How is combat role different from weapon in hand?

[Frostmarrow]

Sometimes I feel like we are complicating stuff more than necessary. How is combat role different from weapon in hand? Let's say we have the roles defender, striker, leader and controller it's pretty obvious to me that they can easily be substituted by weapons. If sword has a bonus to AC, dagger has a bonus to damage, holy symbol has a bonus to healing and orb has a bonus to area things quickly fall into place. Also, if role is in fact weapon it's easy to change role (when circumstances change). Why introduce a meta-game term to act as the same thing as an in game fact?

 

[mkill]

Because it's not that easy and meta-game terms are a good thing (tm).

 

[Ichneumon]

When you wield a whip, you've got all the roles covered.

You can mark them, you can strike out, you're the boss, and you've got everything under control.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It wasn't a blank space on an old character sheet?


Seriously, though, a role is just a vague grouping of classes that can make some of the same vital contributions to party success as eachother. A Warlord or Shaman can substitute for a Cleric, and your party won't face a TPK for lack or healing. A Warden or Paladin can stand in for a Fighter, and your rear line probably won't be over-run an killed. That kinda thing.

It's /very/ handy for pulling parties together, especially in pick-up games.

It's also nice for pulling a party together when players have specific concepts they don't want to compromise on. If two players both want to be 'mighty warriors,' for instance, they don't have to fight over the 'tank' role, because there are also martial striker and leader options.


The only problem I saw with roles was the execution (or perhaps conception) of the Controller role. The problem with the execution was that all the support or the role was built into exceptionally-potent class powers, rather than into features. The problem with the concept may well have been that that was the point (to grandfather in something like the wizard's - and Cleric's, now I think of it, as a 'secondary controller' - old very-potent spell list).

 

[Fede]

You must spread XPs around before giving to Tony Vargas again.
Well said!

 

[Minigiant]

It wasn't a blank space on an old character sheet?


Seriously, though, a role is just a vague grouping of classes that can make some of the same vital contributions to party success as eachother. A Warlord or Shaman can substitute for a Cleric, and your party won't face a TPK for lack or healing. A Warden or Paladin can stand in for a Fighter, and your rear line probably won't be over-run an killed. That kinda thing.

It's /very/ handy for pulling parties together, especially in pick-up games.

It's also nice for pulling a party together when players have specific concepts they don't want to compromise on. If two players both want to be 'mighty warriors,' for instance, they don't have to fight over the 'tank' role, because there are also martial striker and leader options.


The only problem I saw with roles was the execution (or perhaps conception) of the Controller role. The problem with the execution was that all the support or the role was built into exceptionally-potent class powers, rather than into features. The problem with the concept may well have been that that was the point (to grandfather in something like the wizard's - and Cleric's, now I think of it, as a 'secondary controller' - old very-potent spell list).

I agree a. Roles just let players, DMs, and even PCs know what each PCs is good at. This can be useful like the situations you mentioned.

As for the controller. If you look at the other roles, the designers didn't follow their own rules in 4e. The wizard's Orb or imposition should have be the Controller stick: lengthening effect.

Everyone could deal damage but the strike deal more and without additional sacrifices. Everyone could heal/buff themselves but leaders healed/buffed more and with fewer actions. Everyone could take damage and be a target but defenders cold take more and force themselves to be a target. Lengthening effects should have been the trademark of Controllers.


As for weapon in hand, maybe weapon styles would be better. Weapon and shield and reach weapons would be the staple of defensive characters. Damage dealers would opt for two weapons, two handed, bows, and rods. Healers hold holy symbols and totems. Wands, orbs, and staffs are for people who plan on halting foes in their tracks.

With the lower numbers that are predicted in 5e, a simple bonus here and there could make the difference.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's /very/ handy for pulling parties together, especially in pick-up games.

It's also nice for pulling a party together when players have specific concepts they don't want to compromise on. If two players both want to be 'mighty warriors,' for instance, they don't have to fight over the 'tank' role, because there are also martial striker and leader options.

That doesn't seem to be the case to me. If a designer has decided that the Wizard is a controller, then you have to heavily compromise on your concept of Wizard and have to be a controller.

Also, while it may be handy for pick-up games, D&D is NOT mainly a game for pick-up games! These roles are for combat. D&D has combat, but is much more than combat. Combat may be still on top of the list, but considering everything else you can do in a campaign, it's still the minority of the things to do. That's the problem that I keep hearing from several 4e gamers... that using these concepts as a reference for design, you end up with something closer to a miniature game or board game.

 

[Voadam]

Sometimes I feel like we are complicating stuff more than necessary. How is combat role different from weapon in hand? Let's say we have the roles defender, striker, leader and controller it's pretty obvious to me that they can easily be substituted by weapons. If sword has a bonus to AC, dagger has a bonus to damage, holy symbol has a bonus to healing and orb has a bonus to area things quickly fall into place. Also, if role is in fact weapon it's easy to change role (when circumstances change). Why introduce a meta-game term to act as the same thing as an in game fact?

Rangers and slayers and barbarians use swords yet are strikers.

Rangers use bows not magical orbs but can be controllers.

I don't want warlords to have to carry holy symbols, I like them with swords.

 

[Sunseeker]

Because it's not that simple.

How do you then fit in a paladin, who uses large weapons, shields and holy symbols all at the same time? What about holy casters?

I mean, this is probably the most terrible pigeon-holeing I've ever seen. Holy symbol? Healer. Greatsword? defender...what?

Sure, this works when there are 3-5 classes in the game who have no alternatives to their playstyle. More than that? Yeah, doesn't work out at all.

 

[Incenjucar]

That doesn't seem to be the case to me. If a designer has decided that the Wizard is a controller, then you have to heavily compromise on your concept of Wizard and have to be a controller.

Wizards have enough variety and power that anything that puts them in the same field as any other class is a compromise. In previous editions they could control, strike, tank, and defend all at once.