I like Roles

[Aus_Snow]

In the end I guess what I'm saying is they didn't make the rules better, they made using the rules better.

Ah, okay. Sounds good. You certainly have me at a disadvantage there, as it so happens, as I haven't used the rules at all. Just read them, read about them, and occasionally discussed them on- and offline.

Thanks for clarifying that one. I think I pretty much get it now.

 

[Scribble]

I guess what I'm saying is that, to me, roles and classes are very difficult to seperate. It seems the role of the cleric is to heal, the role of the fighter is to take punishment and to some extent dish it out in close combat, etc. The role of the wizard used to be pretty catch-all but now seems to be either blaster (damage from a distance) or control...I forget now as I tend to blur which ones are D&D and which ones are the latest MMO.

They're different allthough related.

Roles define the overall idea of what the powers/abilities of a design will be.

Class defines the powers/abilities/flavor of the build overall.

I simply prefer character concepts and stories over roles. One of my Superheroe characters was a flying brick, a strong, invulnerable guy who could fly. He also had a sort of force field that could perform a number of nifty tricks. So what was his role? Tank? Air Support? Heck if I know. I was more concerned with his personalty, back story and the fact that he could do a lot of fun, cool stuff, some of which was less then obvious and predictable.

Sure you preffer classless character design games. D&D has always been a class based character design game though, and whether thats a good thing r not is again, kind of a different subject.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. I still don't buy your assertion that the minis focus comes from or is tied up in the roles themselves, as opposed to being an overall focus of 4E.

Well, my assertion is more specific than that: it is that the roles have a strong minis-combat component to them. This does tie them into it to a certain extent, but that extent is variable.

It is also entirely possible that the minis focus can be a concern both of 4e in general, and of the roles.

2. Defenders are all about marking. Defenders are the only class that can assert their own mark at will. While marking is new to 4E, it doesn't in and of itself require minis. You can add Combat Challenge, Divine Challenge, and Swordmage Aegis to AD&D Fighters, Paladins, and Fighter/Mages and they will all work seamlessly with or without minis. Defense is the other half of marking because if you are going to encourage things to hit you, you need to be able to survive doing so or you suck at life.

I disagree that "defenders are all about marking." I think that would be saying "strikers are all about sneak attack." The latter is a subset of the former, but it's not a necessary requirement for the former.

In other words, you can have a 4e defender who doesn't mark, in the same way you can have a 4e striker that doesn't have sneak attacks, or a 4e leader that doesn't have healer's lore. There are many ways to accomplish that same goal. Marking is certainly one of them, but marking isn't the goal.

Part of what a 4e Defender is about, though, is limiting the movement of its enemies. Attacks of opportunity, the aegis, the divine challenge -- all have a component of motion to them (the aegis perhaps most expressly).

3. 4E itself is all about moving pieces of plastic. The roles are simply a reflection of this. They are not the source.

I don't think I said they were the source. I did say they had this component. It makes sense that they have this component, since, as you say, 4e is all about it.

5. Defenders have always existed. They have existed in that they attempted to do what 4E Defenders did, and weren't as effective at it because they lacked the marks.

In 4e, Defender means something more specific than "guy with high AC." In earlier editions, the fighter was more specific than "guy with high AC," and filled some different roles in the "first one to 0 looses" combat system, as well as in the dungeon exploration portion of the game.

It's over-simplifying things, and ignoring what other fighters were actually designed to do (which wasn't just "provoke attacks." Though 4e defenders, in part, do this).

6. While the 1E Fighter didn't have the tools the 4E Fighter does, he attempts to achieve the same end.

That's really the core of our disagreement. I don't think so. I don't think so at all.

The 4e fighter is a minis combat class. It does things in minis combat. It revolves around minis combat. It focuses on minis combat. It does virtually nothing not related to minis combat (some skills, I guess?). It revolves around each individual combat (encounter powers, for instance). It exists in order to facilitate minis combat. In 4e, your fighter is supposed to stop you from being hurt by your enemies in minis combat.

The 1e fighter is a dungeon exploration class. It does things for dungeon exploration (mostly, fighting). It focuses on dungeon exploration. The reason it exists is for dungeon exploration. In 1e, your fighter is supposed to be the first one into the dungeon and the last one out. That's it's function -- to survive and be consistent.

Rather than seeing the 1e fighter as poorly designed, I see it as designed for a totally different goal. It wasn't designed to give a balanced combat option. It was designed to give you an interesting dungeon exploration option.

 

[The Little Raven]

Part of what a 4e Defender is about, though, is limiting the movement of its enemies.

I disagree. Fighters are about limiting movement, but not all defenders do the same. Defenders, in general, are about limiting attacks on their allies, whether through control of movement (fighters; can't attack my ally if you can't get to him), damage mitigation (swordmage; attacks on my ally are no good if most of the damage is prevented), or retributive damage (paladin; attacks on my ally will cause you to die faster).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Defenders, in general, are about limiting attacks on their allies, whether through control of movement (fighters; can't attack my ally if you can't get to him), damage mitigation (swordmage; attacks on my ally are no good if most of the damage is prevented), or retributive damage (paladin; attacks on my ally will cause you to die faster).

