Roles - do they work?

[Cadfan]

Its an even/or statement when it comes to the issue of one class overshadowing another at the other's job, which is the typical result of not keeping class roles in the forefront of your mind when designing a class.

I suppose its hypothetically possible that a wizard could be designed to function as every role without overshadowing anyone, but I don't think its likely- without some sort of structure to prevent you from taking spells that fit into each role, players are likely to pick the best from each.

The only mitigating factor would be if every class did the same thing.

 

[Khairn]

Nope, it hasn't.. You still get to try to blast as many minions as possible at the begining of a combat, before the rest of your party gets in there and blocks the rest of your abilities, reducing you to ping-ing off targets with Magic Missile until one or more of your foes kicks into the "Kill the Wizard!!" mentality and you revisit negative hp until the paladin or cleric helps you sit up again.

I was really hoping that the wizard when in combat had somehow acquired some additional functionality aside from minion bashing and rapid fire magic missle. Oh well.

I understand that some of the newer controllers have more options available to them than the wizard. Hopefully I'll get a chance to use 'em.

 

[malraux]

I was really hoping that the wizard when in combat had somehow acquired some additional functionality aside from minion bashing and rapid fire magic missle. Oh well.

I understand that some of the newer controllers have more options available to them than the wizard. Hopefully I'll get a chance to use 'em.

After playing a wizard myself and seeing one in the group I DM, I really don't see much reason for the wizard to kill minions then just drop to tossing MM. Aside from the iconic nature of MM, there's almost no reason to have it. Scorching Burst + Thunderwave is a much better combo. SB hits multiple enemies while TW hits multiple enemies plus pushes them around. The problem here is MM really.

 

[Spatula]

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.

As a DM who was always a big fan of throwing hordes of monsters at players - sure, it's not difficult to make such encounters in 3e. But if the players are going to survive the encounter (and if they're not, it's not difficult to construct in any system), those monsters aren't going to be a threat. They won't be able to hit the players' ACs, their spell DCs will be too low, their damage will be a pittance, etc. etc.

That doesn't mean such encounters aren't fun; I usually used hordes of mooks merely to clog up the battlefield and also to let the PCs strut their stuff, and my players seemed to enjoy that. Minions do the exact same thing, but can actually hurt the PCs. And they involve less bookeeping. All plusses in my book.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Judging from the arguments I've had with people on the WotC boards, I think I view the 4E class structure differently from most people. I don't see 4E classes as classes in the same sense that 3E classes are classes. I view 4E classes the way that the 2E class categories were(Warrior, Priest, etc). I then view the individual paths as the true classes. I'm not playing a fighter, I'm playing a tempest. And this view colors the way that I think that classes and roles should be treated.

I believe that instead of creating new classes based upon roles and power sources, we should create classes based on broad concepts. For instance, a wizard casts arcane spells as a result of intense study and practice. There. That's your broad concept, and any specific character concept that can be described as such should be a wizard, no new class required. There doesn't need to be another arcane class created so that you can play an arcane striker that casts spells from a book, rather than from pacts.

In short, I think that associating a class with one specific role is a mistake.

I believe that anytime that someone has a specific character concept , there should be a short process that he puts the idea through:

1) Is there a path, or multiclass of paths, that can cover the concept as you envision it? If yes, try to build your character that way before continuing.

2) When reduced to the simplest description, would your concept fit into the description of an existing class(e.g. an unarmed duelist is, at his core, someone who fights, and could therefore be called a fighter)? If yes, your concept would best be created as a path in an existing class. Determine the role that you want your concept to fulfill(controller, defender, leader or striker) and have fun. If not, continue to step 3.

3) Your concept would best be created as an entirely new class. Try to broaden you concept. Look to existing classes as examples. This will give your class more room to grow into any closely related concepts. Your specific concept can then be created as a specific path within that class.

 

[Storminator]

After playing a wizard myself and seeing one in the group I DM, I really don't see much reason for the wizard to kill minions then just drop to tossing MM. Aside from the iconic nature of MM, there's almost no reason to have it. Scorching Burst + Thunderwave is a much better combo. SB hits multiple enemies while TW hits multiple enemies plus pushes them around. The problem here is MM really.

