Description of class roles

[Khaalis]

It has been stated that "Roles" are a design concept used to make sure that a class that is being designed fits one of the 4 classic party needs:
* Controller / Crowd Control - someone who's job it is to aid the party by making a situation more to the PC's advantage
* Defender / Tank / Meatshield - someone who can take damage and that can fight toe-to-toe.
* Leader / Healer / Buffer - the person who makes others better at their jobs and keeps the party alive longer
* Striker / DPS / Nuker - someone who's job it is to refrain from being hit as much as possible and deal lots of damage.

It has also been stated that this is the "Primary Role" kept in mind for each class. Each class will have additional abilities that fall outside this "primary role". For instance fighters are defenders but can also deal formidable damage, create tactical advantages, and even heal themselves. Each class will have a unique flavor ad set of abilities that sets it apart from others that fill the same basic role, yet at the same time can do their primary function just as well. This way you can have say either a Warlord or a Cleric in a party and have effective healing. You don't HAVE to have just a Cleric.

As for the Fighter/Archer comments... I have to say that it totally depends on the concepts being used to design the class. I do NOT personally see a Fighter truly filling their role if they are a ranged weapon specialist. To me, the Fighter is the Plate wearing, toe-to-toe master of melee combat. They are designed to take (high HP) and mitigate damage (heavy armor and shields). If I want an archer specialist, thats the Ranger's shtick (who killed the scout and took his toys). Can a warrior use ranged weapons? Yes. It would be silly for a fighter not to train in ranged weapons for when the situation calls for it. Should they be specialized in it? Not in my preference. JMHO. YMMV.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Every time I see the roles part I wish it had been made so that the role is seperate from the class choice, meaning more customization within the class.

Keep in mind that your role is only your general, primary function. It's what he's best at. It doesnt mean he cant fulfill other roles if he wants/needs to. A fighter can still pick up a bow and act like a Striker if he wants. What the role DOES do is make it so another class cant outdo you at your primary role. Look at how properly built clerics and druids can outdo the Fighter now. That's the thing Roles are trying to avoid.

 

[Driddle]

I prefer the social role structures that characters take when meeting NPCs:

Peacemaker -- gets everyone to be nice to each other.
Inquisitor -- responsible for asking a bunch of questions.
BS'er -- distracts/aggravates by making a fuss about knowing everything.
Nodder -- supports others by always agreeing (or just not caring).

Have the 4th edition designers addressed which classes will be best for those roles?

 

[erisred]

As for the Fighter/Archer comments... I have to say that it totally depends on the concepts being used to design the class. I do NOT personally see a Fighter truly filling their role if they are a ranged weapon specialist. To me, the Fighter is the Plate wearing, toe-to-toe master of melee combat. They are designed to take (high HP) and mitigate damage (heavy armor and shields). If I want an archer specialist, thats the Ranger's shtick (who killed the scout and took his toys). Can a warrior use ranged weapons? Yes. It would be silly for a fighter not to train in ranged weapons for when the situation calls for it. Should they be specialized in it? Not in my preference. JMHO. YMMV.

Ah! But a Ranger has a lot of "baggage" that he carries around in addition to being able to shoot arrows very effectively. Maybe I don't want those Ranger abilities/feats/skills/talents/whatever, but I want this PC to be a very effective archer who also wears plate and, on occasion, stands toe-to-toe with the enemy in the shield wall. I think that should be doable and without resorting to multiclassing.

Of course, I'd be just as happy if there was a single class and every PC was in it...as long as there were appropriate feats, "talent trees" and such that allowed each PC follow their own unique path. That will never happen in D&D, though.

 

[Kaffis]

Ah! But a Ranger has a lot of "baggage" that he carries around in addition to being able to shoot arrows very effectively. Maybe I don't want those Ranger abilities/feats/skills/talents/whatever, but I want this PC to be a very effective archer who also wears plate and, on occasion, stands toe-to-toe with the enemy in the shield wall. I think that should be doable and without resorting to multiclassing.

Of course, I'd be just as happy if there was a single class and every PC was in it...as long as there were appropriate feats, "talent trees" and such that allowed each PC follow their own unique path. That will never happen in D&D, though.

I think it's fairly apparent that you can make that archer. But the ranger will be better at it, because he's got stuff like skirmish that he looted off the scout's dead corpse. That doesn't preclude you from being a fighter who uses a bow, but it does mean that just because a fighter uses a bow doesn't make him a striker.

For what it's worth, you wouldn't necessarily like your single class system, either, when you found out that the "deadeye" ability in the "archery" talent tree had "far sight" as a prerequisite, and "far sight" was a divine spell... There's that ranger baggage popping up again in your single-classed system.

 

[Odysseus]

Gone apparently. In fact, the Fighter as an archer was specifically called out at Gen Con. Roles are supposed to define what you can do, it was specifically said (paraphrased due to the intervening months): "If someone says they are playing a Fighter, they won't show up with an archer."

That makes me believe that "roles" won't be very customizable. Maybe that's why multi-classing is causing headaches?

