasters have good opportunity attacks, Booming Blade damages enemies who move
Artificer-has nothing that prevents enemy movement
Barbarian-Has good opportunity attacks
Druid-has good opportunity attacks while wildshaped, Flame Seed, Grasping Claws, and Storm Spike all interfere with enemy movement
Bard-nothing by itself, but Misdirected Mark plus a Fighter equals can't move

5. Defenders have always existed. They have existed in that they attempted to do what 4E Defenders did, and weren't as effective at it because they lacked the marks.

6. While the 1E Fighter didn't have the tools the 4E Fighter does, he attempts to achieve the same end.

 

[yesnomu]

Frankly, the concept of roles irritates me. A lot. Or at least the way Wotc chose to approach it. If anything, 4e seems to drive home the implicit assumption that a PC must fall into one of four roles -

1) Front line melee
2) Trapfinding/sneak attack but less front-line capability
3) Fragile caster with utility/offensive/control spells
4) More durable caster with healing/support spells

I agree that 4e puts PCs into four roles, but I think you have them wrong here. The four roles, as I see them, are:

1) Kill Them.
2) Protect Us.
3) Make Us Better.
4) Make Them Worse.

Everyone who takes part in a combat will do one or more of those four things. PC classes are written to focus primarily on one, often with a secondary focus on another or two.

Theoretically, a defender could stand in the back, and shield the party from attacks with something like the SM's Aegis of Shielding. A controller or striker could be very tough, and not shy away from the front lines at all (think the barb, and to a lesser extent the druid). The roles don't have to dictate what you are, they just guide what your class does in a fight.

Now, you might not like having to focus on one of these areas. And that's a totally legitimate position. But 4e classes will focus on one to prevent a repeat of the 3.5 bard or druid, where a PC could be good at nothing or everything. In 4e, you're supposed to be a part of a team, and the classes are designed around that. This is a fundamental part of the game, and there's no getting around it.

 

[Relique du Madde]

No real plastic required. You can use the movement related powers just using imagination. It will be a little less precise, but if you could do it for area spells in previous edition you should be able to do it for movement based powers.

That may be so. However, saying "I slide the badguy back one square so that I can gain a combat advantage" would never be as cool as saying "I kick the badguy in the nards so that he stumbles backwards and pukes." I think that's the whole disconnect with the mini based power/role descriptions.

 

[Phaezen]

That may be so, but saying "I slide the badguy back one square" would never be as cool as saying "I kick the badguy in the groin causing him to stumble backwards." I think that's the whole disconnect with the mini based power descriptions.

Or the best of both worlds:
"I kick the badguy in the groin causing him to stumble backwards." and then move his mini one square.

Description and effect. It's awesome.

Phaezen

 

[Runestar]

But 4e classes will focus on one to prevent a repeat of the 3.5 bard or druid, where a PC could be good at nothing or everything

I would say that while a 3e caster had the requisite spells to excel in any role he wants, in reality, his limited allotment of slots means that he can only focus on 1 role at any one time. It would be fallacious to claim or assume that they can excel in all roles simultaneously.

For example, a wizard or psion can pass off as a respectable defender (by using summons/astral construct to grapple foes and generally clog up the battlefield). Or a battlefield controller (using spells like glitterdust and sleep to disable foes while the fighter mop up). Or a striker (using metamagicked ray spells or save-or-die effects to surgically take out key foes). But you can't be all 3 at the same time. You have to decide what you want to be, and focus on that, lest you dilute your power/effectiveness.

I don't see anything wrong with that, since that means my wizard has the freedom of adapting to suit any role that is lacking in the party. No tanks? A summoner wizard it is then. Enough fighters in the party to ensure a steady output of damage? Then there is clearly little need for a blaster mage, and more want for a battlefield controller to let the fighters do their job more effectively, and with less fear of repercussions. And so on and so forth. How is this not team play?

Was that so problematic in 3e?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would say that while a 3e caster had the requisite spells to excel in any role he wants, in reality, his limited allotment of slots means that he can only focus on 1 role at any one time. It would be fallacious to claim or assume that they can excel in all roles simultaneously.

For example, a wizard or psion can pass off as a respectable defender (by using summons/astral construct to grapple foes and generally clog up the battlefield). Or a battlefield controller (using spells like glitterdust and sleep to disable foes while the fighter mop up). Or a striker (using metamagicked ray spells or save-or-die effects to surgically take out key foes). But you can't be all 3 at the same time. You have to decide what you want to be, and focus on that, lest you dilute your power/effectiveness.

I don't see anything wrong with that, since that means my wizard has the freedom of adapting to suit any role that is lacking in the party. No tanks? A summoner wizard it is then. Enough fighters in the party to ensure a steady output of damage? Then there is clearly little need for a blaster mage, and more want for a battlefield controller to let the fighters do their job more effectively, and with less fear of repercussions. And so on and so forth. How is this not team play?

Was that so problematic in 3e?

I think more problematic were classes like Bard and Monk. They suck at every role, while pretending to be useful for every one.

