I like Roles

[thecasualoblivion]

This is conflating character niche with 4e's concept of combat roles. Party spokesman is not a 4e role.

Oddball classes might not fit into the 4 4e combat niches but have a strongly themed character/party role. A bard as the party's face man is a great example even if he did not fill a combat role well.

I would also say there is plenty of room in RPGs for characters to just be there to experience the adventure without having a niche role. Just roleplaying a normal type person going through an adventure is fine and can be seen in other games such as Call of Cthulhu or World of Darkness.

Plenty of room in RPGs, but that isn't really a D&D thing. As for the Bard, the 4E Bard is still the god of diplomacy, and for that matter skills in general. He just fulfills a combat role well.

 

[Voadam]

For the most part I really like 4e roles, particularly the monster ones. Brute and soldier are great classifications for different combat flow dynamics.

For the PC ones I see the roles as styles for engaging in combat.

I love striker as a role. High damage less durability, very clear.

Leader is ok as a role. Healing and buffs, decent durability minor offense. They have enough to be in the thick of things while doing their schtic. If it was just healing and buffs I think it would be less fun as you could end up huddling with the wizard in the back and your powers would only help others and not do things yourself.

Controller I'm a little iffy on the definition but it seems to be ranged area of effects and terrain control with the most squishiness vulnerability.

Defender is high durability decent offense.

The part that seems wierd for me is saying the defender's job is to protect others by drawing bad guys to him and not in killing things dead like strikers do. Heavy armor warriors are supposed to be heavy hitters IMO. I'm fine with strikers being better at dealing damage but I think of full plate warhammeresque art archetypes wielding oversized weapons and being effective in their own right, not just in pinning down foes until the scouts come over.

I've never thought of the fighter's job as being the blocker for the squishy PCs, his job was to go fight and kill things. The squishy players hid behind the frontline PCs so the effect was there, but the fighter is a soldier, his job is to go out and kill things. The paladin was to go out and smite evil, not delay it.

 

[Voadam]

With slight name changes, this applies to earlier editions.

[Fighter]s' job is to protect the [Rogue]s and [Magic-User]s long enough for them to do their jobs, while [Cleric]s help everyone do their job better.

Different jobs.

In 4e the rogue's job is to deal lots of damage. In 2e and older editions his job was to find traps and be a sneaky scoundrel.

In older editions the fighter protected the others by being front line and killing the monsters the party faced. In 4e he does it by being in the front line, marking his foes so they won't get past him and by being decent at attacking.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

For the most part I really like 4e roles, particularly the monster ones. Brute and soldier are great classifications for different combat flow dynamics.

For the PC ones I see the roles as styles for engaging in combat.

I love striker as a role. High damage less durability, very clear.

Leader is ok as a role. Healing and buffs, decent durability minor offense. They have enough to be in the thick of things while doing their schtic. If it was just healing and buffs I think it would be less fun as you could end up huddling with the wizard in the back and your powers would only help others and not do things yourself.

Controller I'm a little iffy on the definition but it seems to be ranged area of effects and terrain control with the most squishiness vulnerability.

Defender is high durability decent offense.

The part that seems wierd for me is saying the defender's job is to protect others by drawing bad guys to him and not in killing things dead like strikers do. Heavy armor warriors are supposed to be heavy hitters IMO. I'm fine with strikers being better at dealing damage but I think of full plate warhammeresque art archetypes wielding oversized weapons and being effective in their own right, not just in pinning down foes until the scouts come over.

I've never thought of the fighter's job as being the blocker for the squishy PCs, his job was to go fight and kill things. The squishy players hid behind the frontline PCs so the effect was there, but the fighter is a soldier, his job is to go out and kill things. The paladin was to go out and smite evil, not delay it.

With Martial Power and some optimization, the Fighter can deal damage like the Ranger can. I kid you not.

 

[Voadam]

Plenty of room in RPGs, but that isn't really a D&D thing.

I'd say there is a ton of history of D&D characters who were not combat role specialists but mostly there to experience the adventure. I couldn't tell you what combat role the halfling race/class out of basic D&D filled but they were decent enough at surviving an adventure. Thieves had backstab and short bows. Spellcaster role would vary depending on what spells they prepared. Front line fighters aren't really tankish defenders if they don't have heavy armor or they choose to be archers. Monks were mobile and in 3e good at mage killing and surviving most everything but that's tough to categorize into a 4e combat role.

I've seen plenty of times where people felt free to experiment with interesting classes and multiclass combos that did not fit the roles or filled them sub parly or played their characters in ways that did not slot into 4e combat roles.

D&D IME can often be more along the lines of 6 guys fighting evil in an adventure than a team of 2 strikers, a leader, 2 defenders, and a controller fighting evil in an adventure.

Having someone in a party who can heal was usually the big issue but lots of classes could use cure light wound wands in 3e so this alleviated a lot of need for a cleric.

 

[T. Foster]

The part that seems wierd for me is saying the defender's job is to protect others by drawing bad guys to him and not in killing things dead like strikers do. Heavy armor warriors are supposed to be heavy hitters IMO. I'm fine with strikers being better at dealing damage but I think of full plate warhammeresque art archetypes wielding oversized weapons and being effective in their own right, not just in pinning down foes until the scouts come over.

