I like Roles

[Mallus]

Well, the Nazi albino giant ape did use the National Zoo to kidnap President Roosevelt...

Nice!

Coincidentally enough, the last session my group played also involved Nazis. My character, the aforementioned Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling (Joséirus) stabbed a flying Übermensch with the stolen Spear of Longinus during an aerial battle over 1944 Berlin.

edit: and now for something on-topic: I like roles. They're just a clarification of your character's role in combat. Nothing more. Even as an experienced player I find that helpful, especially given the all the changes to combat in 4e.

 

[Storminator]

Nice!

Coincidentally enough, the last session my group played also involved Nazis. My character, the aforementioned Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling (Joséirus) stabbed a flying Übermensch with the stolen Spear of Longinus during an aerial battle over 1944 Berlin.

My game is Golden Age, so about half our battles are with Nazis. Piratecat says "Nazis means never having to say you're sorry." In our last session the heroes hunted down and killed Ubermensch with the help of a secret serum developed by Overshadow in a dark future where the Nazis won.

In that issue, our heroes were transported to the future when the Groboter (portmanteau of a bad translation of Giant Robot into German...) self destructed at D-Day (and their brains were switched into each others' bodies, but I digress!). The Gunslinger, in Crimson Crusader's body, beat on Ubermensch with the giant statue of Ubermench in the Freedom City plaza.

Best. Campaign. Evar!

PS

 

[Remathilis]

Though I think here might also lie a weakness. 4E does not spell out the non-combat roles. I am not saying it has to lock a class into a non-combat role, but to make it explicit somehow that these roles exist and how they effect non-combat situations like dungeon exploration, social situations, wilderness travel, investigations, research (or plain knowledge)

A Wizard is a controller in battle, but outside he's typically a sage.
A Warlord is a leader in battle, but he might be a sage or the groups face outside.
A Ranger is a Striker in battle, but he's typically a guide or explorer outside of it.
A Rogue might be a Striker in battle, but he's typically a dungeon explorer/trap-guy in outside of combat.

Well, in my theoretical "class-less" but "role-focused" version of d20 Modern, this is exactly what I would want to do. Allowing people to mix their combat role with their non-combat role and make these explicit.

Even if you make the non-combat roles more explicit, this doesn't have to mean going outside the role is impossible or a bad idea (in fact, that is already true in case of combat roles, the most obvious example people multi-classing into classes with different roles). In 4E, it would be as easy as taking Skill Training (the very mechanic that already serves us to avoid the "secondary role" niche of classes.).

I think one interesting aspect of this is that I believe that many "old school" people that don't like the combat roles might like the idea of the non-combat roles more. Because these roles are mapped to typical dungeon exploration roles, and from what I gather, this is what people associate the most with "old school".

For the storytelling fraction, these non-combat roles would also be helpful, because they explain the focus of your character and allows to decide which character is critical in which aspect of the story.

So, (if I'm reading you right), the problem is that combat is highly structure and role-dependent but non-combat is very open and loosey-goosey?

I think the problem is two-fold. There are some who would love to see the combat roles relaxed (not all fighters need be defenders; they could be strikers or even leaders with the right power-choices) and there are some who would like the non-combat roles to be more tightly defined (though not necessarily class-dependent. Something akin to "I'm a Negotiator; I have training in diplomacy and insight and I have the 'Sense Motive' encounter power").

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, (if I'm reading you right), the problem is that combat is highly structure and role-dependent but non-combat is very open and loosey-goosey?

I think the problem is two-fold. There are some who would love to see the combat roles relaxed (not all fighters need be defenders; they could be strikers or even leaders with the right power-choices) and there are some who would like the non-combat roles to be more tightly defined (though not necessarily class-dependent. Something akin to "I'm a Negotiator; I have training in diplomacy and insight and I have the 'Sense Motive' encounter power").

I think it would be a more "consistent" design, so to speak. But I wouldn't mind being able to choose any combat/non-combat role I prefer with every class, and the class just determining the style.

There are many ways to skin a cat. (Though unlike classes and roles, I don't suggest skinning a cat )

 

[AllisterH]

I always assumed initally PrC were supposed to be organic in that the pre-requisits would be those that you naturally get ANYWAY. The archmage is perhaps the best example of this....

As an aside, are Nazis the greatest villains ever? What the hell would we do if we didn't have Nazis to beat up....

 

[yesnomu]

Like you said, it should, but in 3e, it doesn't work. When you consider feat-intensive options like whirlwind, 3-mountains or prestige classes like the archmage or loremaster, you are encouraged to start mapping out your character progression right from the beginning to end, so ensure that you can transition seamlessly from 1 level to the next.
...
My advice for new players would be to either take some time to carefully plan out what you want to play beforehand, or simply playing a more idiot-proof class which is more forgiving of play errors (eg: selecting a barb over a fighter, or a warmage over a sorceror). I certainly wouldn't expect them to just jump straight into the game with no idea of what to expect of their PCs. 3e is a game which ultimately rewards system mastery, after all.

