How many roles should there be?

[Quickleaf]

Roles are not something that need to be addressed mechanically period.

I don't know, I RPed a knight in BD&D, 3e, and 4e, and my character feels like a knight-in-shining armor when he swings his sword more in 3e and way more in 4e. Being able to spam opportunity attacks, shield push, and make interrupt parries really feels like I'm the big brother protecting the squishies. Which is exactly the way I role-play my knight PC, so it works great. Like peanut butter and bananas.

Dungeons & Dragons grew out of Chainmail. The origin of the game is a "mini-wargame". Combat is not the end-all, be-all of D&D but it does exist. Combat rules will always exist in this game (well, probably).

Yeah that's true, but I want to add something it washes over. Braunstein.
Dave Arneson won Braunstein thru, essentially, role-playing and not wargaming. His character was CIA and his "victory condition" was to distribute revolutionary fliers; the story goes that by wheeling and dealing he was the only one to escape the collapsing island government by chopper when the broccoli hit the fan. Opened his briefcase of fliers above ground and littered the city in them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

When you roll stats you don't always get what you want.

In games with random character generation I have found this to be true:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C2W_O9BX4g&feature=related]The Rolling Stones - You Can't Always Get What You Want (Live 1969) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[IanB]

Playing a "cowardly, weak guy" doesn't fit with with any of the defenders' classes. In fact, it really doesn't fit in a game of heroes period, outside of a few corner cases. The Fighter has always been a strong guy, never weak so your analogy really falls apart. You can play a cowardly fighter, sure, but then you're not playing to the strengths the character has.

The point I was responding to was a guy saying, essentially, "your combat role has nothing to do with how you roleplay your character!"

Yes, class in prior editions informs roleplaying just as much as role does in 4e, that's my point.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Zero.

Role playing does not mean being shoehorned into a role.

Picking a role does not limit your ability to roleplay your character.

They have nothing to do with one another. Apples and oranges here.

 

[Khaalis]

Well, I know it would never gain traction in "core" D&D, but I'd love to see a variant rules module where the support abilities of the cleric and the spellcasting of the mage get rolled into a single "spellcaster" class.

I know the tendency is to think that such a class would be overpowered, but I suspect that if a wizard could only heal "out of combat," and had to save some of his magical energy for that, it MIGHT reign in his ability to dominate the game with his spells. In the end, its world role would probably end up a little bit like the Shugenja from 3e's Oriental Adventures.

I know it's a somewhat radical idea, but I'd honestly like to see it tested. Thoughts?

It's NOT radical at all. In fact this is another reason, exactly, that I am a fan of Fantasy Craft as this is exactly what they did and proved that it works just fine.

The "Mage" class is the only base spellcaster (though there are also specialty mages) and it incorporates all magic. There is no divine/arcane split. If you want to play a "cleric-type" healer? Fine. You can take the cleric, druid, shaman, etc. Specialty on top of the Mage class and you're all set. Maybe through in some appropriate "metamagic" feats.

To boot, its not broken. In fact its very balanced with all the other classes. How? Redefining spells and progression combined with a whole re-balancing of the system's math. Granted there are a few high level spells that could be considered iffy by some (those who just don't like spells of this magnitude), but they are classic fantasy spells and the problem with any "9th-level" type of power/spell.

Progression changes from starting at 1st level spells, you start with 0-level spells and gain a "vancian" spell-level every odd level after (so 1st-level spells at 3rd, 2nd-level spells at 5th etc.). However, 0-level spells are generally more useful and they are at-will spells (no cost to cast). For instance the 0-level attack spell has a 15' range, Spellcasting skill check to cast (DC 13), and does 1d6 damage (Ref 1/2) and you can do it as often as you like (1/round though as normal).

The 0-level heal basically is full-round cast, Spellcasting check (DC 13), heals 1 point (or deals 1 to undead [Will negates). In combat? Really not much of a help, but out of combat, if you have the downtime, you can heal pretty much everything, though in FC you can attain Wounds that can't be healed magically until the 1st-level healing spell. However, 1st-level spells and above cost you (in FC its a Spell Point / Vancian mix). Thus any big healing spells detract from combat or utility spells usage that day. Typical spell management.

What is also nice, is that you don't need a "dedicated" Healer/Leader type role in the party. A mage with just a few known healing spells can easily suffice.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I like that 4e was built around a party of 5 characters. It only had 4 roles, so the 5th character could overlap with heals, or damage, or defender-ness. I think they should continue to balance encounters around 5 characters.

I think it is important to define what the purpose of a role is. First off, so there is no confusion, lets call them Combat Roles. So we all know they are only in relation to what their role is in combat.

Defender (takes the hit, attracts the enemies)
Striker (deals damage, direct or area effect)
Controller (hinders terrain, pushes around enemies, ally replacement to set up strategic attacks)
Healer (disregrard this whole 4e "leader" stuff, and lets call a spade a spade)
Support (someone that buffs on allies, debuffs on enemies, grants extra actions)

I think the game would work fine w/o defined roles. But they are there if you want them, and can give small benefits to players that choose to closer define what their characters do in a combat situation.

There has always been roles in every iteration of D&D, 4e was just the first edition to call them out and define them. They also help new players.

 

[BobTheNob]

Picking a role does not limit your ability to roleplay your character.

They have nothing to do with one another. Apples and oranges here.

I agree to this to an extent. Roles dont preclude roleplaying. However, the very necessity for combat roles suggests something I have grown increasingly uncomfortable with.

