How is combat role different from weapon in hand?

[Li Shenron]

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.

Exactly... Wizard are the easiest example. If the game uses combat roles then they have to pick one (or two, same problem) for the Wizard, and force anyone wanting to play a different combat role to take another class with its own flavor baggage (e.g. Warlock's pact, Sorcerer's blood) that you may not want.

But also Fighters potentially have at least 3 of those roles (controller being more difficult to imagine, but possible). Clerics can cover all of them (e.g. using save-or-die spells can make you similar to a striker) and so can Druids between spells and wildshape. I would hate to be told that to make e.g. a striker-type Fighter I have to switch to Ranger and make it necessarily wilderness-based...

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

That's just loading too much on class name. If your wizard just blasts stuff, play a sorcerer, if your wizard does behind the scenes preparation and makes items, play an artificer.

Besides, at this point there are so many wizards it's silly. If you're not happy with the choice of evoker, wand of accuracy, illusionist, orb of imposition, enchanter, tome of readiness, pyromancer, tome of binding, nethermancer, orb of deception, necromancer, staff of defense, bladesinger, witch, or sha'ir, you're probably never going to be happy...

Also, while it may be handy for pick-up games, D&D is NOT mainly a game for pick-up games!

Depends on the the time you have available for it. There was period where I was just working too many hours to game regularly, a few cons a year was all I got. Today I have more free time, but I'm doing organized play, and while it's regular, it's also casual and you can have a different table every week.

These roles are for combat. D&D has combat, but is much more than combat.

Combat's always been the biggest part of the game, mechanically, but yes, non-combat (other than non-combat spells, of which we've always had more than we could ever use) is something that could use more development, and non-combat roles would be a great /addition/ to the existing roles.

The question is, should non-combat function be tightly coupled to the existing roles (theives disarm traps, theives are now strikers, therefor strikers must disarm traps), or should they be independent of them on a class-by-class or character-by-character basis?

If class-by-class, the 'grid' expands to another dimension, and the number of potential classes just explodes.

If character by character, you'd want something other than class that quickly pegs non-combat role. Maybe theme? Rogue is a class that fills the striker role. Theif is a theme that fills the scout/trap-disarmer role. They go together, but they don't have to. You could have a Rogue who fills the 'face' role, instead, with a different Theme or a Fighter with the Theif Theme who's just the biggest, thuggiest theif in the guild.

 

[Kynn]

Class and role should be separated, as they are in later 4e.

You can (now) play a ranger, and be either a striker or a controller.

You can (now) play a fighter, and be either a defender or a striker.

What's needed is more even versatility, so that you can play a wizard and fill any role, or play a rogue and fill any role, or play a cleric and fill any role, or be a fighter and fill any role.

(Those are the "common" classes -- the uncommons might be limited to only 2 or 3 roles.)

 

[Sunseeker]

Class and role should be separated, as they are in later 4e.

You can (now) play a ranger, and be either a striker or a controller.

You can (now) play a fighter, and be either a defender or a striker.

What's needed is more even versatility, so that you can play a wizard and fill any role, or play a rogue and fill any role, or play a cleric and fill any role, or be a fighter and fill any role.

(Those are the "common" classes -- the uncommons might be limited to only 2 or 3 roles.)

Provided they put a twist on it. I'd hate to see the defintion of "defenders" become: "heavy armor and high AC", while a high AC might be necessary for mathematical purposes, I'd like to see it achieved in ways others than "Super Protective Gear of Protection +5".

ie: rogues would defend by having a high reflex and the ability to force attacks to target it instead of their AC. Casters could summon minions to tank, ect... I'm all for versatility, but I also want uniqueness and flavor so that everyone doesn't feel like simply a horse of a different color.

 

[Hussar]

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.

As Tony Vargas mentioned, considering just how many wizards there are out there, if you can't find a class that fits your concept, you aren't trying hard enough.

I mean, even if you want to be a "Striker Fighter", why does it have to be ranger? Brutal Rogue works just as well and even has a number of defendery powers which covers the traditional tank stuff. Or, heck, barbarian for that matter.

Given that there are now what, 30+ base classes in the game, complaining that you are being "shoehorned" doesn't really wash.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Provided they put a twist on it. I'd hate to see the defintion of "defenders" become: "heavy armor and high AC", while a high AC might be necessary for mathematical purposes,

The Warden, Swordmage and new Berserker are light-armored defenders.

 

[Sunseeker]

The Warden, Swordmage and new Berserker are light-armored defenders.

At least in testing so far. I'll hold my breath until it comes out to see how it really works. I don't think it's impossible, but the idea of a defender has been very soundly built on the concept of "heavy armor and shield" for so long, I do worry about their ability to improve the traction on the tire without reinventing the wheel.

 

[Li Shenron]

That's just loading too much on class name. If your wizard just blasts stuff, play a sorcerer, if your wizard does behind the scenes preparation and makes items, play an artificer.

Besides, at this point there are so many wizards it's silly. If you're not happy with the choice of evoker, wand of accuracy, illusionist, orb of imposition, enchanter, tome of readiness, pyromancer, tome of binding, nethermancer, orb of deception, necromancer, staff of defense, bladesinger, witch, or sha'ir, you're probably never going to be happy...

As Tony Vargas mentioned, considering just how many wizards there are out there, if you can't find a class that fits your concept, you aren't trying hard enough.

...

Given that there are now what, 30+ base classes in the game, complaining that you are being "shoehorned" doesn't really wash.

You're describing a game that requires how many books, and how many years before they are available?

It's not that "I'm never going to be happy" with all those classes. In fact I would... but if the result of using combat roles is that I would have had to be unhappy until I had spent more money and time waiting for class number 27 to be printed, then I would just ignore the game in favor of another that has enough flexibility in the core. Which was exactly what I did by the way...

 

[Tony Vargas]

At least in testing so far. I'll hold my breath until it comes out to see how it really works. I don't think it's impossible, but the idea of a defender has been very soundly built on the concept of "heavy armor and shield" for so long, I do worry about their ability to improve the traction on the tire without reinventing the wheel.

No, I mean the existing Warden, Swordmage, and Berserker are light armored-defenders. It's been done. Heck, one of the Berserker builds wears /no/ armor.

Heck, I played a fairly effective 3.x fighter who generally stayed in medium armor. Though, in modern terms, he'd have been as close to a controller as a defender. :shrug:

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're describing a game that requires how many books, and how many years before they are available?

Well, in summer of 2008, you had an arcane controller and striker. Later that year you got the Swordmage, adding arcane defender. Then in spring 2009, the Bard, an arcane leader. So, 3 books, 9 months for arcane to cover all 4 roles. For Divine, 2 books, 9 months, with the introduction of the Avenger & Invoker in PH2.

Martial? ...nevermind....