D&D 4E 4E Roles

[kennew142]

This is due to a heavy mmorpg influence. Now this will lead to annoying situaitons where gm's advert their games as needing "a divine controller, a divine defencer, a defender, etc etc' *roll eyes*

This is most certainly not an mmorpg influence. Gamers have been using the concept of roles for decades. In the 1980s my group was referring to different character types as tanks, blasters and healers. We didn't make these terms up. We got them from articles in Dragon. It was even before Champions came out. RPGA games have been using this concept for years as well. If you go to any convention site that uses warhorn (for example), you will see that table sign ups request information in your character's role.

Since the terms were clearly in (fairly widespread) use before mmorpgs came out, claiming that they are an mmorpg influence in 4e is disingenous at best.

 

[Corinth]

In the context used, it most certainly is a MMORPG influence. Specifically, it's a major World of Warcraft influence: Defender = Tank, Striker = DPS, Leader = Healer, Controller = Crowd Control. The specifics behind how these effects work varies but the result is exactly the same- you have one group member lock down loose monsters (CC), one buffing/healing the rest to keep them up (Healer), one holding a couple of monsters' attention on him (Tank) while the last one actually shanks them to death (DPS).

 

[Voss]

Which they took from table-top games in the first place. It was present in 1e if you care to look for it, and they almost spell it out with 2e with the class groupings. Warriors, Priests, Mages and Rogues (I think the meta group was referred to as Rogues, the thief and bard one) all had distinct party roles.

So, no. This concept has been around, even specifically in D&D. Its even recognizable in the original pamphlets. Fighting Men were healed by (supported by) clerics while keeping the enemy off the artillery (wizards).

 

[Corinth]

Which they took from table-top games in the first place. It was present in 1e if you care to look for it, and they almost spell it out with 2e with the class groupings. Warriors, Priests, Mages and Rogues (I think the meta group was referred to as Rogues, the thief and bard one) all had distinct party roles.

So, no. This concept has been around, even specifically in D&D. Its even recognizable in the original pamphlets. Fighting Men were healed by (supported by) clerics while keeping the enemy off the artillery (wizards).

The concept? Sure. This specific implementation? No, it's from the successor media as I said immediately above.

 

[Voss]

I'll concede you think that, but fighter = defender, striker=rogue (backstab!), controller = mage and Leader = priest works just as well. The playstyle works just as well with a 1e cleric supporting with healing of bless/prayer/etc, a wizard or illusionist controlling the extra monsters and the thief backstabbing the guy the fighter is battling.

But anyway. This is the South Park episode ripping a Simpsons episode that ripped a Twilight Zone episode based on a short story.

 

[WhatGravitas]

The concept? Sure. This specific implementation? No, it's from the successor media as I said immediately above.

Sure, but I bet they've probably lifted it from D&D in the first place. After all, the "divine healing" idea is very D&Dish, as well as a wizard (who cannot heal) who has area effects to deal with several foes at once.

I'd rather say it's a similar development happening from the same roots.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

In the context used, it most certainly is a MMORPG influence. Specifically, it's a major World of Warcraft influence: Defender = Tank, Striker = DPS, Leader = Healer, Controller = Crowd Control.

I think that this can be traced back far further than WoW, in fact earlier than D&D. These roles come from miniatures. Defender = Infantry, Striker = Cavalry, Controller = Artillery and Leader = the General, who gives his units bonuses and can rally them when they go into rout.

I think it's interesting that as they move to a heavier emphasis on miniatures they rediscover the roles that they started with.

 

[pweent]

What I'm interested in seeing is whether the new "Roles" formulations loosens up party structure any more than the current edition. In our current party, the Cleric player wants to swap out his character with a Monk for a while. This is sending serious repercussions through the rest of the party as people try to figure out whether the Dragon Shaman and healing wands / potions can pick up the slack, or whether someone else will also want to swap out their character for a new primary healer. (This is in a 5 player party - Fighter/Barbarian, Binder, Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Cleric.)

To date, healing is the only really mandatory class slot we've HAD to have filled out. I'd love it if the 4e roles end up being more flexible, what with everyone having a certain amount of self-healing potential. I'm worried that we might find an even tighter situation though, where we're hosed unless SOMEONE is playing a defender, for example.

 

[ferratus]

I'm worried that we might find an even tighter situation though, where we're hosed unless SOMEONE is playing a defender, for example.

I imagine no more than you are hosed if you don't have a defender in 3e. An argument for ritual spells like Tenser's transformation, or to pack a golem along.

 

[pemerton]

In the context used, it most certainly is a MMORPG influence. Specifically, it's a major World of Warcraft influence: Defender = Tank, Striker = DPS, Leader = Healer, Controller = Crowd Control. The specifics behind how these effects work varies but the result is exactly the same- you have one group member lock down loose monsters (CC), one buffing/healing the rest to keep them up (Healer), one holding a couple of monsters' attention on him (Tank) while the last one actually shanks them to death (DPS).

From what I know of WoW and similar games, I think there are several differences bewteen what you describe and the designers' intentions for 4e:

*First, in 4e the Fighter and Paladin will be significant damage dealers.

*As a result, and second, the Striker will probably not be taking down the same foes as those the Fighter is holding in a lock, but rather behind-the-lines foes like monster controllers or artillery which the Defender cannot reach (due to crappy mobility).

*Third, in 4e the Leader will not necessarily be spending the bulk of his or her actions on healing and buffing, because these will be side effects of other actions (like successfully damaging a foe).

*Fourth, a significant aspect of Wizards' control seems to be AoE damage, which creates incentives for enemies to avoid clustering (and therefore flanking, once the Wizard has Golden Wyvern Adept). The point of this cannot be to lock those monsters down, but is rather (I assume) to open up space for the Defenders, and even more so the Strikers, to move through the battlefield.

There may be the threat here of wash, rinse, repeat - it's hard to know without looking at the rules and playing the game. But to me it seems different from WoW play.

I'll concede you think that, but fighter = defender, striker=rogue (backstab!), controller = mage and Leader = priest works just as well. The playstyle works just as well with a 1e cleric supporting with healing of bless/prayer/etc, a wizard or illusionist controlling the extra monsters and the thief backstabbing the guy the fighter is battling.

True, though for me I have a stronger resonance with a different 1st ed scenario (in the combat section of the PHB): while the Fighter fights the Orcs, the Thief sneaks behind the lines and backstabs the Illusionist who is in charge of the Orcs.

Since the terms were clearly in (fairly widespread) use before mmorpgs came out, claiming that they are an mmorpg influence in 4e is disingenous at best.

I agree with your substantive claim, but I think it's unfair to say the claim to the contrary is "disingenuous at best". It's false at best, disingenuous (or, really, lying) at worst - but there's no evidence of any intended falsehood.