L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[Bobbum Man]

The idea that roles are restrictive isn't false. For some people, they are restrictive.

The idea that roles are mostly for beginners is actually Mearls saying something like, "We trust you, as a player of D&D, to make the character you feel is great. Beginners kind of need to know how to be great, but by the time you're a veteran, you know the system well enough that you don't need us to tell you that. So roles are advice, not mechanics."

I don't know that he mislead or used hyperbole or disparaged anybody's playstyle. No need to get up in arms!

I don't know about this. I think there should be mechanics for fulfilling certain rules.

What I would like to see is variable class features like:

Choose option (A) if you want to focus on bitchsmacking monsters for picking on your booknerd friend.

Choose option (B) if you want to focus on running around real fast and murdering enemies right in the face.

Choose option (C) if you want to make your friends better at kicking bad guys in the Carl Jonas.

Choose option (D) if you want to put enemies in submission holds, or kick their legs out from under them, or throw them into walls or into eachother until they cry.

Chooae option (D) if you want to sit in back and shoot arrows while listening to Belle & Sebastian and writing bad poetry about how girls never go for sensitive guys.

Roles don't have to be hard-coded into specific classes, but the rules supporting them should be there in some fashion.

 

[Tortoise]

"Playing your class how you want to" is a pretty short road to imbalance and poorly designed classes. Roles are a mechanical idea. Treating them as "advice" is silly.

I'm not sure why you would say that. Roles as they are in 4e were not part of the game until 4e. The game did well for decades without roles being boxed up neatly as mechanical functions, instead being more like advice. The game has always had shortcomings and I don't see a lack of mechanically based roles as one of them.

Maybe I'm not understanding your intended meaning, but the wording gives me the impression of a boardgame where the Knight can only do certain things and the Thief can only do certain things and there is no playing the character outside those strictures.

Please let me know if I'm not getting your point and clarify it for me.

 

[FireLance]

Illusionists and necromancers were broken? Wow, never heard that one before. I was always under the impression they were less optimal flavor builds. Do you mean some illusion spells were broken, or that players who restricted their spell list to contain mostly illusions were broken?

I don't know about broken, but some illusions (and charms) were quite open-ended and harder to adjudicate than spells that had simpler, more direct effects. For that reason alone, I can see why the designers might have chosen to leave them out of the first PH.

 

[Harlekin]

I don't know about this. I think there should be mechanics for fulfilling certain rules.

What I would like to see is variable class features like:

Choose option (A) if you want to on bitchsmacking monsters for picking on your booknerd friend.

Choose option (B) if you want to focus running around real fast and murdering enemies right in the face.

Choose option (C) if you want to make your friends better at kicking bad guys in the Carl Jonas.

Choose option (D) if you want to put enemies in submission holds, or kick their legs out from under them, or throw them into walls or into eachother until they cry.

Chooae option (D) if you want to sit in back and shoot arrows while listening to Belle & Sebastian and writing bad poetry about how girls never go for sensitive guys.

Roles don't have to be hard-coded into specific classes, but the rules supporting them should be there in some fashion.

And why would that be fundamentally different to having 5 classes, each with one role?

 

[Harlekin]

Im going to run to my 4th edition PHB to make sure I've read it! Actually wait, I've done this before. I own the 4e phb, I know that illusion spells were MUCH reduced (and forced only into utility powers choosable every few levels by a wizard). I don't remember anyone summoning undead in my 4e campaigns (I do remember the standard attack power with the label "necrotic" on it however. And as you say the druid summoners weren't introduced to much later. This was not true for the first book for either AD&D or 3e. Both previous systems allowed players a wide rand of choices like these from day 1. I think it is plain to see that the focus on combat and combat roles was a major factor in this change.

I'm not sure I can follow your logic. The 4ed PHB supported a lot of character concepts from day one, some of those were not in previous PHBs even though they were obvious archetypes (e.g. Warlords, Charisma-based rogues, Ranged Clerics). On the other hand, the PHB did not support some character concepts that were in previous PHBs.

I am not sure why that has anything to do with roles.

 

[Janaxstrus]

SO, from my reading....

It sounds like the CR type stuff is in (but feel free to ignore like always)
Wealth guidelines are in (but feel free to ignore)
Other charts for treasure, xp and encounters are in (but feel free to ignore)
Roles and their silly names will be removed/marginalized.

This is an awesome update. I approve completely.

 

[hanez]

I'm not sure I can follow your logic. The 4ed PHB supported a lot of character concepts from day one, some of those were not in previous PHBs even though they were obvious archetypes (e.g. Warlords, Charisma-based rogues, Ranged Clerics). On the other hand, the PHB did not support some character concepts that were in previous PHBs.

I am not sure why that has anything to do with roles.

Some types of options that were more combat centric were added while other options that provided problems or were not combat based were left out.

Illusions were a problem because a wizard that chose ONLY illusions might not be able to fulfill a combat role effectively. This is why illusions were relegated to only utility powers, chosen every few levels.

Necromantic and druid summoning presented a problem with regards to balance (in combat) of some players having multiple actions due to choices.

A comparison of the 3e PHB vs the 4e PHB will make it plain to see that powers and options that were problems to quantify in combat were either "siloed" away (as in utility spells) or relegated to a different subgame (as in rituals) or removed completely.

These changes are completely key to balancing each class in combat (a major goal in 4e). They used roles as a metric to achieve this goal. I personally believe achieving this goal is not worth the price of my wizard not being able to choose only illusion spells (and being worse in combat because of his choices).

 

[Harlekin]

A comparison of the 3e PHB vs the 4e PHB will make it plain to see that powers and options that were problems to quantify in combat were either "siloed" away (as in utility spells) or relegated to a different subgame (as in rituals) or removed completely.

Agreed. 4ed, even more than 3ed, made sure that every character could contribute in combat without being overpowering. I still don't understand what that has to do with roles.

 

[Bobbum Man]

And why would that be fundamentally different to having 5 classes, each with one role?

The difference is a practical one. Each one of these 5 hypothetical classes would require a page or two for a write up, whereas my way only requires a few short paragraphs on one page, thus freeing up space for maneuvers, or a Robear Berbil player race write up, or whatever.

Also, it packs more decision points into smaller packages, rather than spreading them too thinly, thus it saves on the: "Wahhhhh *sob* classes are too rigid and inflexible. How can I play the character I want with only 100 classes to choose from??? All Elven Swiftarrow Archers play the same now! I'm gonna complain on the internet and then cut myself in the dark *sob*". Psychology.

 

[KidSnide]

At the risk of stating the obvious, classes are for allowing players to play an archtype with a balanced and fun set of appropriate abilities. There are interesting arguments to be had about how broad/flexible classes should be and whether the archtypes overlap (e.g. paladins and melee-clerics), but that's what they are for.

Right - which just switches the question to "what do we mean by "archetype"?"

Is an archetype just an aesthetic, look-and-feel thing in the game world? Or does it have some role in resolution or capability of the characters in-game? Does it have any defined limits? Or is it just a seed of inspiration?

In and of itself, an archtype is a type of character in the gameworld. By itself, it doesn't have any "role in resolution or capability." That's the class. At the risk of defining on the fly, I'd say that the class is the game mechanic construct that enables an archtype in the game.

Of course, you can have archtypes without mechanical support, but D&D archtypes tend to be involved in the sort of conflict resolution where mechanical support lends to an entertaining game and a more satisfying narrative.

I don't think an archtype inherently has defined limits, but there are plenty of people who choose to define them. (Is a paladin inherently lawful good? Different people and different rules will give you different answers.)

-KS