Roles - do they work?

[Cadfan]

Refer to rest of thread please.

What's he's saying is this:

Lets say you want to be a Leader in combat, and a knowledgeable type out of combat. You can do that.

Or if you want to be a Defender in combat, and a diplomat out of combat, you can do that.

At most you're going to have to blow a feat or three to make it work.

You're seeing it as, if you choose to play a Fighter, sure, you can be a diplomat out of combat. But you can't be a Striker in combat, because being a Fighter made you be a Defender.

And he's seeing it as, if you want to be a Striker/Diplomat, you can play a Rogue.

I have to say, I'm with him. If your vision is a melee character who, I dunno, charges around the battlefield dishing out pain, but who is also a skilled diplomat, pick a melee class that charges around the battlefield dishing out pain, and then customize to be a diplomat. Don't pick a different class then complain that it doesn't do what you want. The class name isn't important.

If you want the combat mechanics from class X, and an out of combat role of Y, just take it.

 

[The Little Raven]

Then all you would need are classes, not roles.

Not so. Roles are WHAT characters do. Classes are HOW they do it. A Swordmage and a Fighter are both supposed to man the front line and keep their allies save from getting chewed upon, but they go about that job with different capabilities. If I could have the exact same capabilities no matter what class I play (which is what Angel seems to be saying), then there is no purpose to having classes since the lines between them disappear entirely.

Roles are more specific functions than class.

The opposite is true, as I pointed out above. Both Swordmage and Fighter act as Defenders, but their details and specifics are what make them differ in how they fulfill that role. Class is a specific implementation of role.

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.

And this is where we will disagree until the sun burns out. While 3e's multiclassing was ahead of 2e's, it was still broken on both ends of the spectrum: some classes it was worthless to multiclass into (spellcasters), because being an ineffective member of that class doesn't benefit you; some classes it was more than worthwhile to multiclass into because they were so frontloaded with capabilities. This problem was enough that in 3.5, they put in those PrCs in the core books to patch that up (Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, etc).

4E, while it is very well designed, just doesn't address the need for flexibility you usually get from point based systems.

I wouldn't expect a class-based system that has been class-based for over 30 years to deliver what a point-based system delivers. To expect otherwise is to have expectations removed from reality.

 

[malraux]

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.

But roles are the more general function over classes.

 

[malraux]

If you want the combat mechanics from class X, and an out of combat role of Y, just take it.

Pretty much this. If you want to roll a bunch of damage dice, you'll want a striker class of some sort. Out of combat fluff is pretty easy to come by. Ritual casting is an easy feat to grab, for example. You want a familiar, you've got it. Though its not part of the feat currently, I'd add in cantrips as part of the Arcane Initiate feat (and I bet arcane power will have a feat that allows those who multi-classed into wizard to gain the cantrips). Sure, it takes a few levels to get everything right within the rules, but what I've just described gets you a pretty wizard-y character even if you start off with a warlock.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Not so. Roles are WHAT characters do. Classes are HOW they do it. A Swordmage and a Fighter are both supposed to man the front line and keep their allies save from getting chewed upon, but they go about that job with different capabilities. If I could have the exact same capabilities no matter what class I play (which is what Angel seems to be saying), then there is no purpose to having classes since the lines between them disappear entirely..

No. That is how they work in 4E because 4E is designed to work that way. But classes have traditional been a set of strengths. Roles are a construct, a way of looking at how people perform in combat. Just like social styles programs are models for looking how people interact with one another. Classes in 4E are designed to limit you to one role. Most classes in most class-based games have allowed you to easily perform multiple roles without much of a problem. But because 4E is built entirely around roles, you cannot do this. I am not saying that you should have the same exact abilities no matter what class you take; but that you should be able to perform more than one role. It is far more exctiing this way.

The opposite is true, as I pointed out above. Both Swordmage and Fighter act as Defenders, but their details and specifics are what make them differ in how they fulfill that role. Class is a specific implementation of role.

Again, roles are just models for looking at how people may function strategically in combat. But limiting classes to a single role in combat is dull. In 3E and AD&D what you are saying isn't true. A fighter was simply someone who could hit hard, and live long; but that didn't mean he always had to just stay in the front line and tie people up.

And this is where we will disagree until the sun burns out. While 3e's multiclassing was ahead of 2e's, it was still broken on both ends of the spectrum: some classes it was worthless to multiclass into (spellcasters), because being an ineffective member of that class doesn't benefit you; some classes it was more than worthwhile to multiclass into because they were so frontloaded with capabilities. This problem was enough that in 3.5, they put in those PrCs in the core books to patch that up (Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, etc).

yes, 3e had lots of balance issues. And I was anticipating 4e becuase I thought it would fix them. But 4e wasn't an improvement, it was a regression. 3E was a serious innovation in gaming. It really brought the class and skill games together. Made a system that functioned well in multiple genres. 4E isn't an attempt to improve that system, but to return to the simplicity of basic D&D. Anyways, if it is a choice between the rigidness of 4E or the brokeness of 3E, I would take 3E. That said, I think 4E is a good system. But really should have been marketed as a seperate game entirely. I still do play it. But moslty because it makes me nostalgic for the red boxed set.

I wouldn't expect a class-based system that has been class-based for over 30 years to deliver what a point-based system delivers. To expect otherwise is to have expectations removed from reality

.

Not at all. 3E was a great compromise in this respect. In fact, it solved a lot of the problems inherent in a point based game, while preserving the openness and ability to customize your character.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

That doesn't have much to do with roles, though.

It has more to do with how D&D in general and 4e specifically treats combat as the only interesting part of playing D&D.

The roles are expressly combat roles. They don't apply to anything else. They work as combat roles, pretty okay. I don't know what else you want out of combat roles, honestly.

