Description of class roles

[Greenfaun]

I mostly agree with Intrope, in that it's helpful to divide the roles into Offensive and Defensive to aid understanding, but I'm not sure they divide as well into the individual/area groups like he said. My personal concept goes a little more like this:

Defensive side

Defender: Spot defense. It may be standing toe-to-toe with one big monster and keeping it right where the wizard wants it, or standing in a bottleneck and making sure that none of the horde of goblins can get past (At least not without taking massive AoO punishment), but this role focuses on claiming a small portion of the battlemap and controlling what happens there. This necessarily includes being hard to kill or move, and also having ways of dealing with whatever comes into your territory, both in a direct "hack-into-little-pieces" way and things like slowing movement or discouraging ranged attacks.

Leader: Party defense and boosting. Making the party better is the name of the game, either by healing damage or curing conditions, or buffing and other improvements to effectiveness.

Offensive Side:

Striker: Individual Target Neutralizer. Taking one specific monster out of the game, either directly by killing it or by applying seriously impairing effects. This includes either ranged attacks or high mobility, to be able to put the smackdown on your choice of monster rather than whatever's nearby.

Controller: This has been well-covered. Whether attacking a single target or a group, it's all about denying options and reducing effectiveness. Moving opponents around the map, making areas harder to move through, or just spreading a lot of damage around.

In other words, while I agree that they are divided by Offensive/defensive function, I would arrange the "terrain-based vs individual-based" axis with Defenders and Controllers being terrain (or "battlespace")-based and Strikers and Leaders being individual-based.

A couple other things:

Everybody's going to do damage. Defenders and Leaders have both been mentioned in playtest reports doing big damage. I'm fairly certain party-roles are the things you do WHILE doing damage, not instead of.

I've been wondering about pet classes lately, though. Will they be Controllers or Leaders or will they have them at all? Right now I'm guessing that expendable summons, basically any creature you don't have to keep alive, will be controller territory, while more permanent animal companions will be for Leaders, who will then have one more party member to heal and buff. Just guessing, though.

 

[tensen]

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.

 

[Driddle]

The roles are Human Torch, Thing, Invisible Woman and Mr. Fantastic.

Seriously, though, I can't imagine playing a D&D campaign in which you're identified primarily by the role you serve in a combat unit. I seriously hope WotC avoids including those terms in their products.

 

[erisred]

To be honest, the terms defender, striker, controller and leader as roles are all new to me and I've been DMing/playing for 20 years.

It wasn't until my older brother started playing WoW that I heard the term "tank" for a meat-stick.

So I think unless you are familiar with MMORPGs, there's a chance you won't be familiar with any of these terms (like me).

Same here! I've been playing/DMing since '74 and those specific terms were new to me when all this 4e stuff started coming out.

I scratch me head over it, too. Take the "fighter"...well, most of them are melee types and calling them "tanks" or more appropriately "shield walls" makes sense, but what about the fighter that specializes in archery? What are they? Strikers? Take the "cleric"...sure they heal and "buff" (also a term that is relatively new to me), but I've seen (played) clerics that were as comfortable in the shield wall as any fighter. Wizards...we used to call them "artillery", because you called on them to drop the hammer down on the monsters from behind the lines. Rogues (or thieves depending on how old school you are)...they were scouts, sneaks, and ambushers (another term I saw in a playtest beside the four mentioned).

Leader? Wouldn't that be the PC that talks for the party out of battle...diplomacy, tact and all that sort of thing?

Shoot! In my day the roles were: shock, firepower, maneuver, artillery and medic.

Shock were the melee guys, Fighters and Clerics who were like a reserve force. Firepower came from Fighters who specilized in Archery, Elfs and later Rangers. Maneuver came from Thieves (rogues), Halflings and Fighters who specialized in "finesse". Artillery came from Magic-Users. The Medic role was played by Clerics while they weren't actually in the sheild wall.

 

[Dragon Snack]

...what about the fighter that specializes in archery? What are they?

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?

 

[Driddle]

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."

Oh, man. That sort of attitude really makes me dread this new iteration.
I might as well start playing Weary of Wastecraft.

 

[Kintara]

Oh, man. That sort of attitude really makes me dread this new iteration.
I might as well start playing Weary of Wastecraft.

Well, the Ranger might have the powers to handle the archery angle. If so, then multiclassing of some sort should work just fine (or just play a Ranger).

 

[mach1.9pants]

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?

To right, I want more options not less. If the fighter is now not a generic any form of combat guy: melee or ranged; then change his name (yay another poll!) to man-at-arms or something (arms being the original word for armour). If he is just capable of melee thumping to any degree of skill the fighter is dead!

 

[Kintara]

To right, I want more options not less. If the fighter is now not a generic any form of combat guy: melee or ranged; then change his name (yay another poll!) to man-at-arms or something (arms being the original word for armour). If he is just capable of melee thumping to any degree of skill the fighter is dead!

Well, the playtest character in the latest podcast (I think) likes to open up his fights with a thrown spear, so it's not as though a Fighter can't use ranged weapons. It's just that he'll have a lot of powers having to do with not dying and keeping enemies next to him. A little striker juice on that and you'll be dandy.

 

[mach1.9pants]

A little striker juice on that and you'll be dandy.

Ha ha I like it!
Oh I know that they'll use ranged weapons but a fighter should be able to specialise where he wants, melee or ranged. Not just specialising in melee, thats not fighter thats armiger or whatever! If I want to play an armoured archer ( they existed, look at any contemporary 100 years war illustrations, full plate and a fine yew longbow-mmm yes please!) in 4E ranger or fighter won't let me, as far as these tidbits let me see.