Roles - do they work?

[Wik]

Hmm. What do I think of roles?

Well, I like 'em... but I really don't see them as the be-all and end-all of a character. For example, in my group, we have three strikers - Kirra, an Artful Dodger Drow Rogue, Seahorse, a Brutal Scoundrel halfling rogue, and Nero, a half-elven Dark Warlock. While they all have the same "role" (and two have the same class!) they all, in fact, fill different "roles" in the party:

* Kirra is a pretty good damage dealer. She can get into flanks and drop a huge amount of damage. But her main ability that I see coming up again and again is her ability to move enemies around the battlefield - and she has another power that lets her allies deal extra damage on a hit. Because of her ability to Darkfire or Blind an opponent, she can also "solo" monsters, for a short period of time. Of the strikers, Kirra has the most versatility in a combat. Her abilities to move enemies give her a bit of "controller", though she can function as a pure striker for a short period of time.

* Seahorse can drop more damage than Kirra, and has some evasion abilities that make her hard to pin down. Her halfling dodge ability means she can avoid criticals if she needs to, and she's hard to knock out of a fight. Often, Seahorse is almost a front-line fighter, and she can move in and out of a fight (provoking AoO) if she has to. She is, really, the only "pure" striker in the group.

* Nero is an archer, first and foremost, but he has some magical items that let him fight close range. Plus, as he kills enemies, he can store their souls to unleash if he gets hit by a melee attack for automatic damage. As a result, Nero focuses on Quantity of kills, meaning he's almost a controller.

We also have two leaders who fill COMPLETELY different roles. Thrane, our Dwarven Cleric, is built entirely for healing, and I've seen him heal a buttload of HP with his Healing Word power... and if he uses one of his dailies, he heals something like 17 HP without costing a healing surge! He also fills a controller role at times - and when he's a controller, the player is at his happiest.

Meanwhile, Tongs, our Eladrin Warlord, is a leader who dabbles in defender. He's a frontline fighter built to enable sneak attacks, move his allies around, and improve others' chances to hit. Because there's already a healer in the group, he doesn't really focus on healing, and instead focuses on getting the group into position, and making sure the big attacks hit. He is also very much a defender.

Really, I can't think of any character being pigeonholed into any one role, with the possible exception of Seahorse. So, even though many of the classes SAY they're built towards one role, most of the classes can sub in for other roles if they have to. My group:

Hammer, Minotaur Fighter: Defender, with Striker Qualities (Mordrenkards can be brutal)
Tongs, Eladrin Warlord: Leader, with Defender traits.
Thrane, Dwarven Cleric: Leader, with a few controller effects (can create zones)
Seahorse, Halfling Rogue: Pretty much pure striker, though her evasion powers can make her a defender for a few rounds.
Kirra, Drow Rogue: Striker, who can sub as a controller for a round or two.
Nero, Half-elven Darklock: Striker, who acts like a Controller until he becomes a frontline defender, until he gets hit and uses his Dark Pact, and then he's a very deadly striker again.

 

[Wik]

One other thing about roles, that I LOVE:

They exist only in combat.

In earlier editions of the game, there were some classes that were quite useful out of the combats, but not so great in them (Healers, for example, or Bards). Other classes were combat machines, but had very little in the way of out-of-combat power (Fighters spring instantly to mind). Nowadays, roles exist mostly for combat effectiveness.

Outside of combat, classes have different skillsets, but these skills can be useful in a variety of situations. And if you want, you can take feats to really tweak your character. You can fairly easily make a fighter who acts like a Ranger (give him training in Nature and/or Perception). Your wizard can be a warmage (Give him Toughness as a feat, or Armour Proficiency), a weird diviner sort (Skill Focus: Arcana, and focus on getting him rituals), or a roguish bard (Jack of All Trades feat, maybe training in Diplomacy).

Characters in my group can all function outside of combat, and that's great. Compare this to my Savage Tide game I ran, where the Goliath Fighter soon learned that he shouldn't get involved in non-combat situations, and the Human Wild Mage learned that he really only shined outside of combat.

I like the roles, because they allow everyone to function according to their class in a fight, but playing their character archetype (whatever it may be) outside of combat.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Here's my thing about roles:

They're pretty good at what they do. They make siloing abilities for minis combat easier. They can be a little ambiguous, but they work mostly as intended, and they work well as intended.

They have a few things that come in tow with them.

The first is that because of the siloing, you can never be a "jack of all trades, master of none" kind of character. You'll be a master at ONE and only ONE, and never very adept at any others.

The second is that they're not exactly universal. They're minis combat roles, not general battle roles.

I don't want to play Chainmail or Battle System. I want to play D&D.

We also have two leaders who fill COMPLETELY different roles. Thrane, our Dwarven Cleric, is built entirely for healing, and I've seen him heal a buttload of HP with his Healing Word power... and if he uses one of his dailies, he heals something like 17 HP without costing a healing surge! He also fills a controller role at times - and when he's a controller, the player is at his happiest.

Which seems to be about a single non-minion attack..

One other thing about roles, that I LOVE:

They exist only in combat.

In earlier editions of the game, there were some classes that were quite useful out of the combats, but not so great in them (Healers, for example, or Bards). Other classes were combat machines, but had very little in the way of out-of-combat power (Fighters spring instantly to mind). Nowadays, roles exist mostly for combat effectiveness.

