Roles - do they work?

[The Little Raven]

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've heard people claim this before, but have yet to see them provide additional roles that are not already covered by the official four.

 

[ProfessorPain]

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).

I like point based games too. BUt sometimes they lead to characters that don't make sense, or are seriously under powered. In 3E, the taking levels in a class was how you customized. So you don't have a magic skill in 3E, but everyone can take levels in wizards if they want to.

 

[The Little Raven]

I like point based games too. BUt sometimes they lead to characters that don't make sense, or are seriously under powered. In 3E, the taking levels in a class was how you customized. So you don't have a magic skill in 3E, but everyone can take levels in wizards if they want to.

And that's why 3e isn't a game that brings class-based and skill-based together in the way you seem to be claiming. It hinges upon classes, to the extent where skill-based customization becomes impossible without bringing in classes (like clerics and healing or rogues and trapfinding).

Yes, point-based games can lead to shafted characters or characters that make little sense, but that is entirely the point of point-based over class-based: you can make anything from the disparate components at your disposal, as opposed to taking a pre-built package (class) which defines your strengths and limitations. Any attempts 3e made towards this model were half-hearted at best, as picking up new class skills, aka "skills I don't totally suck at", required you to multiclass, something you could only do to a particular extent. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that some things are only possible if you pick up another class (like trapfinding, an ability limited to ONE class).

 

[ProfessorPain]

I've heard people claim this before, but have yet to see them provide additional roles that are not already covered by the official four.

This is all in how you cut it. Instead of four roles, they could have made six for example. Or they could have focused on different things, like making it strictly damage output. When you are dealing with models, you are going to cover all your bases, but it isn't the only way to look at the world. Social Styles is a good example of this. You can fit everyone into the following categories: Driver, Expressive, Amiable, and Analytical. Of course everyone can be placed into one of each of the categories, but that doesn't really capture the full range of people. Once you accept the model, then you will always view things through the model. This is really my problem with the Role System. I don't want to have to be a defender all the time. Maybe I want something that is really a blend of controller and defender. Or what if I want someone who strictly serves to buff all the player characters (without any other role whatsoever on the field). Or what if I want a character whose only role is to move really well throughout the battlefield, and take lots of damage.

 

[ProfessorPain]

And that's why 3e isn't a game that brings class-based and skill-based together in the way you seem to be claiming. It hinges upon classes, to the extent where skill-based customization becomes impossible without bringing in classes (like clerics and healing or rogues and trapfinding).

Yes, point-based games can lead to shafted characters or characters that make little sense, but that is entirely the point of point-based over class-based: you can make anything from the disparate components at your disposal, as opposed to taking a pre-built package (class) which defines your strengths and limitations. Any attempts 3e made towards this model were half-hearted at best, as picking up new class skills, aka "skills I don't totally suck at", required you to multiclass, something you could only do to a particular extent. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that some things are only possible if you pick up another class (like trapfinding, an ability limited to ONE class).

you can't bring them together without having both elements. So it still has classes. But what it brings from the point based systems, is options and the ability to customize (though multiclassing and a fairly robust skill system). I am not saying it has all of the elements of a point based game; but it brought a lot of us over to D&D when we had left it in the 90s for point based systems. Personally I thought once you got the hang of how to class dip, there were tons of things you could do. The biggest problem with 3E was the potential for seriously over powered characters. It really required that the GM be extra careful. With a good GM, I didn't encounter this problem. WIth a GM who didn't understand how 3E worked, serious balance issues arose---which is why I was looking forward to 4E. For me what it came down to was this; I thought 4E was going to take what 3E had done to the next level. What they did instead was create an entirely different game. Nothing wrong with that. But it wasn't my expectation, and so I was dissapointed when it was released. After the initial dissapointment, I was able to enjoy 4E, when I played ball with the role system. But I still don't enjoy it as much as 3E. Just don't feel like it is as easy to get the guy I picture in my imagination; and I find the roles a little too narrow, so that I am forced to do stuff I consider boring during combat.

 

[The Little Raven]

This is all in how you cut it. Instead of four roles, they could have made six for example.

I'm waiting for the six examples. Making vague generalized statements like "They could have made six roles..." without any examples does nothing to further the point you're trying to make. If it's so easy to have more than the four roles, without any of the additional roles already being covered by the four, then what are they?

 

[ProfessorPain]

I'm waiting for the six examples. Making vague generalized statements like "They could have made six roles..." without any examples does nothing to further the point you're trying to make. If it's so easy to have more than the four roles, without any of the additional roles already being covered by the four, then what are they?

Not saying it is easy. It took them a long time to settle on the roles. But I did provide you some additional examples: the guy who has tons of HP but can move all over the field. Also saying that instead of 4, they could have had 6, but cutting it up differently.

Also, if you could please change your tone a little. I have been polite in giving my opinion. You have, at times, been not so friendly to me. I am happy to exchange ideas, but not if you belittle me or insult my posts.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

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.

They were amorphous before and they always had meaning.

Sure, any class couldn't fit any role, but you really could easily accomplish three of these new roles in most cases, I think.

 

[ProfessorPain]

They were amorphous before and they always had meaning.

Sure, any class couldn't fit any role, but you really could easily accomplish three of these new roles in most cases, I think.

Exaclty. A fighter could function as a striker and a defender. Or a Wizard a controller, leader and a striker. In 4E it is like you have 4 roles to choose from and you have to stay within the confines of your role. In 3e, and even AD&D, it was more like you had ratings in each of the 4 roles described in 4E. Someone might be a 4 in Defender, but a 2 in Striker.

 

[Khuxan]

I don't want to have to be a defender all the time. Maybe I want something that is really a blend of controller and defender. Or what if I want someone who strictly serves to buff all the player characters (without any other role whatsoever on the field). Or what if I want a character whose only role is to move really well throughout the battlefield, and take lots of damage.

All of the classes major in one role and minor in another - I'm not sure, but I think the swordmage makes a capable mix of controller and defender. If it doesn't, multiclass swordmage with wizard for the controller aspect.

There has never been a class in D&D that only buffs, and never will be. You may find the role fun, but most players prefer to play an active role in combat themselves.

As for a character whose role is to move really well through the battlefield and take lots of damage, that sounds like a defender whose focus is on maneuverability. I'd suggest a halfling (for second chance) tempest fighter (so you gain temporary hit points when hit) with those feats that improve your speed and ability to dodge (Evasion, Fleet Footed, etc.)