L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[Bedrockgames]

I thanked God for roles in the Fourth Edition. It made explicit the needs of the party.

I am playing Pathfinder now and our party cleric has decided to change his channeling into negative damage energy and to concentrate his spells on commanding undead. So now we have no buffs and few heals. And his evil ways mean I feel unable to play a Paladin or Good Cleric. Because he is "creating a character out of an image in his head" rather than worrying about what is necessary. (I wish we could just leave him at the dungeon entrance. Heh.) At least a Fourth Edition leader can always heal at range with a minor action a couple of times per encounter regardless of his feats and powers.

The thing is, some of us want the option to include the non buff, few heal cleric in a party. In pathfinder you have the option at least to it either way. For some groups parties like this wont work, for others they will. A lot of it comes to the style of your game.

 

[avin]

Also, dismaying but not unexpected to see them throwing out every innovation of 4e design.

Combat roles innovation? I've seen combat roles for years in MMO... they work fine as combat tools in 4E, they help newcomer players a lot, but I think we should stay away for that gamist jargon in D&D.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, that was refreshing. I have no use for roles, either. Or XP. It's not an rpG.

The second part I read as unmitigated 4e bashing, as has happened in some other L&L articles. I felt like Mike was saying, "You are an idiot not only for buying 4e, but for buying into it."

An incredibly ironic statement, given how much easier they're going on 4e than they did on 3e.

Oh and to answer Mearls's polls: the best advice is in the Character Optimization Guides on the forums, whether for Pathfinder or the Fourth Edition. They explain clearly what your role should be in either system and how to create the right kind of useful character with all the variations possible and effective.

This is true. I'd rather they focus on the game itself rather than the advice.

Most of the changes to how roles were used were overreaction to the roles of the previous editions.

3E overreacted to the older editions' "Must have cleric" and "crappy early wizards" and accidental made Supah Castahs and CoDzillas.

4E overreacted to Supah Castahs and CoDzillas having every role at one by fitting every class into one combat role and whatever non-combat roles they choose with their skills.

I think that's true. It's easy to forget how crappy clerics used to be.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Playing your class how you want to" is a pretty short road to imbalance and poorly designed classes.

I don't think these two are as incompatible as you seem to believe.

But let's say they are. Let's say you MUST choose between playing a balanced class in a way you don't want to play, and playing an imbalanced class that you can play however you want to.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what's going to appeal to most people.

This statement makes a mistake of putting balance up on a pedestal as a goal, rather than as a tool in service of a goal. Balance is not a reward in and of itself. It's not something you pursue for the sake of itself. It's something you pursue (in the context of D&D) as a part of building a fun RPG where you can pretend to be your favorite fantasy hero.

Balance is important, but it is not sacrosanct. If you NEED to sacrifice balance to achieve some other goal, it's certainly possible.

I don't think you need to sacrifice class balance to have a flexible character, but even if your assumption holds true, it is, perhaps, an acceptable sacrifice, in certain contexts. Balance is only a tool.

 

[Minigiant]

The thing is, some of us want the option to include the non buff, few heal cleric in a party. In pathfinder you have the option at least to it either way. For some groups parties like this wont work, for others they will. A lot of it comes to the style of your game.

I approve of non buff few heal clerics.

The issue is the nonbuff few heal cleric is allowed by the game system, it needs to be able to fulfill a combat role. If it is to be a blaster, need to be a good one. If it is to be a backup debuffer/controller, it needs to have the ably to do so.

THEN the class need to be fixed to work with other classes. This might mean the class may not be able to do something. Maybe the cleric's damage spells and weapons are severely nerved to force clerics to rely on others to deal damage to anything that is a decent challenge.

THEN the books have to lightly suggest that a cleric can be a defensive warrior via buff, a magical tactician via heals and group buffs, or a single character controller. And also casually they would suggest that clerics deal poor spell damage and have few multiple target attacks. Probably through having only 3 sample build suggestions in the book.

And we the fans will have to deal with not being able to do everything in order to have a working game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I approve of non buff few heal clerics.

The issue is the nonbuff few heal cleric is allowed by the game system, it needs to be able to fulfill a combat role. If it is to be a blaster, need to be a good one. If it is to be a backup debuffer/controller, it needs to have the ably to do so.

THEN the class need to be fixed to work with other classes. This might mean the class may not be able to do something. Maybe the cleric's damage spells and weapons are severely nerved to force clerics to rely on others to deal damage to anything that is a decent challenge.

