Roles - do they work?

[The Little Raven]

But I did provide you some additional examples: the guy who has tons of HP but can move all over the field.

That's not a role. That's just a statement of capability. Role implies a job to fulfill within combat in your group. Your example is just some random stuff linked together with no indication of what he is supposed to do for his group.

Also saying that instead of 4, they could have had 6, but cutting it up differently.

Sounds like you're saying to make the roles even more narrowly focused by taking the existing roles which you seem to think are restricting and make them even more restricting by removing elements of that role just in order to make a greater number of roles.

I am happy to exchange ideas, but not if you belittle me or insult my posts.

I have not once belittled nor insulted you, as acting in such a manner is detrimental to having a reasonable discussion. As anyone who knows my posting style can tell you, I am strident and care little for how people perceive me (I'm not here to make friends or win popularity contests), but I only insult when insulted first. I care for the discussion in which I involve myself.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

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.

Let me try this again....

I want to take the package of shtick, tropes, and trappings that I want, and be able to play it in the role style I want.

Having roles so utterly glued onto the classes prevents anything of this sort.

 

[The Little Raven]

A fighter could function as a striker and a defender.

The fighter was barely a defender. He had no capability to prevent his foes from circumventing him and attacking his allies, nor did he have any way to make it more appealing for a foe to attack him instead of a weaker ally. Why would my ogre fight the fighter when he can crush the wizard easily, or prevent the cleric from healing his party?

Or a Wizard a controller, leader and a striker.

Wizard... a leader? Did you miss the part of leader that says you heal, something the D&D Wizard has been incapable of for decades?

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.

The problem with your claims of "play how you want" is that most classes had a 0 rating in most roles. Sure, you could act like a Defender, but since you have no tools to actually fulfill the role, it's meaningless.

 

[ProfessorPain]

That's not a role. That's just a statement of capability. Role implies a job to fulfill within combat in your group. Your example is just some random stuff linked together with no indication of what he is supposed to do for his group.

Sure it is. It is a transporter. He is good at getting around the field of battle. This is all in how you cut it. They could have divided the game into two roles: melee and ranged combatants. Once you establish roles, and then build a game around those roles, people who want other options will be dissapointed by the built in limitations.

Sounds like you're saying to make the roles even more narrowly focused by taking the existing roles which you seem to think are restricting and make them even more restricting by removing elements of that role just in order to make a greater number of roles.

I am saying they could; not that they should. Personally my problem isn't with the specific roles in 4E but the lack of ucross over between them. Simply put, I don't want to be limited to a single role in combat.

[I have not once belittled nor insulted you, as acting in such a manner is detrimental to having a reasonable discussion. As anyone who knows my posting style can tell you, I am strident and care little for how people perceive me (I'm not here to make friends or win popularity contests), but I only insult when insulted first. I care for the discussion in which I involve myself.

I am not saying you made a personal insult, but your "strident" communication came accross as hostile and a little rude to me. You might not be here to make friends, but i am not going to continue discussing this with you if you can't adjust the tone of your posts. I come here to unwind, and relax; not get heated up.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

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.





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.

Yes! I agree completely.

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 play 4E because that's what my group moved onto. I initialy had very large hopes for the system. It just went in opposite directions from what I hoped for.

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.

My DM got burned out on 3E. 3E was NOT kind to DMs. It was a gigantic hassle for DMs, in fact. It was also a bog of bookkeeping when going up in level, and several kinds of combat actions slowed things down to a crawl as everyone tried to reference them. Needless complications. So no, 3E wasn't perfect. ... But it's character generation pretty much was. That's the versatility I loved. I wish there was a way to bring that range of possibility back into 4E's smoother bookkeeping and mechanics.

I think that the Roles are one of the larger counterproductive obsticles to this desire.

 

[The Little Raven]

Sure it is. It is a transporter. He is good at getting around the field of battle.

That is already covered by the Striker role, which is mobile in order to effectively maximize its damage. You have simply take two elements from two roles: high hit points (Defender) and mobility (Striker) and attempted to make a new role out of something that already exists.

So, again, that is not a new role, that is just taking existing roles and peeling off parts of them, which makes them even more limited (something you seem to be protesting) simply to create another "option" (which is even more limited, as well).

They could have divided the game into two roles: melee and ranged combatants.

That doesn't say what they're supposed to do. A rogue is a melee combatant, but his role (hurting people immensely) is entirely different from that of a fighter (preventing people from hurting his allies).

Once you establish roles, and then build a game around those roles, people who want other options will be dissapointed by the built in limitations.

That's how class systems works. You create packages that have strengths and limitations built into them, so when you're in a group you work together to achieve your goals.

I am saying they could; not that they should. Personally my problem isn't with the specific roles in 4E but the lack of ucross over between them. Simply put, I don't want to be limited to a single role in combat.

