Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Imaro]

I think there's two answers to this:

First, classes in 4e are a lot more abstract than they were in previous editions. If you want a Paladin striker why don't you just create a Lawful Avenger and play it as a Paladin? There's a lot less 'baggage' attached to a class's name.

I'm going to disagree with this. I think the problem is that 4e associates a very specific combat role with what appear to be pretty specific archetypes. As an example let's say I want to create the striker paladin... well the striker holy warrior is an Avenger, not exactly the knight in shining armor archetype. His class abilities, proficiencies, skills, powers, etc. all tend to push for a lightly armored stealthy warrior-assasin. I guess I just don't see how, without spending alot of feats this archetype can be forced into that of the shining knight in armor paladin with some healing powers who is a striker.

Second, things have become more fluid over time. Classes introduced in PHB2 and PHB3 typically feature (and explicitly mention) secondary roles. Using multiclassing, hybrid rules or - my favorite - appropriate themes will allow you to lean towards roles that don't match your 'primary' role at all.

I would agree to a point... hybrids are only effective if the stats and abilities compliment each other... if not you can seriously end up hampering yourself. Themes and multi-classing are good if you want a dash of another class... but I don't think they are going to make your defending Paladin into a striker... at least not an effective one.

E.g. in our current Dark Sun campaign I'm playing a Dray (Dragonborn) Dragonmagic Sorcerer with the Templar theme.

Sorcerers are strikers first and controllers second while Templars are leaders. Being a Dragonborn and using the 'Dragonmagic' Build synergizes quite well with Melee classes like the Fighter.

So, depending on what aspect of my character I decide to emphasize when choosing a theme, feats and powers (and later paragon path) I can lean towards any role I prefer. The only thing I probably cannot do is not be a striker.

This is what I was talking about above... without attribute synergy you can end up with a real mess going this route when trying to patch together the character you want to play.

I generally don't like Essentials classes because they reversed this trend, cut down on customization options and imho focus quite strongly on a single role.

I think this is only true because they don't currently have the multi-class and hybrid options available for most of them... but I actually find many of the essential classes have secondary roles built in as well.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

As an example let's say I want to create the striker paladin... well the striker holy warrior is an Avenger, not exactly the knight in shining armor archetype. His class abilities, proficiencies, skills, powers, etc. all tend to push for a lightly armored stealthy warrior-assasin. I guess I just don't see how, without spending alot of feats this archetype can be forced into that of the shining knight in armor paladin with some healing powers who is a striker.

And I'd like a heavily-armored, high damage healer that can shoot fireballs. At some point you go from a reasonable archetype to a Mary Sue.

For your specific example: Two feats (one if you already consider scale armor to be 'shining') on a Fighter should get you the desired effect. Or one feat for a hybrid paladin/barbarian (Str/Cha).

 

[Tayne]

It's the individual player's job to define his character's role, no one else's.

When I saw that early PDF of 4E telling me "the cleric is a leader!" and "The Fighter is a defender!", etc I immediately said "Thank you but no thank you" and cancelled my amazon order. This was not the only factor obviously but it stands out in my memory.

From the sounds of it in this thread, those role descriptions of the characters may have been more guideliney than hard-codey, and I may have jumped the gun.

Still, I'm happy with pathfinder, and my buddy who played both games is too.

It's great to have both options, I think is the bottom line.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker. Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.

The concept of a Defender is that take the brunt of the damage for the party, not that they weapons X, Y and Z. That there are Defender classes who do use only certain weapons does not mean that the role requires those weapons. You're doing the equivalent of saying all dogs are German shepherds.

 

[Imaro]

And I'd like a heavily-armored, high damage healer that can shoot fireballs. At some point you go from a reasonable archetype to a Mary Sue.

Hyperbole always makes for better conversation...

First, I didn't create the example, but I don't think a striker paladin is anywhere near an unreasonable archetype.

Second, 4e could have done this so much more elegantly by keeping archetypes and combat roles seperate... they really aren't the same thing. I would have much preferred builds to be ways of exploring different roles under the archetypes from the get go. Instead we are just starting to enter this design space... as an example we now have the slayer(striker) who is a fighter (defender) build.