In our last game, the DM used no minions (a first!), and all our strikers didn't make the session. After dealing boatloads of damage in confined quarters every fight he was crowing "who's your striker now?!" and deserved to do so. He was indispensable in every fight. And I think he magic missiled twice.

PS

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Roles work in 4E. I do not like them but they work.

In previous editions though... oh please.

Not only will I say they do not work, I will also add they did not exist.

The insistence that a classical edition D&D party would operated anything like a MMO party is nonsense and adopting such tactics would get you killed in play. Sheesh.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally I think that they are no help at all to players, in that they pigeonhole classes and pigeonhole characters too much.

The cynic in me sees them as an an attempt to produce grids (roles vs power source) to enable loads of new classes to be created to fill PHBn to PHBn+1 and so on.

D&D is a class based system, and that is fine. I prefer the way classes have been created for years and years where they are developed around a strong central idea. 4e classes don't so much have a strong central idea as a fusion of a role and a power source.

What I see is less players thinking about being "Blagwulf the bold" or "Sienna the Sneaky" and instead just fitting into the pigeonhole for their role. Like all the others in their role.

Monster roles may be happy for new DMs to sort out appropriate challenges, but again it seems to have been a license for designers to create a bunch of wildly different versions of a monster which maybe have one tiny thread linking them together. I much preferred the 3e method of having base creatures to which classes could be added to support different roles (for instance).

So, from my point of view class roles have probably met everything that WotC wants from it and done nothing for me.

Monster roles are OK, and perhaps helpful in some cases, but largely are a framework for designers too.

Cheers

 

[Scars Unseen]

Personally I think that they are no help at all to players, in that they pigeonhole classes and pigeonhole characters too much.

The cynic in me sees them as an an attempt to produce grids (roles vs power source) to enable loads of new classes to be created to fill PHBn to PHBn+1 and so on.

D&D is a class based system, and that is fine. I prefer the way classes have been created for years and years where they are developed around a strong central idea. 4e classes don't so much have a strong central idea as a fusion of a role and a power source.

What I see is less players thinking about being "Blagwulf the bold" or "Sienna the Sneaky" and instead just fitting into the pigeonhole for their role. Like all the others in their role.

Monster roles may be happy for new DMs to sort out appropriate challenges, but again it seems to have been a license for designers to create a bunch of wildly different versions of a monster which maybe have one tiny thread linking them together. I much preferred the 3e method of having base creatures to which classes could be added to support different roles (for instance).

So, from my point of view class roles have probably met everything that WotC wants from it and done nothing for me.

Monster roles are OK, and perhaps helpful in some cases, but largely are a framework for designers too.

Cheers

The happy news is that the role/powersource grid is nothing more than WotC's marketing hype. The rules don't support it, because the only reason that a cleric falls under the role of leader is that WotC wrote a few paths of powers that said so. There is absolutely nothing in the rules preventing WotC, another company or even us from creating more paths from other concepts that don't happen to fit the same role.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

I think "Power Source" is almost meaningless as a "choice" in character build. It's nothing to form a foundation on, and it's just a terminology basket when doing power write-ups. But it's an empty tag in the game mechanics.

Roles are a bit more concrete, in that they really do alter function and play, in ways that Power Source simply doesn't.

The problem (in my opinion) is that they are building a grid with Roles on one edge, and a meaningless term on the other edge, and then in each box on the grid, they're putting a shtick. And that's where it's coming appart for me.

If they wanted to make a grid of it, I want Role on one edge, and SHTICK on the other. Because the shtick is the flavor, and the part I care about the most. The role is the mechanical relation, and the part I'm forced to deal with in order to get the shtick I want, there is only one choice of role. The source of that shtick's "power" is really only one tiny bit of the flavor, not the foundation of it.


You should be able to take a shtick (example: Wizard -- spellbooks, "magical energies", rituals, minor magics, and familiars) and then have an option for perhapse not EVERY role, but at least most of them (example: Conjurer (Controller), Evoker (Striker), Abjurer (Leader)).

Warlocks, with their infused magic, pacts with other entities, and curses, are an entirely differenct shtick, that should have its own options for roles.

A Wizard may not ever be feasable as a Defender, but a Fighter isn't likely to find feasability as a Controller. A Warlord, however, if they had Powers that handled Minions or cohorts of some kind, would be within their own shtick as a Controller.