Outside of combat, classes have different skillsets, but these skills can be useful in a variety of situations. And if you want, you can take feats to really tweak your character. You can fairly easily make a fighter who acts like a Ranger (give him training in Nature and/or Perception). Your wizard can be a warmage (Give him Toughness as a feat, or Armour Proficiency), a weird diviner sort (Skill Focus: Arcana, and focus on getting him rituals), or a roguish bard (Jack of All Trades feat, maybe training in Diplomacy).

Characters in my group can all function outside of combat, and that's great. Compare this to my Savage Tide game I ran, where the Goliath Fighter soon learned that he shouldn't get involved in non-combat situations, and the Human Wild Mage learned that he really only shined outside of combat.

I like the roles, because they allow everyone to function according to their class in a fight, but playing their character archetype (whatever it may be) outside of combat.

Well, this would explain why I am more an more irritated with combat.

(Off-topic rant: Know what else irritates me? Monsters can recharge their frakin' Encounter powers and we never can.... Okay.. sorry.)

 

[Wik]

Which seems to be about a single non-minion attack..

I should have mentioned - that's everyone in the party. The first time he used it, everyone went from Bloodied to about three quarters HP - or more. And it cost no one a healing surge. And, when he does use powers that let you activate a healing surge, he's often healing you 10+ hit points. He's definitely useful to have around.

Well, this would explain why I am more an more irritated with combat.

How is that explained? I'm saying that roles help keep combat and non-combat differentiated, so that PCs can contribute equally in both play situations. In my experience, this has not always been the case in earlier editions. Sure, even if you were just a lowly fighter with no useful non-combat skills, clever play could get you somewhere... but you were at a significant disadvantage over the bard (Who, likewise, would suck in a fight standing next to you).

Roles let us say "this is more or less what you do in a fight; what you excel at outside of a fight is up to you".

While I'm not 100% sold on 4e, this innovation is something I *love* and want to see more of.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

How is that explained?

Well...:

One other thing about roles, that I LOVE:

They exist only in combat.

In earlier editions of the game, there were some classes that were quite useful out of the combats, but not so great in them (Healers, for example, or Bards). Other classes were combat machines, but had very little in the way of out-of-combat power (Fighters spring instantly to mind). Nowadays, roles exist mostly for combat effectiveness.

Outside of combat, classes have different skillsets, but these skills can be useful in a variety of situations. And if you want, you can take feats to really tweak your character. You can fairly easily make a fighter who acts like a Ranger (give him training in Nature and/or Perception). Your wizard can be a warmage (Give him Toughness as a feat, or Armour Proficiency), a weird diviner sort (Skill Focus: Arcana, and focus on getting him rituals), or a roguish bard (Jack of All Trades feat, maybe training in Diplomacy).

Characters in my group can all function outside of combat, and that's great. Compare this to my Savage Tide game I ran, where the Goliath Fighter soon learned that he shouldn't get involved in non-combat situations, and the Human Wild Mage learned that he really only shined outside of combat.

I like the roles, because they allow everyone to function according to their class in a fight, but playing their character archetype (whatever it may be) outside of combat.

That would be how.

Roles let us say "this is more or less what you do in a fight; what you excel at outside of a fight is up to you".

See, that's my point. I would like both of those things to be up to me.

 

[malraux]

Unless your DM assigns classes or roles, I'd assume it is up to you how both of those work.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Unless your DM assigns classes or roles, I'd assume it is up to you how both of those work.

Refer to rest of thread please.

 

[korjik]

[exit lurk mode]

To me, there are two bits here.

As a DM, I like the locking of role to monster. Packaging the monsters in ways that make it wasy to drop them into an adventure is a good thing. DMs need all the help that they can get to make the prep easier. I never did like 3ed's elevating of monsters to 'player of a different kind'.

As a player, I hate with a passion how role is locked to class. The player should define the role, not the role define the player. The discussion in this thread is a good example of what I dont like.

I am another one of the people who dosent like playing an arcane controller. Several people here has suggested that then I should play a warlock instead of a wizard. I think that this misses the point. If I wanted to play a warlock, I would play a warlock. I think that making it to where I have to adapt to the role is bad. You cant be a shooty fighter. You cant be a striker wizard. You cant be a one weapon ranger.

Make the game about options, not rigid roles.

 

[The Little Raven]

I would like both of those things to be up to me.

If you can choose to make any class perform any role in any situation, then having a class-based system is pointless, because the classes don't mean a thing when they're completely amorphous.

 

[ProfessorPain]

If you can choose to make any class perform any role in any situation, then having a class-based system is pointless, because the classes don't mean a thing when they're completely amorphous.

Then all you would need are classes, not roles. Roles are more specific functions than class. A class covers something like "can hit really hard and stay up", roles say, the guy who can hit really hard and stay up has to be on the front line to tie up enemies. It is very different. Balancing the whole system around roles, forces you to play the game a certain way. The whole reason 3E was so succesful, was because it gave you the best of both worlds (of Class and Skill based games); you had the built in flavor and function of classes, a robust skill system, and the ability move from class to class, through a flexible multiclassing system. 4E, while it is very well designed, just doesn't address the need for flexibility you usually get from point based systems. For people who started out on 3E, this was probably very suprising. For those of us who stared out on the red boxed set, or AD&D, less so probably.