For your specific example: Two feats (one if you already consider scale armor to be 'shining') on a Fighter should get you the desired effect. Or one feat for a hybrid paladin/barbarian (Str/Cha).

So feat taxes to play something that should be a pretty common matching of archetype and role... not to mention needing PHB 2. It seems like you're just proving my point. It's possible, but you have to know what you're doing and pay in resources.

As I said above, I think a much better solution that is being implemented (slowly) now is actually not tyiing a particular archetype to a combat role... in essentials we actually have a striker fighter and in the Feywild book we have a dual role classs. Again I don't think archetype and combat role should have ever been explicitly tied together in the first place.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Hyperbole always makes for better conversation...

Sorry, it sounded snippier than intended on a second reading. I think the designers chose main roles in the PHB based on most likely. The average paladin would be the shining defender, not a heavy-hitting striker.

First, I didn't create the example, but I don't think a striker paladin is anywhere near an unreasonable archetype.

Nor do I. But I do think it is possible to achieve, especially as the game expands. Each edition of D&D has expanded to include more and more archetypes mechanically. You could say you were a barbarian and make some (suboptimal?) choices in 1E, but until UA came out (or the Dragon article) you weren't really supported mechanically.

Second, 4e could have done this so much more elegantly by keeping archetypes and combat roles seperate... they really aren't the same thing. I would have much preferred builds to be ways of exploring different roles under the archtypes from the get go. Instead we are just starting to enter this design space... as an example we now have the slayer(striker) who is a fighter (defender) build.

They could have done alot with the first book, as evidenced by multiple players handbooks and additional support material. But I think it's unreasonable to expect all that from the get go.

So feat taxes to play something that should be a pretty common matching of archetype and role... not to mention needing PHB 2. It seems like you're just proving my point. It's possible, but you have to know what you're doing and pay in resources.

[Note: You accidentally attributed part of my post to Walking Dad]

I don't consider adding the ability to heal and gain training in another skill a 'tax' unless it diminished my current abilities. I could see the 'feat tax' argument for the armor proficiency. And needing PHB2? Definitely. I don;t think the archetype you describe is that common. Strikers before 4E were basically rogues. Their high damage came from Sneak Attack. Not something paladins are well-known for (despite the running joke in our group about one player's 'sneaky paladin.')

The designers started to expand on that role in the PHB with the Ranger and the Warlock. Again, they could have kept going, but there was only so much space you can devote to the core books before you need to get them out there.

I think a much better solution that is being implemented (slowly) now is actually not tyiing a particular archetype to a combat role... in essentials we actually have a striker fighter and in the Feywild book we have a dual role classs. Again I don't think archetype and combat role should have ever been explicitly tied together in the first place.

Hindsight is 20/20. I've had my own thoughts in this direction since the mention of shared power lists in Ro3. But I don't have the time to design my own perfect game system. You can only hope the designers learn and continue down a path you enjoy. To expect that they should have gotten it right for you the first time around is unreasonable, IMO.

[sblock="Hybrid Paladin/Barbarian"]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Arjhan, level 1
Dragonborn, Barbarian/Paladin
Hybrid Paladin Option: Hybrid Paladin Will
Hybrid Talent Option: Paladin Armor Proficiency
Dragonborn Racial Power Option: Dragonfear
Redeemer of the Desecrated (+2 to Religion)
Theme: Knight Hospitaler

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
STR 20, CON 10, DEX 10, INT 8, WIS 11, CHA 16

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
STR 18, CON 10, DEX 10, INT 8, WIS 11, CHA 14


AC: 18 Fort: 16 Ref: 10 Will: 14
HP: 25 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Athletics +8, Intimidate +10, Religion +6

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics –2, Arcana –1, Bluff +3, Diplomacy +3, Dungeoneering +0, Endurance –2, Heal +0, History +1, Insight +0, Nature +0, Perception +0, Stealth –2, Streetwise +3, Thievery –2

POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Knight Hospitaler Utility: Shield of Devotion
Dragonborn Racial Power: Dragonfear
Paladin Feature: Divine Challenge
Barbarian Attack 1: Howling Strike
Paladin Attack 1: Strike of Hope
Barbarian Attack 1: Avalanche Strike
Barbarian Attack 1: Life Thane Rage

FEATS
Level 1: Hybrid Talent

ITEMS
Plate Armor x1
Greatsword x1
Adventurer's Kit
Trail Rations
====== End ======[/sblock]

 

[Desdichado]

Yes, but even Athos, Porthos, and Aramis had distinctive approaches and styles that led to them having somewhat different roles in combat, n'est pas?

I was always more of a Rafael Sabatini than an Alexandre Dumas kinda guy, myself.

 

[Imaro]

Sorry, it sounded snippier than intended on a second reading. I think the designers chose main roles in the PHB based on most likely. The average paladin would be the shining defender, not a heavy-hitting striker.

Oh, I get that... what I was moreso saying was that I don't think they should have connected explicit combat roles with archetypes... In other words the Paladin shouldn't have been a Defender... he should have been an archetype with a Defender build, a Striker Build and maybe even a Leader build. IMO, that would've covered the roles I've seen a Paladin take on in previous editions and fit more in tune with the varying examples of the Paladin archetype.

Nor do I. But I do think it is possible to achieve, especially as the game expands. Each edition of D&D has expanded to include more and more archetypes mechanically. You could say you were a barbarian and make some (suboptimal?) choices in 1E, but until UA came out (or the Dragon article) you weren't really supported mechanically.

Oh, I agree... but I'm not speaking of expanding the archetypes... 4e created another axis to that when it went with eplicit roles for archetypes. Now not only did it have to include archetypes but it had to include a role for said archetype (which I feel was a mistake, especially since I think way too much effort, early on and even now, was/is put into creating builds that have the same role for the same archetype and thus further pigeonholing archetypes. Now I can have a striker fighter, without a feat tax or multi-classing... but this should have, IMO, been the direction in the first place.

They could have done alot with the first book, as evidenced by multiple players handbooks and additional support material. But I think it's unreasonable to expect all that from the get go.

I think you're still confusing what I mean by archetype. In my mind an archetype is the fighter... but I don't feel the archetype of the fighter should have been initially constrained to the role of Defender... it leaves out too many iconic examples of fighters that weren't "defenders". It was role diversity within archetypes that I feel 4e should have focused on earlier in the game. Even now there are at most a couple of archetypes that aren't still pigeonholed into particualr roles... even if that role doesn't cover iconic concepts of said archetype.

[Note: You accidentally attributed part of my post to Walking Dad]

Whoops, sorry about that...

I don't consider adding the ability to heal and gain training in another skill a 'tax' unless it diminished my current abilities. I could see the 'feat tax' argument for the armor proficiency. And needing PHB2? Definitely. I don;t think the archetype you describe is that common. Strikers before 4E were basically rogues. Their high damage came from Sneak Attack. Not something paladins are well-known for (despite the running joke in our group about one player's 'sneaky paladin.')

See and that's the problem, a paladin already has all these things... all I want to do is make him a striker as opposed to a defender. So it is a feat tax since I don't want the extra stuff... just a role change. The Slayer is a fighter who doesn't have to spend any feats to be a striker... yet to get a paladin striker I do...

As to your second point... I'm going to disagree I don't think the roles were as hardcoded and especially not in 3.x.

Fighters weren't always tanks... they could easily be tweaked as strikers... Cleric's could tank or lead, Wizards could focus on particular spells to make themselves strikers, controllers, or defenders but probably not leaders in the 4e sense... and so on. So no, I don't agree with that

The designers started to expand on that role in the PHB with the Ranger and the Warlock. Again, they could have kept going, but there was only so much space you can devote to the core books before you need to get them out there.

