Embracing your role

[Storminator]

I play a battle cleric of Kord. He's a dwarf with a greataxe. He's 3rd level.

I've been rushing forward and battering enemies with my greataxe, with marginal success. My AC is too low to be a defender, my damage is too low to be a striker, but I can sort of fake it. I could fake it well at 1st level, but even by 3rd level the differences between roles has become too pronounced for me to be truly effective.

So with the DM's permission, I fiddled with my PC. Changed a stat here and there, swapped a feat, changed some powers, etc. I didn't totally change the focus of the PC; he's still a battle cleric with an 18 STR and a greataxe. But I have more healing powers, better healing powers, and more buffs. I changed my strategy too. I no longer attack the guy I want dead, I attack the guy the rogue wants dead, to give him Righteous Brand. I'm more likely to spend a round without attacking.

And I'm a LOT more effective, and a lot less frustrated.

PS

 

[Shroomy]

My PC is pretty schizophrenic when it comes to character roles. I'm currently playing an eladrin artificer and while I'm nominally a leader (we now have a cleric in our group, so I don't have to focus on this as much), my power selection focuses on the classes's controller secondary role. It synergizes remarkably well since my burst powers either don't effect my allies or they give them various bonuses, so I can drop them just about anywhere I want. Since I'm using playtest materials and don't currently have any feats or PPs available for my class, I multi-classed into rogue at 1st level; I didn't take any power swap feats, but otherwise, my feat selection has focused on stuff that makes me more roguish (weapon focus [rapier], quick draw, nimble blade, etc.).

So basically, I'm a hybrid Leader-Controller-Striker and its working pretty well, though I realized early on that I would never be as good a striker as a straight up rogue (sneak attack damage only once per encounter) or a controller (no burst at-wills).

 

[Piratecat]

Man, I want to actually play.

It sounds like you handled it just right. I keep prodding my players to let me know if they need to do this, but I think thwey're happy at this point. The closest I get is that the ranger somewhat tries to embrace the leader role when it comes to healing. I'm hoping he chooses to multiclass.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hey, Piratecat - clearly you REALLY want to play!

 

[Plane Sailing]

BTW, I don't know if it makes you jealous, but having run it for 9 months I finally got to play it last weekend - and I prefer it as a player to as a DM.

- Although I still think it is a shame that you've pretty much got to stick to the narrow definition of a classes role - as Storminator found out, you can get quite heavily penalised if you don't hew to the designers vision (pun intended)

Cheers

 

[Irda Ranger]

Although I still think it is a shame that you've pretty much got to stick to the narrow definition of a classes role - as Storminator found out, you can get quite heavily penalised if you don't hew to the designers vision (pun intended)

Indeed. Your Combat Role is controlling.

This, by the way, is why I don't have pre-defined Skill Lists, love the Backgrounds from Dragon Magazine (which, combined with a "Choose Your Own Skill List" I think of as "Social Role" vis a vis the "Combat Role") and let PCs re-define the fluff part of their class mechanics to fit whatever theme they want. The classes as written are really just "Fighting Styles", not the sort-of-profession that terms like "Cleric", "Paladin" and "Ranger" suggest.

So, if a PC in my campaign were having Storminator's problem he could have taken Storminator's route, or he could have remade the character as a Fighter with the "Battle Cleric of Kord" Background and made him trained in Religion, Heal, etc. The character would have remained the same to the eyes of the other PCs (a Dwarven Battle Cleric of Kord); only the underlying mechanics would have shifted a bit.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

i have to say that so far the role thing is my least favorite aspect of 4e. Granted i've only got to play a couple times, but one of the best things about 3.x was the ablilty to push classes in unexpected ways. I love nothing more then finding ways to make a character work outside it's preconcieved program.

I have the fealing 4e makes it very hard to blend and blur the lines between the roles that seem to be shoved down our throats. I also never liked the idea that a group will be less then successful if certain classes/roles are left out. I really think it's more fun if everyone in the game can play the character they want without worrying about these things.

