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

[Hussar]

True, not everyone wants to play a barbarian or ranger to hit as hard as one, for all the baggage that those classes imply. (And one could with DM permission mod a Ranger to just be "Urban Archer", but it's an extra step that you have to do outside of the rules that some people would rather not have.) Also, the whole "A fighter can do just as much damage as a Striker" thing that I've seen some others state just isn't true -- an OPTIMIZED fighter could do as much damage as an un-optimized ranger, but an optimized one is still going to show him up. In 4E role design, this is a good thing, and works as intended -- but a LOT of folks don't like the design feature. The slayer really should have come along in 2008, and the community would not have had as much rancor on the topic. Suddenly, a fighter wasn't the premier "heavy hitter" any more.

The problem is, the fighter NEVER was the premier heavy hitter. Not in any edition. The fighter has always been consistent from round to round. His damage never really changes until he gets some sort of buff, or gains additional attacks per round.

From 2e onward, the ranger outdamaged the fighter by virtue of having two weapon fighting built in (doubling your damage potential per round makes you the heavy hitter) and 3e made rogues the premier one shot hitter with sneak attack.

Fighters are great at doing consistent damage every round. But, the damage they did was never "spikey". Typically, you only had about a d8-d12 variation in damage from round to round. By 3e, that variation meant far less than the damage you were getting from buffs and the like.

Or, to put it another way, a fighter never did more damage than any other fighter type. Why should fighters be the "premier heavy hitter" in 4e when they never were in any other edition?

 

[pemerton]

In 1E combat, EVERYONE was "sticky", not just defenders.

Yes. I alluded to this upthread:

If there are no marking mechanics, then how does the fighter get the monsters to direct their attacks against him/her? If the answer is "by engaging them", does that imply that the game is going back to a norm of non-mobility rather than mobility? If the answer is "via free roleplay between player and GM", what does that say about the role of the GM in the game?

In 1st ed AD&D, there was a norm of non-mobility, and this is how fighters (and clerics, to a lesser extent) "defended". Whereas it was crucial for MUs and thieves not to get caught in combat, because if they did then they could find themselves well-and-truly hosed.

If the combat system envisages mobility as the norm (eg 4e shift-and-charge, 3E 5' step-and-charge), then a fighter can't defend without some other mechanic in place such as marking. Whether or not you call it a role.

A similar comment could be made about healing. In my AD&D days, there was very little casting of in-combat healing. I gather that 3E made it common, and in 4e it is utterly central to the dynamics of combat. If you want to keep that sort of dynamic, then someone has to be able to heal, and if you want it to have a 4e-style pacing then someone has to be able to heal without using up all their actions for the turn. And either everyone can do it, or some class(es) specialise in it.

And what do you give as a trade-off for those classes that can't do the healing and can't do the defending? Better damage or better effects.

In my view, then, the 4e roles aren't spun from whole cloth and imposed willy-nilly on unsuspecting gamers the world over. They reflect pressures that are inherent to the post-AD&D dynamics of the game (ie incombat movement, and incombat healing). Unless we get rid of those dynamics, we will need the mechanics, whether or not we call them roles.

 

[pemerton]

A character's role can shift during the course of an adventure as can the role of the entire party. They may start out trying to gather information as stealthily as possible and then shift into a mode where they need to deliver the strongest first strike they possibly can on an enemy that they have discovered. They may then need to fall into a defensive posture and try to leave the area. Changing from one "role" to another requires flexibility of the party and the characters within the party.

Sure, but are you intending to imply that this can't happen in 4e?

 

[pemerton]

The problem is, the fighter NEVER was the premier heavy hitter. Not in any edition.

But in 1st ed AD&D the fighter came close to this - best weapons, best STR, best attack bonus.

It's true that thieves could hit hard with backstab, but low STR and lower-damage weapons, plus it's one-off nature, tended to limit its impact.

Clerics were just weaker in my experience. And MUs are in a different category altogether.

It's true that rangers were just better than fighters at damaging a good variety of opponents, but the stat requirement meant you didn't see many of them. Leaving fighters as both tough and hard-hitting.

 

[Bluenose]

The problem is, the fighter NEVER was the premier heavy hitter. Not in any edition.

...snip...

Or, to put it another way, a fighter never did more damage than any other fighter type. Why should fighters be the "premier heavy hitter" in 4e when they never were in any other edition?