What really confuses me is that you complain about how roles limit you, and the two separate solutions you seem to feel are possible are to eliminate the point of a class-based system by allowing you do whatever you want with whatever class you pick, or to make the roles even more limited by reducing the amount of capabilities they have to produce some artificial "greater number of options."

I am not saying you made a personal insult, but your "strident" communication came accross as hostile and a little rude to me. You might not be here to make friends, but i am not going to continue discussing this with you if you can't adjust the tone of your posts. I come here to unwind, and relax; not get heated up.

Spend months getting insulted for liking a game, with them ranging from "clever" nicknames like 4ron to being called a 13-year-old with ADD, and see how friendly and open you are to people who make the exact same arguments all over again.

 

[The Little Raven]

3E was NOT kind to DMs.

It wasn't kind to players with its Ivory Tower Game Design aka "we put in sub-par choices intentionally instead of striving to make all choices desirable, thereby making some concepts less viable in a mechanical regard."

 

[ProfessorPain]

The fighter was barely a defender. He had no capability to prevent his foes from circumventing him and attacking his allies, nor did he have any way to make it more appealing for a foe to attack him instead of a weaker ally. Why would my ogre fight the fighter when he can crush the wizard easily, or prevent the cleric from healing his party?

Yes he could by using the combat options available in the game. Fighters tended to do well at things like grappling, bull rushing and tripping. There may not have been anything mechanically compelling NPCs to attack him; but he was an obvious choice, and he had lots of HP which allowed him to stand there longer and take it. In most 3E battles I participated in, wizards were in the rear and the fighters were up front blocking the ogre's ability to access the wizard. There is no need for mechanics that compell the ogre to attack the fighter. It is up to the party to be arranged in a way that benefits them strategically on the board.

Wizard... a leader? Did you miss the part of leader that says you heal, something the D&D Wizard has been incapable of for decades?

But healing isn't the only thing that a leader does. They can also Buff characters on the field of battle

Again, I am not going to continue the discussion, if you can't soften your tone a bit.

The problem with your claims of "play how you want" is that most classes had a 0 rating in most roles. Sure, you could act like a Defender, but since you have no tools to actually fulfill the role, it's meaningless.

No they didn't. What about the Cleric? They could easily function as defenders and leaders. Wizards could easily function as controllers, leaders, and strikers. Fighters could funciton as defenders and strikers. etc.

Again creating an artificial mechanic to simulate the defender role, is a little weak in my opinion. It already happened naturally in most battles.

 

[ProfessorPain]

That is already covered by the Striker role, which is mobile in order to effectively maximize its damage. You have simply take two elements from two roles: high hit points (Defender) and mobility (Striker) and attempted to make a new role out of something that already exists.

But it produces something totally different. And that is the point.

That doesn't say what they're supposed to do. A rogue is a melee combatant, but his role (hurting people immensely) is entirely differenot from that of a fighter (preventing people from hurting his allies).

Yes it does. They are supposed to fight up close. It is just how you cut it. Ranged characters are supposed to fight far away. That is a role.

That's how class systems works. You create packages that have strengths and limitations built into them, so when you're in a group you work together to achieve your goals.

But roles are much more specific about what actions and strategies you can perform on the battlefield.

What really confuses me is that you complain about how roles limit you, and the two separate solutions you seem to feel are possible are to eliminate the point of a class-based system by allowing you do whatever you want with whatever class you pick, or to make the roles even more limited by reducing the amount of capabilities they have to produce some artificial "greater number of options."

I don't think you are characterizing my position accurately. The alternate roles I proposed were not solutions to the problem, but examples of how roles can be cut up and defined differently.

No. I still think the classes should have strengths and weaknesses, but they should be limited to the same tactic on the battle field every time. There should be some amount of cross over. And room for customization. I don't want my fighter to be able to do everything; but I do want him to do something besides tangling people up in the front line, and helping the rogue move around the battle.

Spend months getting insulted for liking a game, with them ranging from "clever" nicknames like 4ron to being called a 13-year-old with ADD, and see how friendly and open you are to people who make the exact same arguments all over again.

I don't approve on insulting people on forums no matter what their position on 4E is. I am just giving my impressions of the game. I shouldn't be attacked because there have been jerks insulting one another over the new system. I would never suggest that liking one system over another reflects a persons intelligence or value. I am looking for polite and friendly exchanges of ideas...and am totally open to being wrong. I have only played two 4E campaigns, and realize I may not have seen all it has to offer. But when you use insults, it makes people more resistent to what you are proposing.

 

[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.

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

It has everything to do with them. You said they were for minis combat. I responded that I do not WANT to play a minis combat game (such as the original Chainmail that spawned the original D&D, or Battle System, the minis ad-on rule for AD&D.)

I want to play Dungeons & Dragons. Not a tactical boardgame.

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.

I want them to not be in my way, in regards to how I want to build or play a character. They are kidnapping the shticks I want and not letting me use them for anything else.