Roles - do they work?

[thecasualoblivion]

Roles are an improvement from a game design perspective. Every edition of D&D has been a combat game first and foremost. Without clearly defined roles the game was built around, problems arose. For example:

1. The AD&D Thief, who largely failed at life in combat as a stand alone class.
2. AD&D muticlassing, which was completely overpowered until after level 9-10.
3. 3E classes like Bard, Monk, Soulknife who failed to do anything well in combat.
4. 3E classes like Wizard, Cleric and most of all Druid who could do most everything well, often at the same time.

Having clearly defined roles accomplishes two things. First, it prevents creating character classes that fail at life(adventuring). You're an adventurer, you put yourself in harm's way and kill things. You have to be good at some aspect of that. Second, it prevents uber characters who can do it all at the expense of those who can't. The rule for this is that while you can dabble in other roles(A well built Fighter can come real close to being a Defender/Striker/Controller and do all of them well and at the same time), there are no full hybrids.

 

[the Jester]

I noticed pretty early on that roles kick ass in 4e, and that monster roles really do help the dm make interesting combos of monsters for on-the-fly encounters.

 

[Dedekind]

Player roles have been an unqualified good for my group. The well-defined existence of roles encourages people to take on those roles (or at least understand their abilities in context). However, what makes it a success is the fact that multiple classes fulfill the roles; instead of there being only one healer, there are 4 (or more). Plus, I think it creates design room for WotC as they fill in the boxes for power source/role.

Monster roles are a great idea... but there are more constraints there. In 3e, if I wanted a hill giant controller, I gave a hill giant levels of druid. It's not that simple now (though not impossible). Roles certainly makes it easy to figure out how to put together a balanced encounter, but I miss the directness of customizing monsters with class levels.

Again, I think this creates design room for WotC, but I don't forsee them adding a book that is just the same monsters as MM1, but with a different role and ability.

 

[Runestar]

In 3e, there were classes which did not fit into a predefined role (such as duskblade, psywarrior, binder, some of the monster class PCs such as ghaele), yet remained fun to play. How do you think they might be implemented in 4e? Might they be forced to conform to 1 of the 4 existing roles?

Do you think that we may end up seeing newer roles being introduced?

 

[Dedekind]

It would cut down on class glut. We are already seeing this. Why play class a when their is class b that is better. I don't know if the roles really had much to do with this problem, but I can already see that it is going to be a problem.

Class glut may be a problem, for sure. As it stands now, they create at least one class for a given power source/role combination. While that sort of symmetry sounds good, I think it could lead to some forced classes (or has led to, depending on your PoV). I find the Warden a bit of a stretch, but that may have to do with my preference for well-established archetypes. (I thought Warden would be a Ranger in the Tolkein sense.)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In 3e, there were classes which did not fit into a predefined role (such as duskblade, psywarrior, binder, some of the monster class PCs such as ghaele), yet remained fun to play. How do you think they might be implemented in 4e? Might they be forced to conform to 1 of the 4 existing roles?

Do you think that we may end up seeing newer roles being introduced?

There were classes in 3E that didn't fit into a predefined role, but I wouldn't include some of your examples. Duskblade fills the glass canon dps role, while Psywarrior fills the 3e meatshield/"Fighter" role pretty well, and can be built to glass canon as well. Binder is weird. It can be built to fulfill most of the roles present in 3e, but you can rebuild yourself each day and be something entirely different. Monster class Pcs are stretching things a bit.

Most classes that failed to fit into a predefined roll were either those who did nothing well, or classes that did everything too well.

 

[TwinBahamut]

In 3e, there were classes which did not fit into a predefined role (such as duskblade, psywarrior, binder, some of the monster class PCs such as ghaele), yet remained fun to play. How do you think they might be implemented in 4e? Might they be forced to conform to 1 of the 4 existing roles?

Do you think that we may end up seeing newer roles being introduced?

