I like Roles

[Nahat Anoj]

I really like how 4e explicitly defines the four roles PCs tend to fall in to in combat. It's a great way for new players to get a handle on classes, and when new classes are released experienced players can quickly analyze how this class would fit in with the party.

Even before new of 4e was released, I was thinking of classes in terms of "tanks," "dps," and "healers". My WoW experiences changed the way I thought and spoke about classes, for the better. After having played WoW, I can't imagine thinking of classes in any other way.

What I think makes roles work really well is that there are multiple classes per role (except for controllers of course, but that has been remedied in part and will soon be remedied in total). Each class performs the basic functions of the Role reasonably well most of the time, but they are usually different enough to have their own unique feel. Probably the role the needed the most "help" was what is now called the leader role. Clerics are a great class, and I like playing them, but warlords are a great alternative for players who aren't interested in clerics for some reason. A warlord isn't as good of a pure healer, but it's ability to augment the attacks of others make it a great leader class.

I have not found roles to limit character concepts. Well, I take that back - I bet we will never see a defender class that has low hitpoints, low armor and can't punish the monsters for attacking other PCs. In the words of a group of bards, such a concept dwells in the "deathly darkness that belies the fate of those who never ran."

I've found classes are actually the biggest limiters of character concepts, but classes do this in ways I'm usually prepared to accept. Examples include a paladin having a bad Stealth or having rogues be bad at wearing plate armor. As far as I can tell, a class's role is just a general indicator of what the class does in combat. But even then, there is plenty blurring of the lines. A great weapon fighter can deal a respectable amount of damage, for example.

 

[The Little Raven]

Defenders' job is to protect the Strikers and Controllers long enough for them to do their jobs, while Leaders help everyone do their job better.

With slight name changes, this applies to earlier editions.

[Fighter]s' job is to protect the [Rogue]s and [Magic-User]s long enough for them to do their jobs, while [Cleric]s help everyone do their job better.

 

[Voadam]

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

I thought bards 3e combat role was clearly the 4e leader role making buffs for fellow party members. They were competent enough at this with their bardic music and a lot of their spells, the sucky part IMO was that they were not kick ass in and of themselves in combat, they were very much a support others role.

 

[Voadam]

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

Well, you can't make a controller who is good at melee. You can make a melee character who viably dabbles in controlling, but the dabbling doesn't really work the other way around.

 

[Negflar2099]

Am I a selfish bastard for wanting a character that can survive and thrive on his own and isn't dependant on 3 other guys?

No, I don't think you're selfish but I think you and I have different ideas about what D&D is. My understanding is that it is and always has been a group game meant to be played with a group of other people. It's not a go it on your own solo game where your one character is meant to conquer the world by themselves. No offense but I've seen this attitude way too many times in the games I've run and frankly it's very frustrating. Everybody wants to be play the ultimate bad-ass/lone-wolf hero guy who doesn't need of the losers he's forced to hang with. There may be a game out there that suits that style of play but D&D has never been it, and I don't want it to be.

This is a social game. Everybody at that table deserves to have just as much fun as you do and to have characters that are just as effective. If I played with you and your character dominates the game and does it all on his own I would wonder why I even bothered showing up. On the other hand if we all play lone wolf unsung hero types then why are we adventuring together? Either way that doesn't sound like a very fun game to me. No, give me the game where everybody is equally effective and we all have to rely on teamwork in order to survive.

As far as I'm concerned that's the D&D ideal.

 

[Phaezen]

Well, you can't make a controller who is good at melee. You can make a melee character who viably dabbles in controlling, but the dabbling doesn't really work the other way around.

Until the Druid is released in March ofcourse, there are some nice controllery melee powers in the first three levels and no reason for that not to continue in the higher levels..

Phaezen

 

[I'm A Banana]

Seriously, how is that any different than 3e?...What's really changed?

This isn't a criticism of 4e or the roles, it's just an observation: 4e's roles have a stong minis combat component to them.

Sure, a lot of things in 4e have a strong minis combat component to them. There's quite a few things in 3e that did, too. That's why I'd say the roles are solid shorthands for how to act in 4e combat (which is about minis).

