Delinking role with class

[Starfox]

I think for many classes, it would be possible to create a class variant that lies in a different role. New class abilities, some new at-wills, new base statistics like hit points, armor worn, and surges. Add a few encounter and daily powers, perhaps imported from other classes. Open up new paragon paths. But in 4E this would have to be done on a class-by-class basis. Even if it is possible to build a defender ranger, I don't think it would be possible to build a general template for how to turn a Striker into a Defender.

Some possible class options, on the top of my head:

• Fighter - Striker
• Ranger - Controller, Defender
• Rogue - Controller
• Warlock - Controller, Defender, even Leader
• Cleric - Controller, Defender
• Paladin - Leader
• Wizard - Striker
• Warlord - Defender
• Bard - Controller

As you can see from this list, i think classes would convert most easily into roles they already lean towards.

 

[pawsplay]

I think you'd get better mileage by divorcing the archetype you want to play from the name (and the fluff text, to a degree) of the class whose mechanics you are choosing.

If you want to play a "defender rogue" then play a Fighter, get training in Thievery and/or Stealth, and call yourself a rogue (but not a Rogue, if you catch the capital-letter-based distinction).

This has always been a difficult distinction for some people to see. "You say you're a rogue, but your character sheet says "Fighter". You're not a Rogue!"

"Some people" including the designers. One of my first impressions of 4e was realizing that a two-weapon fighter would be a Ranger, whether you wanted to be a wilderness guy or not.

 

[Markn]

I think you'd get better mileage by divorcing the archetype you want to play from the name (and the fluff text, to a degree) of the class whose mechanics you are choosing.

If you want to play a "defender rogue" then play a Fighter, get training in Thievery and/or Stealth, and call yourself a rogue (but not a Rogue, if you catch the capital-letter-based distinction).

This has always been a difficult distinction for some people to see. "You say you're a rogue, but your character sheet says "Fighter". You're not a Rogue!"

I kind of agree with this, but part of me also disagrees. Take 2e kits for example. They do, for the most part, what I am proposing but in a limited way. The kits alter the standard class, impose limitations, emphasize different abilties, which in trun alters AC and HPs and class abilities. But it was up to TSR to forcefeed us these options and this is how it was limited. I'm just proposing a step further and saying, why not open it up even more and let the player choose from "predifined packages".

 

[Markn]

"Some people" including the designers. One of my first impressions of 4e was realizing that a two-weapon fighter would be a Ranger, whether you wanted to be a wilderness guy or not.

Agreed, and I think this is what sticks in some peoples mind. 4e at times can seem so artificially limiting, while at other times, explores new ground. It can kind of be a wonderful yet frustrating experience at times.

 

[Dausuul]

I think you'd get better mileage by divorcing the archetype you want to play from the name (and the fluff text, to a degree) of the class whose mechanics you are choosing.

If you want to play a "defender rogue" then play a Fighter, get training in Thievery and/or Stealth, and call yourself a rogue (but not a Rogue, if you catch the capital-letter-based distinction).

This has always been a difficult distinction for some people to see. "You say you're a rogue, but your character sheet says "Fighter". You're not a Rogue!"

Yeah, this is how I see it. The class system is already on the brink of this; it just needs a little push, and some renaming:

Fighter --> Armiger (thank you, Iron Heroes)
Ranger --> Skirmisher
Rogue --> Stalker
Warlord --> Leader

Then strip out the last vestiges of noncombat elements from the classes, and put them someplace else - perhaps a system of "professions" which you can mix-and-match with combat class.

 

[amysrevenge]

That's certainly fair and one thing I considered as well, though the swashbuckler really isn't about the stealth and thievery aspects of a rogue, but more about the showy and flashy combat moves, fancy footwork, and
other things that I was envisioning borrowing from a rogue.

I hesitate to delve too deeply into the specifics of one case here, but off the top of my head low-level Fighter powers like Footwork Lure and Lunging Strike are prepackaged for this, without even needing a re-fluff.

More generally, though, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

To me, you can call your TWF Ranger a "fighter" all you like. A Wizard can be a "mage", "magician", "sorcerer", "warlock", "wizard", "magic-user", what have you. A Rogue can be a "thief", "thug", "fighter", "warrior", "cutpurse", "rogue", "assassin", "swashbuckler", etc.

Most of the time you don't even need to refluff anything, you just name yourself by the archetype you are playing to, not the label attached to the bundle of game rules you are using.

(In 3E I played a barbarian with only 1 of 11 levels as Barbarian, a paladin with only 4 of 15 levels as Paladin, and a fighter with no levels in Fighter.)