PC Roles (New Design and Development Article)

[hong]

Fair enough on all three counts, though isn't "lack of feats and standout abilities" exactly why the barbarian was considered a noob class?

+4 to Str and Con 1/encounter, and a class concept with an emphasis on laying out the smackdown, makes for a decent standout ability IME....

I know a lot of new players (who are going to turn into serious non-annoyance players, anyway) I've seen aren't worried about being the biggest bad-ass on the team, just getting the chance to learn the rules and play this cool game they discovered.

I'm not saying that newbies are always concerned with being the biggest badasses around. But you don't want to ease them into the game with a class that's unlikely to be much fun, either. For most newbies, "fun" generally means killing monsters and taking their stuff, so a class that lets them do that without distractions like healing the party, sneaking around, tactical maneuvering for advantage (flanking), or whatnot is ideal.

 

[TwoSix]

New PC roles article: "Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode. A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions. A certain amount of healing flows from the Leader classes even when they opt to focus on slaying their enemies directly."

According to the PC roles video, the Druid is just as good of a healer as the Cleric, making the Druid a leader, not a controller.

Druid (divine leader).
Bard (arcane leader).

But, there's still nothing to confirm either as being in PHB1.

We're still sitting on Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard for the four we know are in. I agree that they should put in two classes from each role.

Fighter (martial defender), Paladin (divine defender).
Cleric (divine leader), Warlord (martial leader).
Rogue (martial striker), Ranger (divine striker).
Wizard (arcane controller), ? (x controller).

However, I don't think that the other controller will be the Sorcerer as per the PC roles video, which stated that the Wizard's and Sorcerer's roles are different. Personally, I'm leaning for a Socerer that's an arcane striker, but, we still don't know.

That's still assuming that "nature" is kept as being a "divine" power source. With all the emphasis that's being on the power source concept, making a separation between divine and nature seems a good way to generate more familiar power sources.

It also frees the ranger from having to be the "divine striker." Maybe ranger will return to its 1E roots and become the "arcane striker." That would give an arcane striker and and arcane controller, so 2 arcane classes. Then the last class could be a divine or martial controller.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

According to the PC roles video, the Druid is just as good of a healer as the Cleric, making the Druid a leader, not a controller.

I doubt that healing is the sole ability that determines if a class fills a leader role or other role (or we'd be arguing that paladin and ranger are leaders, too). Per the article, they are providing support benefits of which healing is an option. So you could make the druid a leader role ... or just as effectively a controller or defender, assuming you started from the current 3.5 druid. It all depends on how you choose to focus the class.

Personally, based on the druid's current spell list and abilities, I'd opt for a controller character that has a backup leader ability (healing) -- but who knows where the R&D team will really go with the class.

 

[Frostmarrow]

What you're describing is the striker role: highly mobile and deadly against a single opponent at a time.

The controller is the one impacting the health and mobility of multiple foes on the battlefield, simultaneously.

The wizards have a Wizard Strike ability going on. It seems it can push people around on the battlefield. My guess Wizard Strike is an at will ability so that the wizard can control the battlefield. Of course the wizard will also need spells like grease, web, and blade barrier.

The monk could be a controller. He can throw opponents over his own head, he can whirlwind attack a bunch of mooks, he can push opponents or even latch on to large critters and do stuff to them.

What I'm saying is; I don't think controller is synonymous with artillery. I think its more like choreographer.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

A problem with the ranger has always been: how do you differentiate him from the fighter, barb and druid. In 3E the druid has shapeshifting and lots of spells, so that's not too hard. But a barb makes a handy lightly-armoured woodsman-warrior in a pinch, so a nonspellcasting ranger is likely to run into niche identification issues.

From the looks of these playtest previews, the ranger has completely taken over as the archer, leaving the fighter primarily in melee.

 

[Mercule]

Maybe ranger will return to its 1E roots and become the "arcane striker." That would give an arcane striker and and arcane controller, so 2 arcane classes.

That would be my preferrence, too, if the ranger retains spells. Of course I stirred the pot enough by suggesting that the ranger occupy the barbarian's slot that it wasn't worth mentioning. Given the choice, though, I'd rather see effective multiclassing rules and casting dropped entirely from the ranger's abilities.

Also, I thought I saw somewhere (maybe someone else's conjecture) that the sorcerer will fill the Arcane Striker slot, which still leaves the ranger as being double-booked.

 

[Szatany]

That would be my preferrence, too, if the ranger retains spells. Of course I stirred the pot enough by suggesting that the ranger occupy the barbarian's slot that it wasn't worth mentioning. Given the choice, though, I'd rather see effective multiclassing rules and casting dropped entirely from the ranger's abilities.

Also, I thought I saw somewhere (maybe someone else's conjecture) that the sorcerer will fill the Arcane Striker slot, which still leaves the ranger as being double-booked.

oooor, perhaps ranger will be martial striker and rogue will be arcane striker (what, look at 3e assassin and arcane trickster - it could happen).

 

[Masquerade]

oooor, perhaps ranger will be martial striker and rogue will be arcane striker (what, look at 3e assassin and arcane trickster - it could happen).

Wasn't rogue explicitly labeled as "Martial" somewhere?

 

[Mercule]

What I'm saying is; I don't think controller is synonymous with artillery. I think its more like choreographer.

Which, with the druid's ability to summon critters, her animal companion, and a heap of spells in the entangle and charm/hold grouping, makes her a prime candidate for the Divine Controller role.

My thoughts on a breakdown are as follows:

Martial Defender: Fighter
Martial Striker: Ranger, Rogue, [Barbarian]
Martial Leader: [Marshal], Warlord?
Martial Controller: [Knight], Warlord?
Divine Defender: Paladin
Divine Striker: Binder, [Favored Soul], [Druid], [Ranger]
Divine Leader: Cleric, [Druid]
Divine Controller: Druid
Arcane Defender: [Duskblade], [Hexblade], [Bard]
Arcane Striker: Sorcerer, Warlock, [Warmage]
Arcane Leader: Bard, [Beguiler]
Arcane Controller: Wizard, [Beguiler]

Classes in brackets aren't choices I'd advocate, but are options that either already exist or are rumored to be in certain roles. In general, lists are ordered in the what I consider the most desirable first. Druids were listed as possible Divine Strikers because of things like flame strike and shifting into a dire bear.

Looking at the list, there looks to be an overflow in the Martial Striker role and deficiencies in either the Martial Leader or Controller, Divine Striker, and Arcane Defender roles.

My biggest hope is that the "significant differences" between sorcerer and wizard in 4E are going to change sorcerer mechanic to the point where they look a lot like a warmage, beguiler, or dread necromancer and choose a tight focus and are a bit more combat/skill capable. That would allow them to fill almost any of the Arcane roles. Failing that, making them more warlock-like would be great.

I'm also assuming that the warlord class is an improved version of either the knight or marshal (maybe a combination).

 

[Szatany]

Wasn't rogue explicitly labeled as "Martial" somewhere?

d'oh completly forgot (smacks forehead). Pity I was warming up to this idea.