Roles - do they work?

[AngeltheTechrat]

Which is why I posed the question of what if WotC didn't call those classes by their "classic" names. What if the classes are nothing more than names? Would it be so very different? Because it is very obvious that the expected flow of character generation in 4e is concept-> combat role-> class. You pick your character concept and your character's combat role first and then pick your class to fit that. Unlike earlier edition where you often just pick a class first and then refine your character concept and combat role based on your class. To faciliate this, the fluff associated with each 4e class is very minimal and easily changed. However, there's still the historical baggage associated with the class names that's being carried over from earlier editions.

So, what if the designers of 4e just had martial defender, divine leader, arcane striker etc. as the class names and then left everything else up to the player to fill in and make up? Would that have reduced the confusion and complaints about how "I want my class X to be in role B instead of role A."

If the "Arcane Controller" class is still the only one with cantrips and spellbooks (and maybe hopefully a familiar once Arcane Power comes out) then no.. It wouldn't be any different than now. It would still be the stuff I wanted, mated to the strict combat role I didn't.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Hedge Wizard's Gloves, from the AV. Level 4 item, 840 gp. Gets you the two best ones, in my opinion.

Okay, I agree that Ghost Sound is the least used of the four, but I still like it. And I don't think Light is any less useful than Mage Hand. It winds up used constantly, since the majority of PCs no longer have darkvision (a change I don't mind). I wish there were MORE cantrips, actually. I wish Light could do more things, like Dancing Lights used to, and I really REALLY wish Mending was a cantrip. Clothing and gear must look awful by the end of an encounter. Message would be useful, too.

And that's still an item, not inherant flavor to the character's background and training.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Class fluff is more than just a name.

Exactly.

 

[yesnomu]

If the "Arcane Controller" class is still the only one with cantrips and spellbooks (and maybe hopefully a familiar once Arcane Power comes out) then no.. It wouldn't be any different than now. It would still be the stuff I wanted, mated to the strict combat role I didn't.

So play the class that does the combat stuff you want, and ask your GM for the fluff stuff you want. Cantrips are mostly a flavor thing (probably someone in the party will have a hand free for a torch, which you can claim to be your light spell). Your GM might even give you the set for nothing, or ask for a feat (works for gnolls, they can take a feat for ghost sound). And keeping a small animal around with you is hardly overpowering. You can even make it talk! Whoa!

Seriously, I can understand complaints about fixed combat roles. But fluff is the easiest thing in the world to change to suit you, and if your GM isn't a jerk, they'll play along so you have a good time.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

probably someone in the party will have a hand free for a torch, which you can claim to be your light spell

........ ........................ wut?

So play the class that does the combat stuff you want, and ask your GM for the fluff stuff you want. Cantrips are mostly a flavor thing (probably someone in the party will have a hand free for a torch, which you can claim to be your light spell). Your GM might even give you the set for nothing, or ask for a feat (works for gnolls, they can take a feat for ghost sound). And keeping a small animal around with you is hardly overpowering. You can even make it talk! Whoa!

Seriously, I can understand complaints about fixed combat roles. But fluff is the easiest thing in the world to change to suit you, and if your GM isn't a jerk, they'll play along so you have a good time.

He's not a jerk by any means. That's.... an awful lot of ad-hock to even concider, though. It makes the whole thing feel sour.. Like I wrote it myself instead of assembling it from all the pieces. I mean sure.. I can see house rules when there is something it makes smoother for everyone who's playing, but I've never belived one person has a right to ask such things. Especialy people like me. It's already starting to seem like too much to ask what I'm asking when/if a suitable race presents itself for a ranger concept I'm working on. No, I'm not going to ask to rebuild an existing character, especialy on ad-hock rules.


Besides.. For one thing, cantrips don't address the whole bookish flavor, and for another, there isn't exactly an arcane power set that one can switch them over to that has the right feel anyway. Warlock has striker stuff, but it's all tied up in pacts and curses and whatnot.


No, my argument is that it would have been easier to build characters one wants if they were to have given power options that covered more than one role for each class. So there's nothing left but to lament.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Which is why I posed the question of what if WotC didn't call those classes by their "classic" names.

Because they looked back at the classic jobs of each class.

Yes, you could probably always turn your Fighter into someone wielding a bow. But in the standard "party of 4-5 PCs", he is the guy with the heavy armor, so he will wade into melee and keep the enemies busy.

The Rogue doesn't necessarily have a combat role in the classical sense. He just isn't as good as a Fighter in combat, regardless what he did. He had his backstab chance, but his primary role was outside of combat. But the designers seemed to learn over time that an out-of-combat role is not enough. So they looked "only" back to 3E, where he was a very good damage dealer - if he could sneak attack. He kept his out-of-combat role, still doing his Trap shtick.
Unlike as in 3E, the Fighter actually got some choices for non-combat roles, since he gets not only the "physical" skills, but also Intimidate _and_ Streetwise.. (This is one of the subtle, coolest changes I found with the Fighter).

