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

[Balesir]

At the risk of stating the obvious, classes are for allowing players to play an archtype with a balanced and fun set of appropriate abilities. There are interesting arguments to be had about how broad/flexible classes should be and whether the archtypes overlap (e.g. paladins and melee-clerics), but that's what they are for.

Right - which just switches the question to "what do we mean by "archetype"?"

Is an archetype just an aesthetic, look-and-feel thing in the game world? Or does it have some role in resolution or capability of the characters in-game? Does it have any defined limits? Or is it just a seed of inspiration?

 

[Harlekin]

I don't know. This:



..sounds pretty much just like how roles are today. "the cleric (...) excels at healing" and advice suggesting spells, abilities and tactics is pretty much the same as saying "the cleric is a leader-type, here's how to play a leader".

But some don't like to see the L-word, they associate it with a restriction on their ability to role-play. So if avoiding the name removes a perceived restriction, why keep it?

 

[hanez]

But some don't like to see the L-word, they associate it with a restriction on their ability to role-play. So if avoiding the name removes a perceived restriction, why keep it?

Its more then just a word. It goes hand in hand with the changes that 4e made. Look at illusionists and necromancers in 4th. Look at druid summoners. Whole aspects of classes vanished and this happened in concert with trying to make the classes fit into a defined role.

When I say ditch roles, I am not saying just ditch the word, I am saying ditch the straight jacket.

Let the fighter be good with weapons in a variety of ways, let the mage be good at casting in a variety of ways. Let players choose and see how that works out into a combat role for them.

 

[Harlekin]

The idea that roles are restrictive isn't false. For some people, they are restrictive.

The idea that roles are mostly for beginners is actually Mearls saying something like, "We trust you, as a player of D&D, to make the character you feel is great. Beginners kind of need to know how to be great, but by the time you're a veteran, you know the system well enough that you don't need us to tell you that. So roles are advice, not mechanics."

Roles are restrictive the same way classes are restrictive. Nobody is concerned if I say "the rogue can't stand there all day and take a pounding because he is a rogue". Why does it get worse if i say "the rogue can't stand there all day and take a pounding because he is a striker"?

I also think the boundary drawn between advice and rules is arbitrary. To an advanced player, I can show the rules for a wizard and he will realize that this class is not a melee striker. To the beginner, I may need to spell it out. The restriction is the same. So the roles summarize a lot of mechanics, but have no mechanical implication beyond that.

 

[Harlekin]

Its more then just a word. It goes hand in hand with the changes that 4e made. Look at illusionists and necromancers in 4th. Look at druid summoners. Whole aspects of classes vanished and this happened in concert with trying to make the classes fit into a defined role.

When I say ditch roles, I am not saying just ditch the word, I am saying ditch the straight jacket.

Huh?
Illusionists are about the most classical definition of a controller wizard and they are in 4ed (In multiple versions I think).

Summoner-druids are in 4ed as well, though as late-comers. And aspects of the Druid class vanished/were distributed over multiple classes for reasons that had nothing to do with roles.

So are Necromancers, although I don't know of any D&D edition that has managed to make a PC class do justice to the necromancer concept, 4ed included.

 

[gyor]

Instead of force feeding classes into rolls, if some people still want rolls how about themes that give you the tools to do those rolls. Like a Killer theme for would be strikers, Champion for would be defenders, Tactician for controllers, and combat medic for leaders.

 

[Balesir]

Its more then just a word. It goes hand in hand with the changes that 4e made. Look at illusionists and necromancers in 4th. Look at druid summoners. Whole aspects of classes vanished and this happened in concert with trying to make the classes fit into a defined role.

When I say ditch roles, I am not saying just ditch the word, I am saying ditch the straight jacket.

Let the fighter be good with weapons in a variety of ways, let the mage be good at casting in a variety of ways. Let players choose and see how that works out into a combat role for them.

But illusionists, necromancers and summoning druids were not nerfed to make them "conform to a role" - they were nerfed so that they were no longer overdominant niche-stealers with open ended power limited only by how outrageous an abuse they could blag past the DM. The nature of illusions and charms in previous editions of D&D was so obviously broken that we were playing rules that changed them utterly from around 1980 onward.

 

[Libramarian]

Classes are for game mechanics. Roles are for game mechanics. Everything in the system, is for game mechanics. The rule books don't role play for us. We do that at the table. All I need from the rule books are the rules for conflict resolution.

Eugh. This attitude could not be further removed from my own. I would almost say the exact opposite.

 

[hanez]

Huh?
Illusionists are about the most classical definition of a controller wizard and they are in 4ed (In multiple versions I think).

Summoner-druids are in 4ed as well, though as late-comers. And aspects of the Druid class vanished/were distributed over multiple classes for reasons that had nothing to do with roles.

So are Necromancers, although I don't know of any D&D edition that has managed to make a PC class do justice to the necromancer concept, 4ed included.

Im going to run to my 4th edition PHB to make sure I've read it! Actually wait, I've done this before. I own the 4e phb, I know that illusion spells were MUCH reduced (and forced only into utility powers choosable every few levels by a wizard). I don't remember anyone summoning undead in my 4e campaigns (I do remember the standard attack power with the label "necrotic" on it however. And as you say the druid summoners weren't introduced to much later. This was not true for the first book for either AD&D or 3e. Both previous systems allowed players a wide rand of choices like these from day 1. I think it is plain to see that the focus on combat and combat roles was a major factor in this change.

 

[hanez]

But illusionists, necromancers and summoning druids were not nerfed to make them "conform to a role" - they were nerfed so that they were no longer overdominant niche-stealers with open ended power limited only by how outrageous an abuse they could blag past the DM. The nature of illusions and charms in previous editions of D&D was so obviously broken that we were playing rules that changed them utterly from around 1980 onward.

Illusionists and necromancers were broken? Wow, never heard that one before. I was always under the impression they were less optimal flavor builds. Do you mean some illusion spells were broken, or that players who restricted their spell list to contain mostly illusions were broken?

I've seen and played a lot of illusionists and necromancers in the last few editions (and pathfinder), I've heard them called underpowered, I've heard players complain that they'd rather you pick a class less annoying, but I've never heard them called broken.