As has been mentioned, many of those that you mentioned worked quite well at fulfilling certain roles. The Duskblade is probably one of the clearest Strikers of 3E. The Psychic Warrior is a solid Defender that leans towards Striker. The 3E Warlock is a Stiker that slightly leans towards Controller. Most of the Tome of Battle classes are a little bit blurrier, but the Warblade and Crusader are roughly Defenders, and the Swordsage is a Controller. A greater focus on role and effectiveness is what helped this set of classes to be so good. I will admit that many others, like the Binder and the Incarnum classes, are both fun and a bit less focused, but that lack of focus does hurt them (they are not as useful and easy to play as a class with a role).

As for new roles... I doubt it. The four current roles cover it quite well. The Defender runs defense. The Striker runs offense. The Controller enables defense. The Leader enables offense. I am not sure that you can really fit anything else into there. There will probably be new ideas on how to implement these roles in entirely new ways, but not entirely new roles.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

In my opinion, an overemphasis on PC roles straitjackets players and has directly led to a number of tactical deficiencies on the part of many players. The discussion of "defender" or "leader" obscures what those characters actually do which is far more important. Defenders control aggression who monsters attack through their marks but the party also needs to control where monsters can move through OAs and other class abilities. Fighters can do that. Charisma paladins cannot (at least at heroic tier). Yet they are both defenders. Similarly, the leader role incorporates a lot of different abilities and no leader class is actually good at all of them (though inspiring warlords come close post-Martial Power). Leaders grant saving throws, heal, give bonuses to hit and damage, give extra attacks and movement--but most players overlook that and focus on the one thing that all leaders have in common (healing) as though that were the most important thing that leaders bring to the table.

For monsters, the nonclemature is useful, though with monsters as simplistic as 4th edition monsters, I hardly need a label to tell how to use it effectively. Most of them only have one or two effective ways to spend their rounds and reading their powers it is not hard to figure out what those are. That said, I think minions are a terrible idea both from the standpoint of immersion and from the gameplay standpoint and solos and elites tend very strongly towards grind. (You don't even need to bring in monstrousities like the elite insubstantial cleric with cure serious wounds and healing word from LFR's Dale 1-1 to make that point, but 90% of those who played that mod will have first-hand experience with grind at its worst). Also, while this may or may not be a function of the elite/solo/normal/minion structure of 4e monsters, I have found that 4e makes it very difficult to construct a fight where the monsters outnumber the PCs 2 or 3 to 1 without using minions. That was no more difficult than constructing any other non-solo fight in 3.x.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

I don't like it when certain classes are forced into certain roles.

I have always liked loved bards, and I like shamans, for instance.. But I'm finding myself worried because I have not liked the look of playing Leader characters, from what I've seen of them with our Party's characters thus far.

And frankly, I want to play a Wizard as a Striker, not a Controller, but the game doesn't seem to be letting me.. My most useful spell is Flaming Sphere. ... it makes me groan inwardly to keep using the damned repetative thing every "day", but it's the only blasted thing that fills in the tactics when we get into the big tussles. And I seem to wind up using my encounter powers in roughly the same order for the same ends every bloody enounter. ... I think if it weren't for the creativity I've been able to squeeze out of my cantrips, I'd go insane at the repetativeness. And unless there's a huge mess o' badguys, a Wizard can't but keep firing Magic Missiles into the melee everyone else is enjoying.

So yes.. Yes I think the Roles are a bad thing. The Roles are getting in the way of the Playing.

 

[Khairn]

As a practical matter, the roles were there long before 4e. I remember thinking about roles in combat back in the 1980s - every group understood the tactical roles of the tank, the artillery, and so on.

So, as a general idea, roles are a proven thing. The question is whether the current implementation works. Personally, I think the current form is a touch too strict for my taste, pigeonholing characters such that many concepts don't work out too well mechanically.

As a player my experience has been the same. I find 4E's version of class roles to be more restrictive than I am used to, and certainly more than I enjoy. As for monsters, I've been on the receiving end of their attacks enough to recognize the power types but so far I haven't had the chance to GM them. But I'll be GM'ing a game next week so I hope to have a better handle on things afterward.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the only monster role that I dislike is the minion, which IMHO appears to be little more than a justification for the existence of the wizard / controller. But since I only have the 3 core books to work I really don't know if the primary controller role has moved beyond that of a minion slayer.