Roles to any Class

[Zaphling]

I think we already know that roles has been there since the dawn of DnD, it's just that 4e made it clear who is who.

anyhow, my argument is "Is it more interesting if a class can actually take up any role?"

for example, DDN character creation might go like this:

ability score -> race -> class -> background (optional) -> theme (optional) -> role (optional)

it has been mentioned that each class has a default background and theme, if the player is too lazy to fiddle.

e.g. Wizard gets Sage (background) and Mystic (Theme)
Fighter gets soldier (background) and Slayer (theme)

so i was wondering if roles can also be chosen per class, things would get interesting (actually im just imagining a defender wizard right now), but roles is also added to a class by default a.k.a 'defender fighter' and 'controller wizard'

here are some ideas that i have in mind that isn't mainstream:

defender wizard (this can be the Abjuration school)
defender rogue (bodyguard or bouncer?)

leader wizard (divination school?)
controller paladin (focuses on prayer magic and AoE sanctified grounds or auras)

controller fighter (dual blade dancer and mobile fighter)
leader rogue (i am not yet sure how this will work)

but you get my point.


in addition,

we dont have to force ourselves to go back to 4e role mechanics to do this (e.g. leader's healing word, striker's plus damage, defender's mark)

if u hav cool ideas how this can work with other classes, great!


to close, let's fiddle with the wizard and what mechanics can it have with all four roles

abjurer is obviously defender and can have mark-ish mechanic.

how about leader wizard? striker and controller is very easy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Since roles aren't going to be explicit, you could certainly try to shoe-horn any class into any role, or, if it is a sufficiently versatile class, into several different roles at different times or under different circumstances.

So, a cleric might be an excellent healer, making him a 'leader,' but also capable of self-buffing to make himself high-damage melee or high-defense melee (striker or defender), or choose offensive area or de-buff spells that might, in 4e, have marked him as a controller. A wizard might solidly be a controller, but be able to summon up creatures that act as defenders on his party's behalf. A fighter might be most obviously suited to a defender-like role, but, with the right build, at some level, might do damage like a striker.

An explicit design philosophy in which you chose 'Source' from column A and 'Role' from column B and Race, Theme, & Background from other columns, and thus suited just about any concept to just about any needed role within a balanced party might have been nice, and could have been a logical evolution of 4e. But it obviously wouldn't be D&D. In D&D, you simply don't have wizards that heal or fighters that control or thieves that are tough. You could make rules for such things, but it wouldn't be D&D anymore.

 

[Ranganathan]

As long as they avoid both the "only 1-2 classes can heal" and the "actually healing your group costs your round" problems, I don't really care how they do it.

It would be interesting to see a theme/background that allowed for something similar to the leader 2 per encounter heal that 4E used. Say a leader theme, and a healer background, so you could even double up, or gor for the trifecta of cleric, leader, healer to get the best possible healing in the game. Or something like that.

 

[Ranganathan]

An explicit design philosophy in which you chose 'Source' from column A and 'Role' from column B and Race, Theme, & Background from other columns, and thus suited just about any concept to just about any needed role within a balanced party might have been nice, and could have been a logical evolution of 4e. But it obviously wouldn't be D&D. In D&D, you simply don't have wizards that heal or fighters that control or thieves that are tough. You could make rules for such things, but it wouldn't be D&D anymore.

I gotta say I am so incredibly tired of this vacuous, piece of argument. "I don't like X, if they do X, then it isn't D&D anymore" is not a valid argument. Learn a new tune people, for s sake.

 

[Zaphling]

Since roles aren't going to be explicit, you could certainly try to shoe-horn any class into any role, or, if it is a sufficiently versatile class, into several different roles at different times or under different circumstances.

So, a cleric might be an excellent healer, making him a 'leader,' but also capable of self-buffing to make himself high-damage melee or high-defense melee (striker or defender), or choose offensive area or de-buff spells that might, in 4e, have marked him as a controller. A wizard might solidly be a controller, but be able to summon up creatures that act as defenders on his party's behalf. A fighter might be most obviously suited to a defender-like role, but, with the right build, at some level, might do damage like a striker.