I think would be better if you could play a cleric that was viable in combat if that's what you want to do, or a fighter that can dabble in magic, or a rogue that can provide some healing and support. If that's what you feal like doing. Unfortunatly i don't think 4e's multi class feats really pull it off as well as they should.

On the upside it's a fairly minor problem over all. The more books come out the more interested i become in playing, and i've really liked the couple i've play so far. hopefully the rest of my group will come around someday.

 

[Kzach]

I love the roles. I think that with the plethora of classes that are coming out with PHB2 and eventually PHB3, and the whole concept of secondary roles, that there really is enough variety to satisfy most people's tastes.

I think the key thing, though, is to abandon the concepts you have of the archetypes that the names represent. I really don't feel like the paladin is a paladin, for instance, or that the ranger is a ranger. But I'm quite happy to ignore the names and that for me opens up a larger variety of mental imagery when it comes to the character's roles.

Now a paladin to me is a defender/leader. The paladin moniker is irrelevant.

 

[Shroomy]

I love the roles. I think that with the plethora of classes that are coming out with PHB2 and eventually PHB3, and the whole concept of secondary roles, that there really is enough variety to satisfy most people's tastes.

I think the key thing, though, is to abandon the concepts you have of the archetypes that the names represent. I really don't feel like the paladin is a paladin, for instance, or that the ranger is a ranger. But I'm quite happy to ignore the names and that for me opens up a larger variety of mental imagery when it comes to the character's roles.

Now a paladin to me is a defender/leader. The paladin moniker is irrelevant.

I agree. I'm technically an artificer, but I describe myself an arcane thief.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I love nothing more then finding ways to make a character work outside it's preconcieved program.

And I hated nothing more than having to build every damn PC to IEEE spec. I understand that this is a matter of personal preference (and well tread ground in the Edition Wars), but I am soooooo glad that the "Pimp My Fighter" "Game Within The RPG" is dead and buried. I'm a "Kill orcs and take their stuff" kind of guy (or defeat the Dragonarmies, whatever), and every minute I spend tweaking a Prestige Class is a minute not spent killing orcs. A minute I'll not get back, if you know what I mean.

But like I said, personal preference.

I have the fealing 4e makes it very hard to blend and blur the lines between the roles that seem to be shoved down our throughts.

To my ear that's a bit like saying I got A/C or power steering in my car "shoved down my throat." Not exactly. I pay extra for that! It's a feature, not a bug, that the roles are explicit in 4E when they were only implicit in previous editions.

I also never liked the idea that a group will be less then successful if certain classes/roles are left out.

This is true in every single Edition of D&D, bar none.

I really think it's more fun if everyone in the game can play the character they want without worrying about these things.

You can do this in every Edition of D&D, bar none.

Look, the only difference between 4E and previous editions here is that the "Roles" are in the open where everyone can see them. It's not like they weren't always there.

I think would be better if you could play a cleric that was viable in combat if that's what you want to do, or a fighter that can dabble in magic, or a rogue that can provide some healing and support. If that's what you feal like doing. Unfortunatly i don't think 4e's multi class feats really pull it off as well as they should.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the M/C Feats (many people share it), but the whole point of class design in 4E is to allow the PC to fulfill his role. And that's not a straight-jacket; it's a safety feature to prevent stupid decisions by the player which suddenly leave his PC a sup-optimal Swiss Army knife when his buddies were really counting on him to be, well, good at something.

On the upside it's a fairly minor problem over all. The more books come out the more interested i become in playing, and i've really liked the couple i've play so far. hopefully the rest of my group will come around someday.

Hopefully! The additional classes over time should address many of your concerns. Clark Peterson at Necromancer has even been toying with the idea of releasing a book of 4E "Multi-class Classes", where the name of the class is actually "Fighter-Thief." It would be a single, coherent class but producing the effect of playing a Fighter-Thief in previous editions of D&D.

I don't see that as necessary though. The only thing you really need to be a "Thief" in 4E is Trained in the Thievery Skill. The "Thief" class is just a Fighting Style used by harriers, swashbucklers and dirty boxers.