Dual nature of all classes - except Ranger and Rogue.

[Ruin Explorer]

Forked from: FR Preview-Sword Mage and Genasi

I think almost all the classes havea dual nature going on. They have a primary role which is the default and a secondary role they can exploit if they focus on it primarily.

So far we have,
Cleric - LEADER/Controller
Fighter - DEFENDER/Striker
Paladin - DEFENDER/Leader
Warlord - LEADER/Defender
Wizard - CONTROLLER/Striker
Warlock - STRIKER/Controller
Artificer - LEADER/Controller
Swordmage - DEFENDER/Controller

Ironically, both the rogue and the ranger are the only classes that I think have ONLY a primary role.

Yes, I called this a while ago on RPG.net, and it's noticeable that all the dual-natures are pretty obvious, too. It's also noticeable that the Ranger and Rogue don't have them, and to me, this seems like a pretty serious problem. Especially as the Fighter is arguably comparable in damage to the Rogue and Ranger, yet neither of them have anything to back up their "I do lots of damage" role.

Maybe they don't need it, or maybe it's an oversight, or maybe they have secondary roles I don't understand. If their "secondary role" is meant to be "skill-monkey", though, which is my sneaking suspicion, then colour me appalled.

 

[Minigiant]

The dual nature argument is flawed. Most classes are one role and have an aspect of two of the other role. But this aspect doesn't replace the missing role by itself.

Fighters aren't strikers. They deal better damage then most but lack the "I can disengage you and take out someone else without getting beat up" like rangers and rogues can. If a caster start blasting the group, fighters can't leave the brutes and solders to quickly kill it and return back the the front line without taking a bunch of hits and marks by the enemy front line. Melee rangers and rogues can practically ignore opportunity attacks and marks and the range ones are just out of range.

The same is for every other class.

Instead of a dual nature, each power source has a passive effect on the way it plays. Martial classes deal large amounts of damage. Divine classes can heal and deal radiant damage. Arcane classes have more AOE and debuffs than normal.

 

[amnuxoll]

Can't rogue and ranger be defenders?

:AMN:

 

[Wonka]

Artful dodger rogues can make excellent controllers. Not in a main capacity, but in a secondary role they can be quite powerful. Moving and sliding foes around into position can be masterful. Just one man's honest opinion.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Can't rogue and ranger be defenders?

:AMN:

I think 2 weap rangeer seconds in defending and the archer ranger doubles in control...rogue I don't know...

I think each class has a Primary role..and a bad role. Some classes have total kick but secondaries with little 3rd role covrage, others are two ok secondaries.

Cleric Awsome leader/ horrid striker
good second defend and control

Paliden Awsome defend/ Horrid control
Very nice leader and meh striker

Warlock Awsome Striker/ Horrid leader
Very nice controler and meh defender

Fighter Awsome Defender/ Horrid leader
good second control and strike

Warlord Awsome Leader/ Horrid controler
Very nice second defender and meh striker

I think this was done to not box people in. If you want a group were the Warlock is the defender and the cleric is the controler..it is doable..multi class feats make it easier, but even without a creative player set can do it...BUT it will be far from opptmized.
On the other hand in 2 person game a Warlock and a Paliden make a great team...Strong defender and striker powers with some control and leader backups...infact again I say it was done to allow exotic character types.

D&D has always had archtypes...and creative players breaking them down.

 

[Danceofmasks]

If standing in your foes' face with a silly high AC counts as 'defending,' then sure ... Rogues and Rangers can defend.
However, as far as single-target DPS goes, no one can match 'em, so meh to dual natures.

Frankly, though ... there's more to a class than the role.

Rogues can ... you know ... disable traps and stuff.
Rangers can ('cos you don't need to build for dex or wis) have the particular mix of steath/acrobatics/perception that makes them awesome scouts.

One crucial skill check could save hundreds of damage to the party, or the difference between success and failure of the mission.

 

[FadedC]

Hmm.....does the wizard really double as a striker? He doesn't seem like he does any more damage then any class without that designation. Unless your counting hits to multiple targets, but that seems more of a controller thing.

 

[Kzach]

If your fighter is equalling your ranger or rogue in damage, then your ranger or rogue is badly built and played by an incompetent player.

A halfling charismatic rogue at 1st-level should have an average damage output of 17.5 with a +10 to hit. An elven bow ranger should have an average damage output of 19 with a +6 to hit.

That versus a fighter maximised for carnage at an average of 12 damage at +6. Of course, if they're maximised for carnage, they're not really doing their job as a defender, so let's get realistic and add in a shield and longsword and that drops their damage average to 9.5 at +7 to hit.

How are they competing against the strikers again? Especially the rogue who is almost assured of hitting every round with such a high to hit bonus (the advantage of being melee over ranged). Not to mention has a much higher median damage output than any other class because of Sly Flourish and double-damage dice on Sneak Attack.

Sorry, just not seeing the problem. I'll happily continue to plink away with my new ranger in one game, and get stabbity with my halfling rogue in another, whilst I defend the entire party with my fighter in my third game.

 

[Jhaelen]

Looking over the list of secondary roles, I'm unsure about the fighter. What is it that reminds you of a striker?

When I first read the fighter powers I thought, several of them were actually controller-like. There are several exploits that can affect everyone in a close burst, isn't that typical for controllers?

 

[Revinor]

Controller is more about controlling monsters rather than just dealing dmg in area (so special effects over dmg). I think that rogue can fit the bill here.

Why do you think that warlord is secondary defender? Defenders are about stickiness, not AC and I don't see any in warlord.

Rest looks roughly ok to me. Indeed, ranger looks like a pure striker - which is probably right, as some analysis on the boards is showing it is a best striker out there dpr wise.