One of my issues with 4e was that it was very combat intensive and combat was slow. As a result, combat tended to take the absolute bulk of the playtime. The fact that it took so much play time meant that, in order that players werent marginalized for the bulk of playtime we had to find something for them to do during combat : Hence Roles.

If combat simply represented a much smaller portion of play time, it wouldnt matter so much if certain characters shined. We wouldnt need roles as there wouldnt be an imperative to "include all".

The very fact that we think we need combat roles implies that we think combat has to represent the bulk of playtime.

Thats what I dont like

 

[Deadboy]

The thing is, if you eliminate the explicit mechanics of roles like in 4e, they will still mostly exist. Clerics and the like will still have healing and buffs, and essentially be leaders. Rogues and Rangers will still be mobile characters that can dish out lots of damage. Wizards still have area affects and debuffs. Oh sure, you can play those characters towards a different role, but you can also do that in 4e even with explicit roles.

The ones that suffer are those who have always been expected to protect them. Without a marking mechanic or defender aura to incentive bad guys away from attacking squishies, the former defenders just become slow, hard-to-kill damage dealers. DMs with any tactical sense whatsoever will go back to running intelligent bad guys around their heavily-armored behinds to get at the weaker targets and reduce PC numbers.

I don't mind if roles go, but some mechanic means of allowing a character to protect others needs to remain. I remember when I rebuilt my 3.5 Warblade (who had been a Fighter until Bo9S came out), who I had always envisioned as a sentinel protecting his teammates, as a 4e Fighter, I thought, "finally my character works the way I always imagined he should." I hope we don't lose that.

 

[JohnSnow]

Without a marking mechanic or defender aura to incentive bad guys away from attacking squishies, the former defenders just become slow, hard-to-kill damage dealers. DMs with any tactical sense whatsoever will go back to running intelligent bad guys around their heavily-armored behinds to get at the weaker targets and reduce PC numbers.

It would be very nice if those who wanted to play defender types could choose to interrupt and block an attack against one of their allies without having to sacrifice their own hit points to do it. Or if they could (mostly) stop an enemy from squeezing around them if they were fighting in a bottleneck.

For example, I'd be all for a mechanic that let a fighter use his sword or shield to block an attack, or use his own natural maneuverability to get his ally out of harm's way. Or mechanics that make it hard to get past the defender types, without them necesarily having to "mark" an opponent. The point is that doing this protecting shouldn't come at the cost of the fighter's hit points.

And if an ally is too far away or in the wrong spot to be protected by the fighter? Well, then that's just bad tactics and a poor decision on his part, isn't it?

 

[RigaMortus2]

I will echo what I posted in an alternate thread...

I'd like to see Classes not defined by roles. I'd like to see a "support" Fighter (basically the 4e Warlord), or a "tank" Wizard (ie a melee wizard), or a Rogue "healer" (which could be a Bard).

I think a Class should define how you go about doing things (Fighters swing a sword and use other weapons, Bards sing, Mages cast spells, etc).

I think a role should give you benefits that work in conjunction with your class features, but support the type of role you want to play.

I think a theme should round-out your character, and make your class more specific. Perhaps give non-combat related abilities in some instances.

For example:

Class: Fighter
Role: Support
Theme: Knight

So the Fighter class gives you a wide array of weapons and armor to use. You are good at hitting with weapons. You may have a class feature that supports this like Weapon Specialization, where you do extra damage with a specific weapon (where as other classes don't get this ability).

You choose Support, so when you make your weapon attacks, you bolster your allies, and perhaps on each successful hit, your allies get bonuses to hit the same target. Or perhaps the target you strike is weaked by your blow and deals less damage with their next attack

If you picked a "Striker" role, you would perhaps deal more damage with your attacks. If you picked a "Defender" role, perhaps you have a 4e "mark" like effect that encourages the target to attack you back rather then your allies. If you picked a "Controller" type role, perhaps you can push your target back 5 feet on a successful swing.

You picked Knight as your theme. So perhaps you start with a Horse and Squire. Perhaps you get a bonus to hit and damage when using a Lance. Perhaps you have a "challenge" ability to challenge a foe and get a bonus against them. Perhaps you gain a skill bonus when making Nobility checks.

Class is the method to delivery
Role is the result of what happens when you deliver (deliver an attack, deliver a spell, deliver a heal, etc).
Theme rounds out your class and better defines it, gives you a synergy.

Lets mix it up now...

Class: Rogue
Role: Controller
Theme: Knight

So perhaps the schtick about the Rogue class is that they deal extra damage when an opponent is flanked or unaware of them.

With the Controller role, perhaps the Rogue can trip (because that is controller-ish) an opponent when he successfully hits them while they are flanked.

With the Knight theme, the Rogue gets all the benefits as the Fighter above did. But he is not a very noble Knight. He uses trickery and fights dirty, and has no problem with flanking an enemy. But he may be beholden to a king, he has the proper training in Lance, he has a horse and a squire, etc. All the things the Fighter-Knight has, except he is very different because he is a Rogue scoundrel type and not a Fighter-in-your-face combatant type.

Anyway, those are some options and ways to go about inserting classes, roles and themes. I think it allows for a mix-match of endless possibilities if they go this route. No two-Fighters have to be the same. They are better defined by role and then theme. You can have a party of all Fighters, and fulfill each role. Perhaps a squad of infantry in a military based campaign, where having a cleric or mage wouldn't make sense, yet those roles (healing, striker, control, support, defense, etc.) would still be fulfilled.