BECMI Fighters were the premier heavy hitters. No-one else compared. Of course, that was a game where the other "Fighter type" was the Dwarf (and arguably the Elf). So perhaps not fair to compare, but it is an edition of D&D and Fighters with Weapon Mastery rules in play were heavy hitters in a way other classes didn't match.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If the combat system envisages mobility as the norm (eg 4e shift-and-charge, 3E 5' step-and-charge), then a fighter can't defend without some other mechanic in place such as marking. Whether or not you call it a role.

Just a note: you can't 5' step and charge in 3.5. You cannot move if you take a 5' step in 3.5; you get one or the other. That helped the Fighter somewhat (especially if they had a reach weapon), but a sidebar for dealing with archers and spellcasters who just took a 5' step away would've been nice.

A similar comment could be made about healing. In my AD&D days, there was very little casting of in-combat healing. I gather that 3E made it common, and in 4e it is utterly central to the dynamics of combat. If you want to keep that sort of dynamic, then someone has to be able to heal, and if you want it to have a 4e-style pacing then someone has to be able to heal without using up all their actions for the turn. And either everyone can do it, or some class(es) specialise in it.

It was common enough in 3.X, though it wasn't optimal unless someone was down or about to be. Personally, I like it better that way, though I'd love to see protective wards, warning shouts, etc. thrown around as a way to mitigate incoming damage (absorb damage ala damage reduction, give temporary hit points, a bonus on a save or AC against the attack, etc.).

Currently, I have a PC in my game built around giving a protective aura to his allies, and then giving them bonuses in combat (kind of like a paladin/bard, though less fight-ey). He'll give two different offensive bonuses on his turn, save his last action to do it again if someone is attacked (he could attack if he wanted to), and use it to give a defensive bonus (he can also give a fourth bonus as a free action interrupt at any point, too).

He's very effective, and the build can be entirely mundane (if you lost the "constant" aura he has up, or improved his current version). He just has it flavored as "passive aura = my presence as a neish'paa (chosen by destiny); free action bonus I can give 2/round = improved aura of my presence as a neish'paa as fate focuses on them; move action bonus I can give 2/round = me yelling encouragement, warnings, etc. to them while I observe the fight."

In my view, then, the 4e roles aren't spun from whole cloth and imposed willy-nilly on unsuspecting gamers the world over. They reflect pressures that are inherent to the post-AD&D dynamics of the game (ie incombat movement, and incombat healing). Unless we get rid of those dynamics, we will need the mechanics, whether or not we call them roles.

I kinda do hope that they go with reactive protective measures, with in-combat healing mostly when you're desperate (your ally is down, or about to be). I like the feel more, if nothing else.

As far as balancing it out, I'm not someone who thinks everyone needs to contribute to combat equally. Maybe they can't defend/heal as well, but they are better at social interaction. I much prefer a game where this is a choice than "everyone contributes to combat equally", but I gather that's where a lot of disagreement comes from in these conversations. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

BECMI Fighters were the premier heavy hitters. No-one else compared. Of course, that was a game where the other "Fighter type" was the Dwarf (and arguably the Elf). So perhaps not fair to compare, but it is an edition of D&D and Fighters with Weapon Mastery rules in play were heavy hitters in a way other classes didn't match.

I honestly only ever played B and E, so, I cannot comment there. In Basic/Expert, there wasn't a huge difference between classes in damage output. Even with different damage from different weapons, you didn't have the percentile strength that put the fighter types head and shoulders above everyone else. Heck, even the wizard doing a measly d4 damage with a thrown dagger wasn't really all that far behind the fighter with a longsword doing d8+2. The spread just wasn't all that great.

But, going back to the idea of fighters being king of damage in other editions - well, if you include all the other fighter types (paladins and rangers) in that, then I'd probably agree, but, only if the fighter type had percentile strength by and large.

A fighter with a 17 strength and a cleric with a 17 strength in AD&D were doing pretty much the same damage. At least until about 7th level when the fighter types start getting iterative attacks.

Granted, 2e went a long way to bumping up the fighter types, but, it still bumped them all equally. Rangers and fighters did the same damage, and clerics, if you used two weapon fighting from the Complete Fighter weren't really all that far behind.

At least until you start getting into percentile strength.

Thinking about that, I suppose that is one way to get fighters to be king of damage again. Just give them four or five times the damage bonus that every other class gets based on their base stats and you're good to go.

 

[Garthanos]

The original party was based on the fireteam
Fireteam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The effect of not paying attention to roles in a real mechanical way (ie people with fortes and specializations that contribute to that capability)? Is the same as not having roles in real life teams, incompetance, in D&D this was most obvious protectors who couldnt protect in any real way and sometimes its the opposite, spell casters who could do anything and everything and usually better than everyone else. Hiding roles and pretending new players will magically understand ... is ridiculous.