 

[ProfessorPain]

But roles are the more general function over classes.

But having both classes and roles is overkill. At the end of the day, all defenders fuction as defenders, they can't be anything else. If you are going to have classes that matter, they should be able to take on multiple roles.

 

[The Little Raven]

But classes have traditional been a set of strengths. Roles are a construct, a way of looking at how people perform in combat.

So, roles are a construct, but classes are not? That's just silly. Classes are constructs, which were originally directly linked to their roles (cleric was the only healer, magic-user was the only artillery, and fighter was the only front-liner to stop that ogre from eating your face).

Most classes in most class-based games have allowed you to easily perform multiple roles without much of a problem.

Let's see some citations here. Provide the list of class-based RPGs in which you can easily perform multiple roles with a single class without sacrificing things in return. That's what 4e's multiclassing is all about: you sacrifice direct power within your role in order to take on a secondary role.

It is far more exctiing this way.

For you. See, I like sitting down with a group of people and working together because of our disparate capabilities (the very reason for a class-based system). When one guy can do everything that the rest of us can do, combined, I see no reason why we should be playing a group game, since he can handle it all, nor do I see why we should be playing a class-based system, since he has no niche weakness for his compatriots to shore up.

In 3E and AD&D what you are saying isn't true. A fighter was simply someone who could hit hard, and live long; but that didn't mean he always had to just stay in the front line and tie people up.

You're right about 3e, since 3e seemed to think "Fighter = All Combat Possibilities" (which didn't always work, since the majority of two-weapon Fighters would dip into Ranger for that front-loaded benefit).

You're dead wrong about AD&D, especially in regards to design intent, as Gygax clearly stated in the DMG that a fighter that isn't acting as a defender isn't fulfilling the function of the fighter and should be docked experience for it (same with the cleric that refuses to heal and support his party).

3e had lots of balance issues.

That's putting it mildly.

But 4e wasn't an improvement, it was a regression.

A regression that casts aside decades-old "tradition" in order to implement design philosophies from the most recent decade is most assuredly an improvement in my book.

3E was a serious innovation in gaming.

Yes, it was. I won't dispute that. However, it was still hampered by a number of "because it's always been that way" design ideas that kept it clinging to a 30-year-old design.

It really brought the class and skill games together.

It most certainly did not. Class systems are predicated upon a chosen role that provides you with your benefits and your weaknesses in a neat package, while skill systems are predicated upon you building whatever you want from the pool of components available to you.

Made a system that functioned well in multiple genres.

That's a matter of opinion. Some people think d20 works perfectly for anything under the sun. I think it's incredibly poor at anything but heroic fantasy games.

4E isn't an attempt to improve that system, but to return to the simplicity of basic D&D.

Yeah, it's an attempt to turn a game back into a game, instead of a highly complex math exercise.

That said, I think 4E is a good system. But really should have been marketed as a seperate game entirely.

I love this philosophy. 3e was a massive change from 2e (and especially away from BD&D), as much of its elements were new to the system (while some were just evolutions of late-2e design ideas) but it's okay to bear the D&D name. 4e is nowhere near as big a change from 3e as 3e was from 2e, but it's not okay to bear the name, despite repeated references to it being similar to BD&D.

3E was a great compromise in this respect. In fact, it solved a lot of the problems inherent in a point based game, while preserving the openness and ability to customize your character.

As a fan of point-based games, I can only choke on my laughter at the suggestion that 3e solved any problems that those types of games have, as 3e is still unabashedly a class-based game with minor customization. Need a healer? No skill or customization will help you out... only choosing a class (cleric). Need a trap dude? No skil or customization will help you out... only choosing a class (rogue).

 

[Cadfan]

But having both classes and roles is overkill. At the end of the day, all defenders fuction as defenders, they can't be anything else. If you are going to have classes that matter, they should be able to take on multiple roles.

1. If a class can have any non combat role it wants, and a class can have any combat role it wants, what, precisely, is the class contributing?

2. The statement that defenders all function as defenders and can't be anything else is... ridiculous. Its "assume that the person you are talking to isn't taking this seriously" ridiculous.

I think that, rather than talk in generalisms that are just going to make people think for half a second and declare false, you might want to give an actual example of a character that you can't build in 4e, but that you should be able to build. That means, not a character who's concept is "fights just as well as a fighter but heals as well as a cleric," because that's just dumb and unbalanced. And not a character who's concept is "has class X but also has a specific power from class Y." Go with general concepts. Like, a Fighter who, like a Striker, fights like a dervish, slipping through the battlefield and striking multiple foes. Oh, wait! That's the default setup for a heavy blade fighter. You know what I mean though.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I think that, rather than talk in generalisms that are just going to make people think for half a second and declare false, you might want to give an actual example of a character that you can't build in 4e, but that you should be able to build. That means, not a character who's concept is "fights just as well as a fighter but heals as well as a cleric," because that's just dumb and unbalanced. And not a character who's concept is "has class X but also has a specific power from class Y." Go with general concepts. Like, a Fighter who, like a Striker, fights like a dervish, slipping through the battlefield and striking multiple foes. Oh, wait! That's the default setup for a heavy blade fighter. You know what I mean though.

But this concept existed, and worked in 3E; you could muticlass half your levels as a fighter and half as a cleric. I have only played in two 4E campaigns, which means I have only played two characters; A fighter and a Ranger. Personally I found myself constrained during combat as a fighter. Had I been given more varied class abililities, or the ability to multiclass as you could in 3E, I probably wouldn't be complaining.

On the subject of Roles being Constructs and Classes not being constructs. I would argue that they both are constructs. My point was, the roles laid out in 4E are not the only possible roles available in combat; and building classes around them, limits what you can do. I don't see the need for both; when Roles trump everything.