All of these classes also mix it up in melee, because the most effective way to prevent attacks on your allies is to be in melee with the creature when your allies aren't.

That's a minis component to the role. Defending by positioning. It's important to the role (every Defender is good at it and encouraged to do it).

 

[Aus_Snow]

That's a minis component to the role. Defending by positioning. It's important to the role (every Defender is good at it and encouraged to do it).

Hm. Did I miss an explanation of how there is any kind of 'minis component' built into the roles? If so, could you please point me to it? If not, would you mind explaining it to me?

For example, I'm having trouble understanding how 'defending by positioning' is necessarily anything to do with minis, or why it must be. Or something along those lines.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

All of these classes also mix it up in melee, because the most effective way to prevent attacks on your allies is to be in melee with the creature when your allies aren't.

That's a minis component to the role. Defending by positioning. It's important to the role (every Defender is good at it and encouraged to do it).

And what you say above is exactly what Fighters did in previous editions. Also, your statement above is true with or without minis. Just because you don't use minis doesn't remove positioning from the game.

 

[Negflar2099]

The way they designed 4E I think it would have been much cooler if you were able to build your character out of at-will abilities, hit dice and the like, essentially creating your own custom class. Every time I look at the game it just reads that way, like their is a better system inside this one that we're not seeing. Its like, I want to know the system the creators of 4E used to balance out the classes and use that to play D&D.

No offense but personally this would give me a headache both as a PC and especially as a DM. Take my personal example. I was running a game of 4 players in 4e and a fifth player wanted to join. Under the system you propose I would have to go into great detail with that person as to what kind of character he wants to play trying to be sure to remind him that he can't play this or that because it's too similar to an existing character. If he wanted to make a medic type character and we already had a doctor I would have to caution him to change his concept. Then I would have to run his character through a session or two with the other players to see how adding him will change my game. I would have no idea what impact he will have on the game until his concept is cemented in and it's too late to change it (at least in a way that is satisfactory to both him and I).

Instead under the 4e system I tell him which role we needed and he decides which class and race he wants that fits into that role. No muss and no fuss.

Bottom line is every character in every role playing game ever fits into some sort of role. It's just another way of saying everybody has a purpose. Maybe your character is the thief, or maybe he's the computer hacker (in a modern game) or maybe he's the long distance sniper, or the spy, or the alchemy guy, or the healer, or the party leader, or the party spokesperson. But no matter what your character fulfills a role in the party or they don't have a purpose and if that's the case then your character isn't bringing anything to the table and why are you playing him?

The roles are already there. All 4e did was accept they were part of the game and designed around it. That's all.

 

[Remathilis]

All of these classes also mix it up in melee, because the most effective way to prevent attacks on your allies is to be in melee with the creature when your allies aren't.

That's a minis component to the role. Defending by positioning. It's important to the role (every Defender is good at it and encouraged to do it).

Seriously, how is that any different than 3e?

I recall many a game where the fighter was up front with his greatsword power-attacking, the cleric next to him in melee (when not healing or summoning the Wrath of God), the wizard a county mile behind them both taking advantage of arcane reach magic, and the rogue sneaking around to get into flank+sneak attack.

What's really changed? Rogues are still setting up for SA's with flanking, stealth and tumbling, wizards still hang back and harass foes, clerics still swap between healer and second fighter, and the fighter is still up front keeping monsters from crushing the wizard and rogue, except now they have something (marking) mechanical to aid them.

Sure, 4e's powers describe things in dry mini-friendly terms like "slide one square" or "area burst 1" but in the end they just fall back into the classic roles. The difference? Clerics can't overbuff themselves into better fighters, the rogue can hit better, wizards aren't fight-enders and fighters primary role isn't maximum damage, its maximum survival.

Say waht you will about 4e combat, but the role's dichotomy didn't change much.

 

[T. Foster]

I haven't played 4E, have only briefly skimmed the initial 3 core books and haven't seen anything that's come out since, so I may be completely off-base, but what turns me off about the Roles in 4E is that they all seem to be group-dependant: Defenders' job is to protect the Strikers and Controllers long enough for them to do their jobs, while Leaders help everyone do their job better. But are any of these roles self-sufficient? If a Defender doesn't have Strikers, Controllers, and Leaders backing him up will he be able to deal out sufficient damage to drop the bad guys before they eventually overwhelm his defenses? Are Strikers and Controllers too fragile to survive without Defenders to defend them and Leaders to buff them? And is a Leader able to do much of anything without anyone to lead? I want to play a character with the offensive hitting-power of a Striker but who's sturdy enough to stand in the front-line -- not for the sake of protecting others (like a Defender), but just enough that I don't need to worry about anyone defending me. Is there room for such a character (the barbarian perhaps?) or would that be considered "broken" because it doesn't fit the group-interdependancy paradigm? Am I a selfish bastard for wanting a character that can survive and thrive on his own and isn't dependant on 3 other guys?