Ignoring team roles is actually kind of childish.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I honestly only ever played B and E, so, I cannot comment there. In Basic/Expert, there wasn't a huge difference between classes in damage output. Even with different damage from different weapons, you didn't have the percentile strength that put the fighter types head and shoulders above everyone else. Heck, even the wizard doing a measly d4 damage with a thrown dagger wasn't really all that far behind the fighter with a longsword doing d8+2. The spread just wasn't all that great.

But, going back to the idea of fighters being king of damage in other editions - well, if you include all the other fighter types (paladins and rangers) in that, then I'd probably agree, but, only if the fighter type had percentile strength by and large.

A fighter with a 17 strength and a cleric with a 17 strength in AD&D were doing pretty much the same damage. At least until about 7th level when the fighter types start getting iterative attacks.

Granted, 2e went a long way to bumping up the fighter types, but, it still bumped them all equally. Rangers and fighters did the same damage, and clerics, if you used two weapon fighting from the Complete Fighter weren't really all that far behind.

At least until you start getting into percentile strength.

Thinking about that, I suppose that is one way to get fighters to be king of damage again. Just give them four or five times the damage bonus that every other class gets based on their base stats and you're good to go.

another option is remove power attack as a feat, turn it into a class ability fighters get at first level. Start it off with an appropriate cap and reduce that cap at different levels.

 

[Balesir]

In such a system, "class" would be the main glue that holds everything together. It might require very little space to explain for each class. The difference in a fighter, paladin, and cleric, for example, might be some basic numbers and what lists they get to pick from.

Classes are roles (fantasy social roles) and archetypes (fantasy ones in the D&D genre).

Both of these seem to me to be describing what classes are (in older forms of D&D, mainly), not what they are for.

When I say "What are classes for?" I mean, literally, what function do they fulfill in the game design. What are they supposed to facilitate, encourage or require? Why is it that having classes is better (for this specific game we want to play) than just picking elements to describe a "picture in our heads" (to choose the term Mike Mearls used)? Because, if there isn't a reason to use them, I think classes should not be included.

As for the other part, please note that my fourth bullet point was meant to indicate that the list was in no way complete or imply one pick per character. I don't like "face" roles, either. Ideally, you wouldn't have 4-5 of combat, exploration, and interaction roles in such a system. You'd have at least twice that many--some of them likely mutually exclusive with each other, or at least not very compatible. This is so that after you got done throwing out the ones that annoyed you, you'd still have 4-5 roles left in each pillar.

Sure - understood. I'm not sure it would be possible to find that many resonant roles for each; my "4-5" was more a practical maximum than a desire, but maybe it could happen. In which case, great!

They are also scopes for the players playing the game. Pick a Magic-User and you'll be exploring magic and getting XP for mastering elements of it. Does this mean the character shouldn't don armor and hack away with a sword? No, but they are not as good at being a Fighting-Man unless they have it as another class. (In fact, M-Us score the least combat rating of the core four).

Now, this is an intriguing raison d'être for classes. To determine what aspects of the game world the player of the character is rewarded for engaging with. A sort of character-specific set of "victory conditions" (as far as any such thing is relevant to any RPG - which is to say only in a fairly restrained and ongoing way). I actually see the last part as redundant - I see no reason they should not be every bit as competent a fighting man as the "Fighter"; they simply gain nothing whatsoever for it in the game. A mechanic one would need to be careful with, to be sure, but that is something for the detailed execution of the idea, not the basic principle.

Roles are not the manner in which one excels in combat. Classes are the defined scope of the game the character is built to excel in. As all of the classes overlap non-combat class abilities can be used to succeed in combat and other non-class activities. As combat is pretty central I can understand how classes could be construed as combat roles though.

Nope - for me, this is just back to describing what the classes have traditionally done. Mushy "look-and-feel" that really holds no value, either in-game or meta-game.

Roles in 4E are certainly not this: they are the basic combat function for which the class should be built with some facility for. They make sure that every class has at least some use in combat. I disagree with the limitation to "combat", but I do think that in a game about "adventuring" every character should be assured of some ability to "adventure" - in all the major aspects of that activity.

"You Wish" is pretty much confrontation (combat) and resources (treasure) in D&D. Everyone is doing one to get the other, but ends and means are not necessarily the same for each class. This means we ally and share or we go our own way. Going it alone is far more difficult as the world doesn't get easier just for 1 character, so you're still going to need to hire help if nothing else.

You lost me, here. Everyone in D&D takes part in confrontation and also gets resources (treasure) - don't they?