Then that is a flaw of 3e. System mastery ought to be its own reward, a master player shouldn't also have characters leaps and bounds above a newbie who picks the options that look cool to them. (Some amount of better character-building is unavoidable, of course, but it ought to be minimized.)

To support the largest audience possible, games should be open and clear regarding ways to build and play an effective character. Things like races mentioning their synergistic classes (and vice versa), classes spelling out their critical stats, and, yes, which combat (and out-of-combat) roles they're best able to satisfy, are all ways the game is made easier to start playing.

I like Mustrum's suggestion that the out-of-combat roles of a party be named and given the same prominence in class descriptions, even if it's just considering skills and utility powers. Good idea for 5e?

 

[Runestar]

Then that is a flaw of 3e. System mastery ought to be its own reward, a master player shouldn't also have characters leaps and bounds above a newbie who picks the options that look cool to them. (Some amount of better character-building is unavoidable, of course, but it ought to be minimized.)

Perhaps you are right (and maybe my ambivalence in this matter stems from me having accepted system mastery as part and parcel of 3e after all these years). But if you want to to stick to 3e (for whatever reason), then there is really no running away from it.

The best solution I can come up (short of an entire overhaul of the 3e system) with is to encourage newer players to choose classes which require less planning on their part. If someone wants to play a caster, I as a DM might recommend that they try a warmage. Because they can spontaneously cast any spell they know (and they automatically know all spells on their list), the player does not have to agonize over what spells to prepare (for a wizard) or what spells to select (for a sorc). The only decisions you have to make are what feats to take every few levels, and there are no must-have feats for a warmage. So it is virtually impossible to screw him up (unless you gave him 10cha or something...). You can even spend all your feat slots on toughness and it would still be playable.

Plus, blasting as a role should resonate well with beginning players.

Then as they have a better grasp of the game and are more confident of the rules, they can then progress to more challenging classes, or take on more demanding roles.

I like Mustrum's suggestion that the out-of-combat roles of a party be named and given the same prominence in class descriptions, even if it's just considering skills and utility powers. Good idea for 5e?

How does 4e currently handle non-combat roles? I am not familiar with 4e at all, and so unable to comment.

 

[DandD]

Perhaps you are right (and maybe my ambivalence in this matter stems from me having accepted system mastery as part and parcel of 3e after all these years). But if you want to to stick to 3e (for whatever reason), then there is really no running away from it.

The best solution I can come up (short of an entire overhaul of the 3e system) with is to encourage newer players to choose classes which require less planning on their part. If someone wants to play a caster, I as a DM might recommend that they try a warmage. Because they can spontaneously cast any spell they know (and they automatically know all spells on their list), the player does not have to agonize over what spells to prepare (for a wizard) or what spells to select (for a sorc). The only decisions you have to make are what feats to take every few levels, and there are no must-have feats for a warmage. So it is virtually impossible to screw him up (unless you gave him 10cha or something...). You can even spend all your feat slots on toughness and it would still be playable.

Plus, blasting as a role should resonate well with beginning players.

Then as they have a better grasp of the game and are more confident of the rules, they can then progress to more challenging classes, or take on more demanding roles.



How does 4e currently handle non-combat roles? I am not familiar with 4e at all, and so unable to comment.

The same as every edition prior. Not at all. All they did was abolish skill-points, make everyone being half-way profiicient in skills by adding half your level to it (so your epic human fighter hero level 30 will at least have a +15 skill modifier to diplomacy, even if he's not really charismatic, nor learned to be a court politician, but at least he won't suck terribly), and let new skills be earned through feats. Feats aren't class-abilities like they are in 3rd edition (they're nice stuff, no must-have combinations anymore), so if one wants, the fighter can be the charismatic face and lock-picker of the party, while the wizard is trained in wilderness survival and the perceptive guy with one or two feats.
I think the skill-system is inspired, if not taken from Star Wars Sage edition.

So, instead of very valuable skill-points to be proficient outside your expected role, you spent not-so-valuable-but-still-nice feats (which you get every two levels, and one at first, eleventh and twenty-first) to learn the one or another thingy.

Also, 4th edition tried to have something like skill challenges, but in the end, it's only a bunch of skill rolls.

You either role-play it, roll-play it, or do a combination of both, just like before.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How does 4e currently handle non-combat roles? I am not familiar with 4e at all, and so unable to comment.

Not.

Or, to elaborate: They are not made explicit or discussed on. They are implied for some classes (those that have "pre-selected" skills like the Rogues Thievery or the Wizards Arcana), but that's it. It's my only notable gripe, everything else is just details. It's the point where I say another 2-6 months of R&D would have been good. Not required, but good.