I like Roles

[howandwhy99]

Class systems like D&D work better than non-class roleplaying because classes are what is meant by roles. The game should be different depending on what class/role you play.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I thought this would be intresting given the disscussion here. Be careful though! That site is addictive!

 

[justanobody]

So those are two reasons I like roles... What do you think?

I have been #2 and played what the party needed and didn't mind it one bit. For #1 I don't care really, I will find a way to use the character if for some reason I don't already have a plan in mind.

I think "roles" like defender, controller, etc are trash and should not be anything other than the active state you wish to be in when playing and should not be something built into a class to force it even more into some mold to play.

As the saying goes "one man's trash is another man's treasure", so seems you have found your treasure though... :clap:

 

[Aus_Snow]

Class systems like D&D work better than non-class roleplaying because classes are what is meant by roles. The game should be different depending on what class/role you play.

That just ain't objectively true, sorry. If you find it to be true, that's cool an' all. Many don't.

 

[delericho]

I also like roles. I'm not convinced they should be as rigid as in 4e, and I'm pretty sure I would prefer that they hadn't spelled them out so clearly in the rules text, but as a tool for building the classes, I'm definately in favour.

One of the weaknesses of the 3e PHB is that a lot of the classes don't get played very often, because they're just not very good, or work as the 'fifth man' in a party but not with a smaller number of PCs. This led to Bards, Monks, Sorcerers, Rangers and Druids never being used by my group, which was rather a waste. However, if you re-designed the Bard with the same 'leader' role as the Cleric, the Ranger with the same 'striker' role as the Rogue, and so on, it becomes clear how these classes should fit into the party, which other classes they can replace, and (if you get the balance right) they become viable options in the four-man party that the game assumes.

Oh, I also think that classes should probably have non-combat roles (traps guy, knowledge guy, and so on), and possibly social roles as well. (Or perhaps the latter should be modelled with either character backgrounds or background feats that work on a different axis to the class choice).

 

[Runestar]

One of the weaknesses of the 3e PHB is that a lot of the classes don't get played very often, because they're just not very good, or work as the 'fifth man' in a party but not with a smaller number of PCs.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. Who dictated that a party has to consist of the standard 4 roles - a fighter, rogue, healer and mage?

This party makeup works admirably when new players are trying to get a feel of the game, since they possess a reasonably wide spread of effective abilities amongst all of them, and so should be able to tackle a wide variety of challenges.

But it seems extremely stifling, both tactically and creatively. The classic 'Fighter tanks, rogue flanks, cleric heals, wizard blasts' is but one of many different ways in which a party can approach and fight (and frankly, I now find that makeup very unsatisfying and boring to play).

If a class was weak to begin with, then it wouldn't really matter if it had a clearly defined role or not, people will likely still not use it as there are probably superior alternatives.

Being a "5th wheel" will just mean that the party may have to be more creative in overcoming certain challenges (for example, if there is no dedicated healer in the party, then the role of healbot may have to fall on the rogue, who accomplishes this by UMD'ing wands of CLW/vigor), but it certainly shouldn't spell the end of your adventuring campaign.

You are right in that a lot of classes in 3e did not have clearly defined roles, such as psychic warriors, duskblades and druids. But to me, that is part of their allure. Their role is what I make of it. I get to decide how they are played, rather than it being hard-coded into their mechanics.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

*snip*

Roles serve to functions:
- To inform the player what the character class is about. No guessing, no mistake. Unfortunately, also no experimenting like "can I make my Rogue into a Leader"/"Healbot"/"Buffer"
- To ensure that the designers don't forget making a character capable of fulfilling a role, and to avoid classes covering more roles at the same time then other classes. A 3E Druid can cover multiple roles. Unfortunately, he can do so all the time, it's not like you can build him for one role, you can build him for multiple roles at the same time. A 3E Bard or Monk cannot cover any of the roles as well as other classes. A Bard can try to serve as a Leader. Unfortunately, the Cleric can achieve the same and is still more capable and survivable in melee combat then the Bard.

Maybe it is unfortunate that a Class also describes your roles, and you can't choose different ones with the same class. It takes away some of the "exploring" of the system. "Hey, if I take feat X and PrC Y, my Fighter will become a great Leader!"*
But maybe people just haven't learned yet how to go beyond their character class role, and it would actually be possible?

On the other hand - if you can take a class and do anything you want with it, why have classes in the first place? Shouldn't classes be designed to really define a "class" of characters? Or is it more a question of "what are my tools?" In that context, 4E power sources seem to take this job. Martial characters use weapons and skill, Arcane characters use spells, Divine characters use prayers.

[size]
*) but how often would this work well in play? 3E might be a bad example - you could trick out characters to take different kind of roles, but it was easy to also lock all your character building choices. You need 4 feats and 6 levels of a Prestige Class to get where you want. And if you didn't think of that at 1st level, you would only ever play a character of that role at level 15, while stumbling around in the meanwhile with a character with a lot of suboptimal abilities... But that might be an artifact of 3E. It could probably done differently...
[/size]

 

[GreatLemur]

Class systems like D&D work better than non-class roleplaying

That's kind of a difficult statement to defend, I think. Class systems certainly sell better than classless systems, but I think that has more to do with the potential player's ease in understanding available character archetypes. "Oooh, I can play a necromancer!" comes a lot quicker than "Oooh, I can take a bunch of necromancy powers!"

That said, I'm okay with classes and roles. I don't think they're part of my hypothetical "ideal" RPG system, but when they do come up, I find I can cope with them, and avoid player cookie-cutter characters. It's an oft-repeated truism that contraints spur creativity, and I think the Warlord I played as a scholarly military history geek at the last Chicago Gameday was a decent example of how that applies to character classes. I mean, I really like the character, in spite of the fact that his mechanical capabilities are barely distinguishable from any other D&D 4e character with the same race, class, and level.

I'd jump on a good classless hack of 4e in a heartbeat, though.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'd jump on a good classless hack of 4e in a heartbeat, though.

I would suggest doing so. 4E is mostly a game about fighters. It's dropped the spellcasting bit from previous for the most part. You can really only do that, if you are a Ritual-user. I said almost a year ago the game is more Magic Warriors and Battle Mages than swords & sorcery. Everyone is playing the same class essentially.

 

[fba827]

Roles are helpful tools that have been explicitly defined in the 4e ruleset. Since the tools are available, I use them. They make planning (on the PC side or Monster encounter side) easier to do at a glance.

Do I *love* roles? No.. or rather, I don't love the mentality that several players (that I've met -- I can't speak for everyone in the world) seem to have about roles -- their own mental image of the role becomes so narrow that they are appauled by anyone trying to dabble in another role since it is less focused than what the character role can excel at.

So the problem I have with roles isn't so much roles themselves but rather then mentality some players have that allows roles to dicate how some players view how other players should play their PCs.


Standard disclaimer: not talking about everyone in the world. Just stating my own personal opinion based on my own personal interactions/experiences.