An explicit design philosophy in which you chose 'Source' from column A and 'Role' from column B and Race, Theme, & Background from other columns, and thus suited just about any concept to just about any needed role within a balanced party might have been nice, and could have been a logical evolution of 4e. But it obviously wouldn't be D&D. In D&D, you simply don't have wizards that heal or fighters that control or thieves that are tough. You could make rules for such things, but it wouldn't be D&D anymore.

is it? im not trying to be sarcasstic. just questioning ur opinion.

i read an article between 4e vs Pathfinder saying 4e doesnt feel like DnD but has the brand, while the other feels like dnd but doesnt hav the brand.

i played both and also 3.5, it still felt like DnD to me, even pathfinder still is DnD to me

 

[Tony Vargas]

I gotta say I am so incredibly tired of this vacuous, piece of argument. "I don't like X, if they do X, then it isn't D&D anymore" is not a valid argument. Learn a new tune people, for s sake.

While I don't agree with it, it is, none the less, the foundation upon which 5e is being built. So, clearly, "would it still be D&D?" is a critical question, and the answer carries a lot of weight.

And classes having changeable roles "would still be D&D" only for certain classes that have had very versatile abilities in the past.

It has less to do with what you like, and more to do with finding precedent for what you like.

 

[Sunseeker]

No, I really don't think so. This leads to serious design issues like CoDzilla. Certain roles when combined with certain tools lead to an incredible level of power.

The only way I could see this working is if taking up the tools for one role blocked out 90% of the tools that would come from other roles.

So, a defender cleric couldn't be a healer, couldn't be a buffer, and couldn't be a blaster. They may still have a cure light wounds once or twice a day, they might have a +1 to AC or a inflict light wounds at about the same rate, but they'd get none of the really serious power stuff associated with the other roles they could take.

Otherwise if we give the Cleric access to a high BAB, high AC, full-vancian magic and so on we get a level of power which many classes simply can't compete with. When a single class can tank, damage, support and heal all at the same time, they're simply OP.

So yeah, provided the class is limited primarily to the abilities of ONE role it can work.

 

[Shadeydm]

4E took some interesting steps in this direction, in fact many 4E builds were in essence cross role variants. (Personally I wanted to try and build a 4E bard that could back up tank as a building exercise but never followed the build all the way through.)

Do we need a formal mechanic for this or is it enough that picking certain options will provide the ability to fill an alternate role? I could see it as a module for 5E but not the default assumption.

 

[Raith5]

I like the capacity of classes to have distinct roles but dont like them having to have a certain role. So I like the idea of being able to modify the class via feats, themes etc

I mean, the fighter in my 4th ed party has distinct defender and controller powers as well as the capacity to do striker damage (because he uses a polearm). This is due to feat choices, weapon choices - just as it should be. So 4th ed wasnt hopelessly stringent in this regards and 4th ed essentials moved away from class role straitjackets.

But the idea that all fighters must be defenders, or all rangers must be strikers - I dont see the appeal of this.

 

[Ranganathan]

I like the capacity of classes to have distinct roles but dont like them having to have a certain role. So I like the idea of being able to modify the class via feats, themes etc

I mean, the fighter in my 4th ed party has distinct defender and controller powers as well as the capacity to do striker damage (because he uses a polearm). This is due to feat choices, weapon choices - just as it should be. So 4th ed wasnt hopelessly stringent in this regards and 4th ed essentials moved away from class role straitjackets.

But the idea that all fighters must be defenders, or all rangers must be strikers - I dont see the appeal of this.

This. A lot.

If making "role like powers or abilities" is something that 5E will have, I for one hope that it will be tied more to theme and background than specific classes. Saying all basic fighters are defenders is silly, just as saying all basic Druids are controllers is silly. If roles, or role-like mechanics are present in 5th, I really hope they're more compartmentalized and easily swapped out.

A leader theme which grants healing, or a defender theme which grants an aura or something similar would be great.