What's changed are the tools. 4e Defenders do their jobs with shifts, slides, pushes, pulls, opportuninty attacks, marks....3e Fighters did their job with a good supply of potions, a friend's Bull's Strength scroll, their magic greatsword, and a load of feats. 4e Defenders exist only in combat. 3e Fighters also had the Ride skill and the Climb skill and the Craft skill. Defenders don't come with skills. Now, 4e fighters come with skills, and 4e fighters are more than just "defenders." In earlier editions, fighters were also much more than just what they did in combat (but more so in 3e than most others, really).

but in the end they just fall back into the classic roles

Here is probably the bigger point I'm kind of stumbling towards:

The classic roles were not combat roles.

Defender is a combat role. Specifically, it is a 4e minis combat role that uses the tools minis combat gives it to do its combat duty. Before 4e, combat was only part of the balance package. In 4e, it is almost the entire thing. Because combat in 4e is minis combat, combat roles are minis combat roles, and are thus partially concerned with managing space.

Compare it to MMO roles, that are mostly about managing time (cooldowns, DoT, HoT, how much health or mana per tic, DPS, "spike damage," etc.). MMO roles are all about combat, too, but those roles aren't the same as 4e's roles because they do their combat differently; they care about other things.

When compared to the function of various classes in earlier editions, the differences are even greater, because the roles weren't even all serving the point of combat -- time or space. They were more filling the purpose of dungeon exploration. The wizard wasn't filling the "striker role," because the Striker is something specific to 4e's combat style. It was more filling a "trailblazer" role that removed obstacles to the party's advancement through the dungeon (including monsters, walls, traps, any anything else). The fighter was more filling a "survivalist" role that ensured that someone would be left to raise the party when everything went wrong (including in combat, but not limited to that).

It's kind of a linguistic thing, and, really, it might just be arguing semantics at a certain point. I would resist using roles for earlier editions like I would resist using "scotch" to refer to all whisky, or Coke to refer to all colas. It has a very specific meaning, and while you can broaden it to include a lot of similar things if you have the inclination, you're going to be overlooking what it really means in its own if you do it.

A Pepsi isn't a Coke. Fighters aren't Defenders. Coke is a kind of cola. Defenders are a kind of combat role. Pepsi is also a kind of cola, it includes some of the same things Coke does, but does it for a different purpose (a different taste). Fighters include a combat component, but their true purpose isn't really found in combat. There is a different taste that they're going for.

 

[Voadam]

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.

So what striker class would you pick for a knight in shining armor concept?

Isn't the concept (shining armor) contradictory to the striker role of high damage and high mobility balanced by relative front line vulnerability/fragility?

The closest I can see would be taking ranger and loading up on armor feats.

 

[Voadam]

Bottom line is every character in every role playing game ever fits into some sort of role. It's just another way of saying everybody has a purpose. Maybe your character is the thief, or maybe he's the computer hacker (in a modern game) or maybe he's the long distance sniper, or the spy, or the alchemy guy, or the healer, or the party leader, or the party spokesperson. But no matter what your character fulfills a role in the party or they don't have a purpose and if that's the case then your character isn't bringing anything to the table and why are you playing him?

The roles are already there. All 4e did was accept they were part of the game and designed around it. That's all.

This is conflating character niche with 4e's concept of combat roles. Party spokesman is not a 4e role.

Oddball classes might not fit into the 4 4e combat niches but have a strongly themed character/party role. A bard as the party's face man is a great example even if he did not fill a combat role well.

I would also say there is plenty of room in RPGs for characters to just be there to experience the adventure without having a niche role. Just roleplaying a normal type person going through an adventure is fine and can be seen in other games such as Call of Cthulhu or World of Darkness.

 

[Phaezen]

So what striker class would you pick for a knight in shining armor concept?

Isn't the concept (shining armor) contradictory to the striker role of high damage and high mobility balanced by relative front line vulnerability/fragility?

The closest I can see would be taking ranger and loading up on armor feats.

Not released (yet) But a lancer would fit the bill there, maybe up to chain or scale armour, and the powers requiring a mount could be problematic in a dungeon.

To simulate with currently available classes, halfling beastmaster houseruled to allow his beast to act as a mount?

Phaezen