D&D 4E Directly from a quote- 8 classes in 4e! (well, now subject to much debate)

[Zaruthustran]

Classes, roles, and power sources

One of the Big Reveals from the saturday 4E seminar with Rob and James was what was meant by Power Sources. Remember how Power Sources was mentioned as one of the big tentpoles of 4E? Well, the power sources in the PHB are martial, arcane, and divine.

So you've got a class that fills the defender role. Is he a martial defender, or a divine defender, or an arcane defender?

Wrap your head around *that*. Pretty cool, huh?

So, I'm guessing that the Paladin is a divine defender. The Warlord sounds like a martial controller. The good ol' Fighter seems likely to be a martial striker or defender (perhaps able to fill both roles, depending on how you build him). Duskblade is surely an arcane striker.

I don't think each class will be limited to a single role. For example, perhaps a Paladin could choose to be a defender (aura of protection, shield abilities, lay on hands) or a striker (lots of smite evil, divine surges, summon warhorse).

Anyway, once the power source thing was explained as being related to classes and their abilities 4E got a whole lot more intriguing.

-z

 

[AllisterH]

And they say D&D isn't copying video games...I like the ideas for the roles above in theory but it seems cold and impersonal if not cookie cutter. It's like assembling a sports team that you have to fill positions for. Anyhoo, I hope Druids are removed, never liked 'em always caused headaches.

Hasn't this been true since 1E though? Even back then, when an adventure that wasn't set in a dungeon, came out that said between 4-6 players of level 5-7, the assumption was that you had at least 1 healer, 1 melee guy and 1 blaster. With positions 4-6 being filled by either support or more of the core 3.

If it was a dungeon, position 4 had to be filled by a thief of course with 5 and 6 being either support again or one of the core 4.

This isn't exactly a change other than redefining the role exactly.

 

[Zaruthustran]

It's like assembling a sports team that you have to fill positions for.

Yes, that's the idea. And it's a wonderful, wonderful idea to make "role" more easily identifiable. Makes it much easier to put a party together, much easier to start a game and play.

I mean, look at 3E. Classic party of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. When you sit down at a table all you have to do is announce your class, and everyone knows your role, right?

Nope. The Fighter took all the archery feats. He's not a frontline guy; he wants to be in the back. The Cleric is Evil and took spell focus feats and Augment Summoning; he doesn't want to be a source of healing. The Wizard is an Illusionist with barred Evocation and likes to go Invisible, fly, and sneak around--no fireballs from this guy. The rogue is a TWFighter with maxed Tumble and zero trap or lock skills who wants to dish out huge sneak attack damage with full attacks on flanked opponents.

In Living Greyhawk, when you enter your character's information on online mustering boards you don't even bother listing your classes. You just list your role: heavy infantry (mostly paladins, barbarians, clerics, and fighters), light infantry (mostly rogues, rangers, and monks), arcane/nuker (mostly warmages, wizards, sorcerers, and clerics), archer (mostly rangers, fighters, warlocks, sorcerers), or support (mostly druids, clerics, certain wizards).

Humans like having roles; it gives purpose and direction and is necessary for efficient teamwork. That's why corporations, militaries, and sports teams have positions and titles with specific expectations. Everyone's got a job to do, and kudos to 4E for making that job more clear to players.

-z

 

[Mortellan]

Good arguements all. In a pre-published adventure with those roles in mind as a guideline, I am all for it. However in a home-made campaign, you can have a make-up that is clunky and not tactically sound. People should be able to play what they like not forced into what role is left to fill. Many of my best campaigns have been all rogue or all mage. The tone of encounters is different but if not that forces you to roleplay out of those weaknesses.

 

[Remathilis]

It think the Key is that there are 4 roles and 3 power sources.

I think you're onto something here...

Lets say you have a group with a fighter (defender), ranger (striker) and wizard (controller). The group lacks a leader, but you're REALLY not in the mood for a cleric, you want to hit stuff. So take Warlord (who might fill a buffer/leader roll, but with a more martial/combat twist) and viola! you have all four rolls filled, but without someone "playing the cleric" so to speak.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Notice that Healing wasn't a core role.

Either all the "Leaders" have at least Dragon Shaman healing, or something very weird is happening.

 

[Mortellan]

Notice that Healing wasn't a core role.

Either all the "Leaders" have at least Dragon Shaman healing, or something very weird is happening.

Sounds like another convergent evolution.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Either all the "Leaders" have at least Dragon Shaman healing, or something very weird is happening.

Something very weird and potentially good. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved got it right by spreading around the healing magic. The game would really benefit by heading in this direction as well.

 

[JVisgaitis]

You guys must have watched a different video then I did. This is what was confirmed in the interview with James Wyatt:

Defender: Paladin, Fighter
Leader: Cleric, Warlord
Controller: Wizard
Striker: Rogue, Ranger

Every class will fit into these roles. I'm still not sure on the whole Warlord thing. The way they talked about it didn't really seem to confirm it for me, but this is how it is from that video on YouTube.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Good arguements all. In a pre-published adventure with those roles in mind as a guideline, I am all for it. However in a home-made campaign, you can have a make-up that is clunky and not tactically sound. People should be able to play what they like not forced into what role is left to fill. Many of my best campaigns have been all rogue or all mage. The tone of encounters is different but if not that forces you to roleplay out of those weaknesses.

Er, so how does 4E prevent that kind of play?