The major distinction in 4E is there are no classes that you simply can't make to fit a role adequately _and_ that the class also defines your "default" role. Still, every class has one or two secondary roles you can focus on, too.

The difference in character building approach is that you do not select a class and then try to make it fit a particular role. (And risk utterly failing...)

You think about what you want to do as a role and then pick your class. If you'd want to play a Thief-like character but in combat you want to buff your allies, you don't pick Rogue, you play a Warlord with Skill Training in Thievery (or multi-classing into Rogue).

 

[Jhaelen]

Honestly, I prefer 3e's free-form multiclassing system more, where roles were something you had the liberty of building your character concept around, rather than being hard-coded into your choice of class. This allows you access to builds which did not necessarily have to conform to the 4 standard roles, resulting in your own hybrid creations tailor-fit to your individual preferences.

I don't really see it.

Looking at the existing 4e classes, which of them is a 'pure' example of a single role without any way to dabble in another role?

I'd say none.

All of them either come pre-built with a secondary role or can choose their powers in a way that gives them choices that are similar to the main schtick of another role. Add multiclassing and you're as flexible as you've always been.

Well, almost.

There's two things you can no longer create:
- a character that sucks at every role
- a character that is good at every role

I'd also like to point out that the 4E roles are just combat roles. E.g. if you enjoy playing the party's 'faceman' it doesn't matter at all what role your character has.*

*: at least at the basic level. Naturally, if the non-combat role requires expertise in a certain skill or set of skills, you'll have to be good at it/them. But I think in 4E it's actually easier to become an expert in a skill/set of skills than it was in 3E.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't really see it.

Looking at the existing 4e classes, which of them is a 'pure' example of a single role without any way to dabble in another role?

I'd say none.

All of them either come pre-built with a secondary role or can choose their powers in a way that gives them choices that are similar to the main schtick of another role. Add multiclassing and you're as flexible as you've always been.

Well, almost.

There's two things you can no longer create:
- a character that sucks at every role
- a character that is good at every role

I'd also like to point out that the 4E roles are just combat roles. E.g. if you enjoy playing the party's 'faceman' it doesn't matter at all what role your character has.*

*: at least at the basic level. Naturally, if the non-combat role requires expertise in a certain skill or set of skills, you'll have to be good at it/them. But I think in 4E it's actually easier to become an expert in a skill/set of skills than it was in 3E.

There is one class that is purely one role, and it is the Ranger. As for classes on the whole:

Cleric--Leader with some Controller
Fighter--Defender with some Controller(close multi hit and prevent movement) or Striker(buff damage to insane levels)
Paladin--Defender with some Leader
Ranger--Pure, unadulterated Striker
Rogue--Striker plus ironically some Leader(they can make enemies more vulnerable to their allies as well as themselves)
Warlock--Striker with some Controller, and Infernal can dabble in Defender
Warlord--Leader plus some Defender
Wizard--Controller plus some Striker
Swordmage--Defender plus some Controller
Artificer--Leader plus Controller
Bard--Leader plus Controller
Barbarian--Striker plus Defender or Leader(Cha Barbarian build we haven't seen)
Druid--Controller plus Leader or Striker

 

[jenskot]

So far we've had good experiences with player roles. I can't say if I'm for or against. Missing a key role can cause major problems. But I am definitely for roles for NPCs and Monsters. Roles are great tools for the DM.

 

[Scribble]

That was what the class detail sections, like 'Making a _______', 'Playing a _______', and '_______s in the Game' were (and are) for, though. I don't really see much difference there.

It's not a huge difference really. I'm not going to claim that roles are the greatest addition to the game since pizza... It's more an organizational/informational thing really.

I can, as a DM instantly look at the role and know how the new character is going to function overall in the game. There will be flash and flavor differences sure, and "exactly" how the accomplish what they do will be different, but overall with just one word I can tell how your decision to replace a defender with a striker will impact the game.

In the end I guess what I'm saying is they didn't make the rules better, they made using the rules better.

Hm. I don't see the difference, again. So, you need to end up playing a certain kind of class, in either scenario. Er. . .

I think part of the issue is right now there aren't a huge number of classes to choose from.

If you're dead set on playing a certain role, then yep, they'll be just as restictive as classes have been in the past.

But if say your concept is a knight in shining armor, but the group needs a striker, the roles idea makes it much easier for you to locate a class that fits your concept, while still within the role that's needed.

Again it's more of an ease of use organizational thing, but little things like that often impress me.

Any advantage in terms of say, 'not having to play a Cleric' would be more to do with actual class differences (or other more fundamental system changes), right? Healing surges or what have you. . .

Not having to play a cleric and not having to have a leader in the group are two seperate issues.

In the first case, you can play a warlord for instance if you're not into playing a worshiper of divine beings. You end up serving the same function, but with a different look and feel.

In the second case, yes healing surges do go a pretty long way towards allowing the party to function without anyone in the leader role. (Although allowing to function and function well are different stories,...)