How is combat role different from weapon in hand?

[Li Shenron]

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.

My point is, D&D should remain a wholesome RPG experience, and it should not be downscaled to a mere combat game. It doesn't matter if previous D&D gamers have less time for gaming because they were students and now they're getting jobs and kids. Would you change the rules of your favourite sport so that the current professional players can keep playing while getting old, if that meant to affect everyone else?

D&D could always have been downscaled to combat only in your home games if you wanted to. Nobody ever forced every gaming group to have a story, interactions with NPC, or an exploration phase, just like on the other hand nobody forced anyone to have combats if they didn't want to. A well-balanced D&D offers ALL these to anyone who wants them in their games, but doesn't penalize too much (beside perhaps some characters ending up somewhat weaker than the others) a group that wants to focus on some aspects of the game and reduce/remove others. A D&D heavily shifted towards one aspect only does risk penalizing quite a large group of people... just check the results.

As a matter of fact, I have no time for gaming now, and had only little of it for the last few years. When I had it, it was always one-night only things, so we just played something completely different (MtG, board games...). I would have also played 4e combat-only sessions if they came up, but that's pretty much because when we tried it at the time it came out, that's what seemed to us the game was good for, but not much else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My point is, D&D should remain a wholesome RPG experience, and it should not be downscaled to a mere combat game. It doesn't matter if previous D&D gamers have less time for gaming because they were students and now they're getting jobs and kids. Would you change the rules of your favourite sport so that the current professional players can keep playing while getting old, if that meant to affect everyone else?

Um... wholesome? And, uh, no professional D&D players can keep playing 0 D&D forever. ???

And roles don't make the game combat-only, and ditching them won't make it less combat oriented (it's always been /very/ combat oriented). Adding no-combat roles would be a step in the right direction, though...

 

[Hussar]

I posted this in the other thread, but, it's germane here as well. Roles do not define your character. They are not proscriptive, simply descriptive. They tell you, in quick and dirty shorthand, that character class X will, by and large, do its best work in Y manner. Not that you are constrained to only that. Heck, with only the PHB, you can make a pretty decent striker or controller fighter. Warlocks have controller built right into them. Warlords can make decent defenders and not half bad controllers too.

Will a warlord be a better defender than a fighter? Nope. But, again, "not better than the best" is not the same as being useless. It's pretty easy through power selection to choose to broaden your repertoire and that doesn't require masses of books.

Heck, up until last September, my only 4e purchases were the core 3. And, yet, I was still able to branch out pretty well beyond the base presentation.

4e's primary problem is in presentation, not in substance.

 

[Hassassin]

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.

Why can't they just both play tanks?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Roles and classes should get a divorce.

Pre defined roles are restrictive. Actual combat roles can be very situational.

A fighting man can be a tank, artillery, commander, or whatever is needed.

Some roles can be important and yet are never addressed in the rules.

Fast guy: " What's my role in this?"

Party leader: " bait. "

 

[trancejeremy]

Why can't they just both play tanks?

Because they would both aggro the monsters?

At least that's why you can't do it in a MMORPG, guess it works the same in 4e...

 

[howandwhy99]

I like the OPs suggestion.

Missile weapons are for Controllers. These are ranged and could be small area of effect (single combatant) or larger AoEs.

Melee weapons are for Strikers. These are adjacent (or nearby based upon reach). AoEs could work the same.

Armor and shields are for Defenders. These block attacks on the person and many such individuals could form a wall. Fortifications would really be larger areas of armor.

Language speakers are Leaders. These are ranged by voice and can affect one or many similar language speakers. The benefits aid in coordinating actions.

All characters should, by default, be able to do any of these things. If players want their PCs to not do so, that's their prerogative.

 

[Hussar]

Why can't they just both play tanks?

They easily could. That would create a somewhat different group tactic than, say, tank+striker or tank+leader, but, there is absolutely no requirement to cover all the roles.

Thing is, with transparent roles, you know up front what you're getting. It also helps the other players to be able to work together since they have a quick and easy idea of what you are generally capable of in combat.

Because they would both aggro the monsters?

At least that's why you can't do it in a MMORPG, guess it works the same in 4e...

Oh please. Good grief, if you're going to start in with the MMO crap, at least try to get educated on the topic first. It really helps.