 

[yesnomu]

........ ........................ wut?

Re-fluff it. Say, "it's not fire making that light, it's my magical Light spell!" That's if you can't get it normally.

He's not a jerk by any means. That's.... an awful lot of ad-hock to even concider, though. It makes the whole thing feel sour.. Like I wrote it myself instead of assembling it from all the pieces. I mean sure.. I can see house rules when there is something it makes smoother for everyone who's playing, but I've never belived one person has a right to ask such things. Especialy people like me. It's already starting to seem like too much to ask what I'm asking when/if a suitable race presents itself for a ranger concept I'm working on. No, I'm not going to ask to rebuild an existing character, especialy on ad-hock rules.

Besides.. For one thing, cantrips don't address the whole bookish flavor, and for another, there isn't exactly an arcane power set that one can switch them over to that has the right feel anyway. Warlock has striker stuff, but it's all tied up in pacts and curses and whatnot.

No, my argument is that it would have been easier to build characters one wants if they were to have given power options that covered more than one role for each class. So there's nothing left but to lament.

Lamenting is boring, real men (and women) take action! If you are unhappy with your character, change it! Make what you want to make!

Also, the bolded part is simply crazy. You're asking for fluff changes for one character, yourself. You're not min-maxing, you aren't lording power over other characters. You're creating a "class" that isn't in 4e now, putting fluff of one class with the mechanics of another. Your class takes (for example) the effects of the powers from the Warlock list, but instead of a pact you study magic. You use the inherent magic of the broken life-thread to perform some magical effect (the pact boon). Your powers aren't curses, they're spells that happen to be single-target. You get the idea, hopefully.

Every player has the right to be satisfied with their game system. If they aren't, it isn't unreasonable in the slightest to change the fluff to suit them. As long as power levels aren't affected, a GM shouldn't have any problem at all.

 

[tyrlaan]

Re-fluff it. Say, "it's not fire making that light, it's my magical Light spell!" That's if you can't get it normally.

If someone has to go so far to play a character that can generate light as to interpret someone holding a torch as "no, really, that's my light spell" (in my opinion) there is something wrong.

Which brings me to the following point: Doesn't it ring odd to anyone the amount of house-ruling that is needed to support the "non-standard" character concept examples people are mentioning in this thread?

How much do you have to house-rule a fighter that uses a bow in 3rd ed? How about in 4th? What about a cleric of thievery with spells of deception? What about a thuggish rogue that uses brute strength instead of cunning dexterity to deliver his attacks?

 

[Spatula]

Which brings me to the following point: Doesn't it ring odd to anyone the amount of house-ruling that is needed to support the "non-standard" character concept examples people are mentioning in this thread?

Same as in any edition. You houserule stuff or you wait for supplementary content that delivers what you're looking for. Try making an effective duelist or swashbuckler in 3.0 D&D without Sword & Fist (and even then I don't think your damage output is very good, plus you have to wait until higher levels to be effective at all). Or a non-kung-fu unarmed fighter in any edition.

How much do you have to house-rule a fighter that uses a bow in 3rd ed? How about in 4th?

You don't; all fighters are proficient with bows.

What about a cleric of thievery with spells of deception?

Not a whole lot of deception on the 3e cleric list, either...

What about a thuggish rogue that uses brute strength instead of cunning dexterity to deliver his attacks?

There's two different class-paths for rogues that utilize STR.

 

[yesnomu]

If someone has to go so far to play a character that can generate light as to interpret someone holding a torch as "no, really, that's my light spell" (in my opinion) there is something wrong.

Which brings me to the following point: Doesn't it ring odd to anyone the amount of house-ruling that is needed to support the "non-standard" character concept examples people are mentioning in this thread?

How much do you have to house-rule a fighter that uses a bow in 3rd ed? How about in 4th? What about a cleric of thievery with spells of deception? What about a thuggish rogue that uses brute strength instead of cunning dexterity to deliver his attacks?

Why? Not all classes got the spell Light in 3.5. Classes do different things.

Also: none, none, and none.
-Bow Fighter - None, you play a Ranger, who don't have to have any of that outdoorsy flavor, and who is specifically built around using a bow.
-Cleric of Theivery - None, play as a normal cleric, multiclass Warlock, pump Wis and Cha, flavor the spells you want to taste. Even basic clerics get plenty of "deceptive" spells, like Cause Fear, Cascade of Light (vulnerability to all your attacks!), Command, and Rune of Peace.
-Thuggish Rogue - They're, like, right there in the book, dude. They use Dex to attack, but they need high Strength too, and at that point you're just metagaming. If you really want to have low Dex, just be a Ranger and take the same skills.

Seriously, you can be whatever you want, as long as you're prepared to ignore the mechanical class name. If you pick what you want to do and then pick a class for it, rather than the other way around, you'll usually end up ok. Granted, not everything's supported right now (the specific lightly-armored defender/striker mentioned earlier, shapeshifting), but you do have a lot of options.