Why? I dont see why every class choice has to fulfill a combat role. In fact, i prefer having a few character selections that are not terribly focused on or suited to a given combat role. The non buff, non heal cleric as described by the poster sounds like a character that is quite forimdable outside combat, but maybe less effective inside it. I see nothing wrong with this as an option. Ijust dont see why all classes need to built around what other classes can and cant do in combat.

 

[hanez]

I thanked God for roles in the Fourth Edition. It made explicit the needs of the party.

I am playing Pathfinder now and our party cleric has decided to change his channeling into negative damage energy and to concentrate his spells on commanding undead. So now we have no buffs and few heals. And his evil ways mean I feel unable to play a Paladin or Good Cleric. Because he is "creating a character out of an image in his head" rather than worrying about what is necessary. (I wish we could just leave him at the dungeon entrance. Heh.) At least a Fourth Edition leader can always heal at range with a minor action a couple of times per encounter regardless of his feats and powers.

I think this is a perfect quote that illustrates why some groups feel the "need" for roles.

In my view however explicit roles that are used to tell players how to act have no use in D&D. The negative energy cleric is having fun playin a role in his head and the system is letting him, that is awesome. Another player could play a Paladin and we could roleplay the tension that might occur with that. Or the party can purchase some healing potions, or seek out some wands of healing, or they can choose to seek lower level challenges. Or the DM can modify encounters, or supply the appropriate magic items to help alleviate the problem, or an NPC could pop in now and then. Maybe the next adventure the party encounters a troubled magical creature in the woods and if they save them, a druid in the woods offers free healing every time they visit the grove (but perhaps not to the one who radiates negative energy).

There are plenty of solutions to this "problem" (which really isn't a problem because playing your character the way you want is the very nature of the game). The least acceptable solution to me would be forcing classes into specific roles.

I think this illustrates the different types of D&D people play. I have played in games where the DM shows the purchased module and says to the players "lets see if you guys can beat the module". These games usually devolve into tactile mini wargames with much less roleplaying and I can see the need for strict roles in this type of D&D. I have also been in games where DMs use modules as guidance and form their world according to the players choices (if a player chooses a barbarian they meet his tribe, if a player roleplays a warlock their sure to include some witching sites in the world, if no one in the group chooses a healer, the DM reacts to that too). I much prefer games with an active DM who doesn't blame things on the rules. I have DM'd an all Paladin party, and all gnome party, and parties with no magic users, I do not believe it should be too onerous to run a fun game with no healers in Pathfinder.

 

[avin]

I am not a fan of that solution either...

When I play a Wizard, I don't want to have to choose a path.

When you choose Wizard you choose a path already. Only in skill based systems there's freedom of choice.

In fact, 3E prestige classes (Dwarven Defender) and 2 kits were already role choices for classes, so, this isn't new to D&D.

What bothered me in 4E was the jargon... the tone, the way it was described as if you can't figure out for yourself like in former editions...

...let's face it, RPG is a game for clever people...

 

[hanez]

When you choose Wizard you choose a path already. Only in skill based systems there's freedom of choice.

In fact, 3E prestige classes (Dwarven Defender) and 2 kits were already role choices for classes, so, this isn't new to D&D.

What bothered me in 4E was the jargon... the tone, the way it was described as if you can't figure out for yourself like in former editions...

...let's face it, RPG is a game for clever people...

I agree and disagree, you chose and archetype, and some choices have been made for you. But for the wizard (especially) in 3e you had a plethora of paths to follow. Just look at the difference between the schools of magic, if you chose to focus on illusion, or enchanting, or summoning, or divining or evocation or even necromancy! Each of these specialists played extremely differently. The wizard with his undead following him, versus the illusionist trickster who was good in social but worse in the dungeon, or the diviner who was great for figuring out what to do but less so in doing it.

I am of the belief that all classes should have close to this level in choice of what they can play.

 

[Minigiant]

Why? I dont see why every class choice has to fulfill a combat role. In fact, i prefer having a few character selections that are not terribly focused on or suited to a given combat role. The non buff, non heal cleric as described by the poster sounds like a character that is quite forimdable outside combat, but maybe less effective inside it. I see nothing wrong with this as an option. Ijust dont see why all classes need to built around what other classes can and cant do in combat.

Well to me, every class has to be go at something in combat as the basic description of D&D is a dungeon/cave dive where you kill monsters, take their stuff, and maybe encounter a dragon. Not everyone has to play heavy combat but combat is an inherent part of the game.

Plus the idea of a noncombatant purposely going in a place where they are expected to be attacked having no combat skill but doing this for a living... never made sense to me.