See maybe this is the disconnect... I don't feel they should have expanded archetypes based on roles... I feel they should have expanded the roles within archetypes. Something they're finally getting around to doing... though this could just be test material like Bo9S.

Hindsight is 20/20. I've had my own thoughts in this direction since the mention of shared power lists in Ro3. But I don't have the time to design my own perfect game system. You can only hope the designers learn and continue down a path you enjoy. To expect that they should have gotten it right for you the first time around is unreasonable, IMO.

I don't know if it's totally hindsight... I remember quite a few complaints along the lines of... "Why can't my fighter be a striker as opposed to a defender?". These questions tended to be met with the answer of "Go play a Ranger.". When in actuality I feel the answer (which funnily enough it is now) should have been go play the striker build for the fighter.

[sblock="Hybrid Paladin/Barbarian"]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Arjhan, level 1
Dragonborn, Barbarian/Paladin
Hybrid Paladin Option: Hybrid Paladin Will
Hybrid Talent Option: Paladin Armor Proficiency
Dragonborn Racial Power Option: Dragonfear
Redeemer of the Desecrated (+2 to Religion)
Theme: Knight Hospitaler

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
STR 20, CON 10, DEX 10, INT 8, WIS 11, CHA 16

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
STR 18, CON 10, DEX 10, INT 8, WIS 11, CHA 14


AC: 18 Fort: 16 Ref: 10 Will: 14
HP: 25 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Athletics +8, Intimidate +10, Religion +6

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics –2, Arcana –1, Bluff +3, Diplomacy +3, Dungeoneering +0, Endurance –2, Heal +0, History +1, Insight +0, Nature +0, Perception +0, Stealth –2, Streetwise +3, Thievery –2

POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Knight Hospitaler Utility: Shield of Devotion
Dragonborn Racial Power: Dragonfear
Paladin Feature: Divine Challenge
Barbarian Attack 1: Howling Strike
Paladin Attack 1: Strike of Hope
Barbarian Attack 1: Avalanche Strike
Barbarian Attack 1: Life Thane Rage

FEATS
Level 1: Hybrid Talent

ITEMS
Plate Armor x1
Greatsword x1
Adventurer's Kit
Trail Rations
====== End ======[/sblock][/QUOTE]

Cool, though my Paladin now has the primal power source and rages and a host of other things that don't necessarily fit with the archetype I'm picturing... especially depending on the god or ideals I want him to follow.

 

[Umbran]

Cool, though my Paladin now has the primal power source and rages and a host of other things that don't necessarily fit with the archetype I'm picturing... especially depending on the god or ideals I want him to follow.

There's a trade off with classes - you get a significant level of confidence that the party's on even footing, which gives you easy paths to encounter and adventure design.

To get that, you need to give up some flexibility.

If you want infinite flexibility, you probably shouldn't be playing a game with classes. If you are playing with classes, you ought to be ready and willing to either wait for someone to make up the class that fits your concept exactly, make it up yourself, or be willing to make a few compromises.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I don't mind combat roles, but you if you are going to Hard Code them into the system, I'd prefer you drop the Classes.

4E could have done the following - Pick a Power Source (Martial, Arcane, Divine, Psionic, Elemental, Shadow) and Pick a Combat Role (Striker, Healer (because that's what a Leader really is), Defender, or Controller).

By picking a power source, you'd open your character to all powers granted by that source (Arcane would get all Spells, Martial would get all Exploits, etc). Any Arcane Source character could get Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Magic Missile, Sword Burst, or Eyebite.

By picking a Combat Role, you'd open yourself up to that Power Source's mechanic for that role. Martial Defender may use the Knight's Defenders Aura. Divine Striker might use the Avenger's two-roll system. Arcane Leader might use the Artificer's Healing Infusion or something completely different.

Multiclassing would allow you select a new source and/or a new role, providing minor access to those abilities.

Now, you don't have to worry about the baggage of the name Paladin or Fighter or Bard. Your Wizard might be an Arcane Leader with a multi-class into Striker. Your Bard might be a Martial Leader with multi-class into Arcane for spells.