Roles - do they work?

[Cadfan]

If you feel that the opportunity to make a crappy character is necessary to give the creation of a decent character meaning, go play a competitive game.

Character creation is not a place where skill should make a significant difference. Battle, on the other hand, is. Unlike character creation, it actually is competitive. You have an adversary. Victory is found in defeating him.

 

[ProfessorPain]

If you feel that the opportunity to make a crappy character is necessary to give the creation of a decent character meaning, go play a competitive game.

Character creation is not a place where skill should make a significant difference. Battle, on the other hand, is. Unlike character creation, it actually is competitive. You have an adversary. Victory is found in defeating him.

This is a matter of taste. I don't think one side is right or wrong here. It depends on what you prefer as a player. I prefer 'competition' in the character creation phase and in the battle phase. Personally I don't see it as competing against other players (if that is what you are implying). If someone has a harder time making a character in the system, I am more than happy to help them. For me it is just about having my choices actually matter. And if the possibility of failure isn't present, then the choices, in my view, are not that significant. I do understand your point of view though, and I can see how some might not want to play the game that interests me. I think there is room for both schools of thought in the gaming community. I will play 4E when my group wants to. And I wont complain about it. But I also want to play a game that allows for good and bad decisions during character creation and combat, once in a while. In fact, the whole fun of gaming for me is playing different systems. I am not strictly a D&D player. I will play any game that interests me, and try to master its rules.

 

[drothgery]

I really want the fighters do be able to dish out as much damage as the strikers in one blow. Or at least the ability to build my fighter that way. I basically feel like my character's role is a sponge. And making a ranged fighter is very difficult.

What's so compelling about having a character whose game-mechanics class is 'fighter' that you're complelled to use it for something it's clearly not designed to do? If you want a character whose primary role is to dish out damage in 4e, you use a striker-role class.

Want to be a heavily armored striker? Avenger.
High-hit point melee striker? Barbarian.
Lightly armored melee striker? Rogue or two-weapon Ranger.
Ranged sriker (and a ranged defender is just silly, except maybe via Swordmage-esque teleporting)? Archer ranger or Rogue.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

What's so compelling about having a character whose game-mechanics class is 'fighter' that you're complelled to use it for something it's clearly not designed to do? If you want a character whose primary role is to dish out damage in 4e, you use a striker-role class.

Want to be a heavily armored striker? Avenger.
High-hit point melee striker? Barbarian.
Lightly armored melee striker? Rogue or two-weapon Ranger.
Ranged sriker (and a ranged defender is just silly, except maybe via Swordmage-esque teleporting)? Archer ranger or Rogue.

See, THAT is what several of us are trying to get at. We want to be able to play the shtick/trappings/tropes that we find more interesting, with the combat role we would rather play effective as. Maybe he wants to be a big greatsword-weilding trained fighter who dishes it out rather than trying to be a protective wall of meat. He probably doesn't want the tropes of magic mixed up in his concept, nor is getting really angry.

 

[ProfessorPain]

What's so compelling about having a character whose game-mechanics class is 'fighter' that you're complelled to use it for something it's clearly not designed to do? If you want a character whose primary role is to dish out damage in 4e, you use a striker-role class.

Want to be a heavily armored striker? Avenger.
High-hit point melee striker? Barbarian.
Lightly armored melee striker? Rogue or two-weapon Ranger.
Ranged sriker (and a ranged defender is just silly, except maybe via Swordmage-esque teleporting)? Archer ranger or Rogue.

I guess it comes to me disagreeing with the designers on what the fighter role should be. I don't see fighters at defenders, but as defenders and or strikers. I actually loved the old 3E fighter because they were feat monkeys with large base attack bonuses. For me this fit the concept of the fighter; someone who was a trained warrior. I don't have the new sources books, just the PHB and DMG. From what I am seeing, the barbarian is probably most suited for what I am after; except I don't really want the barbarian flavor, and I haven't seen its powers for 4E yet. If I get the source book, a barbarian will probably be my next character.

 

[ProfessorPain]

See, THAT is what several of us are trying to get at. We want to be able to play the shtick/trappings/tropes that we find more interesting, with the combat role we would rather play effective as. Maybe he wants to be a big greatsword-weilding trained fighter who dishes it out rather than trying to be a protective wall of meat. He probably doesn't want the tropes of magic mixed up in his concept, nor is getting really angry.

This is sort of what I am trying to say (the bolded part). Mind you I am not saying I hate 4E; or that it is an awful system. It isn't my favorite system, but I understand that is more because of taste. In terms of design, I have nothing but praise for the game from a design stand point. It is certainly a different kind of system. It just doesn't suit me as well as some other incarnations of the game. Particularly the way roles are handled.

Also, I would be lying if I didn't admit I had hoped they would finally release a game that just had 3 core books with no need to buy any more splat material, and that that hasn't colored my opinion. I was very dissapointed to learn they would be releasing a new PHB every year. I guess I am just one of those guys that likes the whole game inside a single book. I had hoped to see a model that focused more on modules, pure fluff supplements, and settings. Actually happy they seem to be making more modules this time around.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Maybe because the Ogre doesn't like to get hurt. Overall, it is because it's a net win for the party. The party deals 1[W]+Fighters STR damage, while the Ogre deals 2d10+5 (guesstimate) damage to the Rogue. (multiplied by hit probability yaddayaddayadda). If he had attacked the fighter, he had dealt 2d10+5 damage and the party wouldn't have dealt any damage. Of course, the Rogue will feel the 2d10+5 stronger then the Fighter, but does he feel it 1[W]+STR stronger?

For specific scenarios, we might actually be able to calculate precisely which option is better. But most of the time, we will have to go by our gut - and incidentally, it's the Ogers gut that the Fighter strikes at, to mangle our metaphors further.

For balance it should be equal whichever choice the ogre makes. If by running the numbers it turns out one option is better than the other then the choice is already dictated by the rules. To go against the proper choice would then be sub-optimal.

 

[malraux]

See, THAT is what several of us are trying to get at. We want to be able to play the shtick/trappings/tropes that we find more interesting, with the combat role we would rather play effective as. Maybe he wants to be a big greatsword-weilding trained fighter who dishes it out rather than trying to be a protective wall of meat. He probably doesn't want the tropes of magic mixed up in his concept, nor is getting really angry.

Fluff is mutable. A person in the ranger class can fluff wise be a well trained fighter. I just don't get the conflagration between the classes' name and the fluff. If the fighter class were named class number 3, would this still be a problem?

 

[ProfessorPain]

Fluff is mutable. A person in the ranger class can fluff wise be a well trained fighter. I just don't get the conflagration between the classes' name and the fluff. If the fighter class were named class number 3, would this still be a problem?

Except that the powers have built-in fluff. I think what you say is generally true. But why not just take out the fluff from the beginning then (or do it like savage world's did, where it refers to powers in a general way that allows you to put the fluff over it you want)?

 

[MichaelSomething]

In case you anyone here wants more information on roles, please refer to this link. Or maybe this link.