I've never thought of the fighter's job as being the blocker for the squishy PCs, his job was to go fight and kill things. The squishy players hid behind the frontline PCs so the effect was there, but the fighter is a soldier, his job is to go out and kill things. The paladin was to go out and smite evil, not delay it.

That's the same disconnect I'm having (though apparently at least in my case it's because I don't understand what D&D is about and am out to wreck everyone else's fun ). In the classic D&D paradigm the character that's durable but only has so-so offense is the cleric -- best armor, best saves, good hp, but middling melee and weak missile weapons -- whereas the fighter excelled at both defense and offense. The idea wasn't (at least the way we played) that the fighter held the monsters at bay until the mages and/or thieves could finish them off, it was that fighters fought and killed things and the mage and thief either stayed out of the way* or (if the opportunity arose) used their abilities to circumvent the fight, thus preserving the fighter's ability to fight and kill the next thing. That 4E seems to have decoupled offense and defense in order to encourage teamwork and make sure everybody has a niche to fill in every fight is a big turnoff for me.

*note, as other have already mentioned, that in earlier editions (by which I don't mean 3.5, but rather OD&D, 1E, Classic, and (presumably) 2E) character roles weren't defined entirely in reference to performance in combat -- combat wasn't the central focus of the game and (at least the way we played) only took up about 1/4 of the total playing time (the other 3/4 divided more or less evenly between exploration, problem-solving, and avoiding combat (via stealth/trickery, negotiation, or evasion)), so the fact that one class was dominant in combat didn't invalidate the other classes, because they had more opportunities to shine outside of combat.

 

[Voadam]

With Martial Power and some optimization, the Fighter can deal damage like the Ranger can. I kid you not.

I'll take your word for it.

If so this is striker role stuff then and contrary to the concept of the defender role correct? This pushes a fighter from a straight defender role to a defender plus half the striker concept (lacking the mobility and balancing vulnerability of the striker role).

For filling a party niche a fighter could then take the place of a melee striker role and do fairly well.

 

[Scribble]

Different jobs.

In 4e the rogue's job is to deal lots of damage. In 2e and older editions his job was to find traps and be a sneaky scoundrel.

But also do lots of extra damage by being sneaky. Back stab was always a bonus.

4e rogue also finds traps and does sneaky things... Thus thievery and stealth as trained skills.

In older editions the fighter protected the others by being front line and killing the monsters the party faced. In 4e he does it by being in the front line, marking his foes so they won't get past him and by being decent at attacking.

Yes he has extra options that allow him to be the one that holds the front lines.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'll take your word for it.

If so this is striker role stuff then and contrary to the concept of the defender role correct? This pushes a fighter from a straight defender role to a defender plus half the striker concept (lacking the mobility and balancing vulnerability of the striker role).

For filling a party niche a fighter could then take the place of a melee striker role and do fairly well.

This is a 16th level Tiefling Fighter(Tempest/Kensei) I just built(using 26 pt buy)

Str20, Con15, Dex20, Int11, Wis11, Cha16

AC34, Fort29, Ref28, Will25

120 HP, 60 bloodied, 30 surge, 13 surges

Attack +22 w/ Double Sword
Base damage 1d8+18

At Will--Dual Strike(2 attacks for 1d8+13), Footwork Lure

Encounter--Advance Lunge(2d8+23 w/ combat advantage), Come and Get it(1d8+18 vs close burst 1), Masterstroke(2d8+18, +24 to hit), and Storm of Blows(3 attacks, 1d8+23 each), Infernal Wrath(+1 attack, 3+13 Fire damage, applied to every attack until enemy is no longer marked)

Daily--Rain of Steel(stance, enemies starting adjacent to me take 1d8+13), Quicksilver Stance(stance, I can shift 2 and basic attack for 1d8+18 as a move action), Shift the Battlefield(2d8+18 to close burst 1 and shift them 1 square)

...and this is before adding Iron Armbands of Power and a Reckless/Bloodclaw weapon. With those add +12 damage to every hit.

My Elven Fullblade Pit Fighter of DOOOOM is going to be even worse.

What Ranger?

 

[Voadam]

But also do lots of extra damage by being sneaky. Back stab was always a bonus.

4e rogue also finds traps and does sneaky things... Thus thievery and stealth as trained skills.

2e and prior thieves were not designed to be combat balanced with fighters, their backstab was not designed for every round general melee flanking IIRC but for sneaky surprise such as taking out lone guards in one shot when scouting stealthily or making a spectacular first blow when leading off an ambush. IME thieves did not get off backstabs the way 3e+ rogues do in general party combats. Usually thieves were reduced to fighting with short bows, thrown daggers or short swords and were considered squishy and not particularly threatening in general combat.

In contrast in 4e they are strikers and though still considered a little squishy they are particularly threatening in combat.

Also finding and disabling traps was not generally an in combat activity in prior editions the way the 4e DMG encourages it to be in 4e combats.