Description of class roles

[Scribble]

A good way to keep an opponent from harming others in your group is to make said opponent dead. Thus fighters deal a lot of damage.

 

[Scribble]

The terms are an interesting idea, but the only time I've seen them used is in reference to video games. My issue is that the terms mean slightly different things with different video games and there has not been a clear definition of what the designers mean when they are referencing these titles. I wonder if these will be official D&D terms used and defined in the PH, or are they just being used in the prep to 4E to help people visualize the new roles of classes, and they will be dropped when the PH comes out?

I think they might keep them, but the classes won't belisted in these categories...

Instead, each class will have a brief section detailing the class role, and strategies the player can use to best take advantage of it...

Like:

Role:

Your fighter is a defender. Often found in the front of the lines, the fighter's job is to make sure your opponents never get a chance to damage the weaker member's of the group... yada yada yada with some examples of powers and how to utilize thm...

 

[Henry]

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.

Actually, that's Tank, DPS, CC, and Buffer.

The concepts or party roles started with the beginnings of the game, but these are just the latest iterations for online RPG's, where the concept has been refined into an art form by millions of people hacking at it real-time.

 

[chitzk0i]

Also, I suspect (rather strongly!) that any character can be built in a way that moves it out of it's native role, too.

My theory is that the abilities you spend your actions to execute will be divided into two categories: inside and outside your role. I think that the maneuvers outside your role will be decent, but you'll get a greater return on your investment (so to speak) on the moves inside your role. For instance, one blog entry mentioned a cleric that actually spent actions on healing instead of relying on passive or triggered abilities. I think that that this cleric healed larger amounts as a result. Theoretically, the fighter will have some maneuvers that are very protection-oriented and will offer more protection than maneuvers a striker would get, for instance.

 

[Remathilis]

That is my theory as well. A fighter can be a striker, a paladin a leader, etc but they are suited to their default role and don't outshine a PC who is native to the role (aka the cleric can't outfight the fighter, but he can make a suitable substitute).

 

[Anthtriel]

My theory is that the abilities you spend your actions to execute will be divided into two categories: inside and outside your role. I think that the maneuvers outside your role will be decent, but you'll get a greater return on your investment (so to speak) on the moves inside your role. For instance, one blog entry mentioned a cleric that actually spent actions on healing instead of relying on passive or triggered abilities. I think that that this cleric healed larger amounts as a result. Theoretically, the fighter will have some maneuvers that are very protection-oriented and will offer more protection than maneuvers a striker would get, for instance.

I don't see where that belief comes from. Fighters could never heal, buff or control the battlefield, why should they now, when the roles are becoming more emphasized?

I'm sure fighters can play a little more defensive or a lot more offensive, and wizards will probably still get some legacy spells that fit into different roles. But I very much doubt that anyone can outdamage the Striker, outheal the Leader or outtank the Defender, no matter the build. Otherwise you risk another Codzilla.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm sure fighters can play a little more defensive or a lot more offensive, and wizards will probably still get some legacy spells that fit into different roles. But I very much doubt that anyone can outdamage the Striker, outheal the Leader or outtank the Defender, no matter the build. Otherwise you risk another Codzilla.

Agreed.

If you're projecting damage to a particular portion of the battlefield in order to take down a chosen target, then you're behaving as a striker. If you're stopping an enemy from getting past you to attack someone else, you're behaving as a defender.

Doesn't mean you'll have special abilities designed to make you better at those roles, if what you're really supposed to be is a leader. Its just something you chose to do. And the fact that you can choose to do that means the system will be at least as versatile as it is now.

 

[gothmaugCC]

Codzilla?

 

[Odysseus]

My theory is that roles are going to define hit dice, bab, and at will abilities.

 

[DarkWhite]

I'm not against the concept of roles per se. What I don't want to see is straightjacketing at the expense of versatility or a good character concept. While roles might help new players understand their character's purpose in the team, not everyone wants their [insert class here] to be pigeonholed into a [insert role here].

At first, the purpose of roles seem to identify a character's purpose in the team based on his class. However, that tends to break down when you throw multi-classing and prestige classes (or 4E equivalents of these concepts) into the mix. What function does role serve when you've multiclassed or branched out in an unforeseen direction?

Also, I like the idea of roles being attached to talent trees. That way, a class, could be built up to be a Striker, Defender, Controller or Leader depending on which talent tree he focuses on. Maybe not every class needs talent tree choices for each of the four roles, maybe they're only good at two or three roles, but at least there is some choice.

My theory is that roles are going to define hit dice, bab, and at will abilities.

Sounds like a good theory.