I think the roles will give very basic at will abilities & combat skills , that become more powerful at higher levels. And provide a skeleton structure to the class abilities which will customise the character. But I believe once you've picked a role your stuck with it. While the classes will allow you to multiclass. There won't be any multiroling. How they will split the role and class abilities im not sure of. But I do think they will be split.

 

[Dragonblade]

Here is my take on the roles:

When I think Controller, I think "artillery". The ability to inflict lots of damage to a lot of enemies quickly all over the battlefield. Hence my desire to see an Archer class as a Martial Controller. The ability to alter the battlefield terrain itself would also qualify. Controller damage is good, but the main benefit should be in being able to damage multiple foes in a round at range. Controllers also would be the most vulnerable class, followed by the Striker as the second most vulnerable.

When I think Striker, I think fast and agile but not able to take a lot of punishment. However, a striker should deal massive damage (the most in the game) when fighting one on one and should be able to move all over the battlefield with ease.

When I think Defender, I think armored tank. Someone who can take a ton of punishment but also deal a ton of punishment for those who get into melee with one. Should be able to do more damage than anyone but a Striker when fighting one on one.

When I think Leader, I think a class that can complement all the roles but also stand by itself. Tougher than a Controller or Striker, but not as tough as a Defender. Does more damage one on one than a Controller, but not as much as a Defender or a Striker. However should have the best ability to recover damage and to boost themselves and allies. Should also be more mobile than anyone but a Striker.

--------
Also posted here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=211427&page=2

 

[Quickleaf]

After reading what I could find on the roles, there was early mention of a grid that suggested what class fit best in what role, I'm doing this from memory so I could be wrong.

-------------Leader-----Defender-----Controller-----Striker

Martial------Warlord-----Fighter------XXXXXXX------Rogue

Divine--------Cleric------Paladin------OOOOOO------Ranger

Arcane------OOOOOO----XXXXXX-----Wizard--------Warlock

As you can see there are some gaps and there are some roles I believe that certain Power Sources can't fill. Like a Martial Controller or an Arcane Defender. Clerics could fill the Divine Controller slot and Wizard the Arcane Leader by judicious selection of skills, feats, talents, etc.
Now some may argue that the Ranger is a Martial Striker, but I can't see doubling up on those and leaving yet another open slot. There has been talk in other threads about there being more than 8 classes and if so look for them to fill in at least one of the emppty slots.
This is all conjecture on my part so far so take it with a grain of salt.

Bel

I remember reading Bard is tentatively an Arcane Leader.

As for Ranger I'd peg him as a Nature Striker, and I'd suggest Assassin as a Divine Striker (fitting the holy slayer archetype).

I wonder if Monk might be a Martial Controller? Attacking multiple opponents with whirlwind attacks, getting opponents to strike/entangle each other, throwing opponents to clear a path, dim mak type touch attacks, knocking things over or breaking things to make the environment harder for opponents...

My question is what class concepts fit an Arcane Defender? A Spellsword?

Also, what concepts fit a Divine Controller? I'm assuming Druid is a Nature-based class so I'm not sure what this might be.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Didn't Mearls just make comments to the effect that mechanics might reflect roles but not vice versa.

As in the fighter is a defender so his abilities should fit that role, but the fact that he is a defender doesn't dictate any of his abilities?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Why don't we just call them Tank, CC, Nuker, Buffer and be done with it? At least that way everyone knows what's what.

A defender isn't a "tank." A tank in an MMORPG works by staying on top of enemies' agro lists, so they only attack him. There IS no agro in 4e, so defenders work instead by punishing opponents who ignore him in melee, or by buffing allies (to make him a more desireable target), all the while wading into melee themselves and probably doing a decent amount of damage.

A controller isn't "CC." CC in an MMO consists of temporarily disabling enemies so that they can be killed one at a time (and honestly it isn't even a unique class role in some MMOs; WoW distributes CC duties across EVERY class). A controller can probably do that to some degree, but he also alters the terrain (with effects like fog, web, grease, etc), lays down long-range area effects (like fireball), knocks enemies around the battlefield (like that one wizard ability that was mentioned in the Tor playtest), and, hey, does damage.

A leader isn't "healing." An MMO healer does NOTHING but cure HP damage (trust me on this one, wayyy too much experience in WoW, often including zero damage dealt over a 4-hour raid). A leader not only bashes or nukes the bad guys for decent damage, he also aids his allies in interesting ways (like that sweet "hammer and anvil" warlord ability) and otherwise aids his side.

A striker is... sort of DPS. Not in the "stand behind the bad guy and stab for 10 minutes" MMO sense, but he IS focused on taking down the most appropriate enemy target as quickly as possible. It's true that non-strikers can deal significant damage as well, but it's the strikers job to really hit the enemy team where it's weak: a rogue can tumble his way to the wizard standing in the back row, a warlock can teleport to him or nuke from a distance, and a ranger can just shoot him from across the room. The fighter might be able to hit him just as hard, but it'd mean wading through all the other guys in the way.