PC Roles (New Design and Development Article)

[BryonD]

I like the terminology of "Leader" rather than "Support". Sounds a lot more pro-active!

That is a really good point. Just setting the perception can influence the character.

 

[el-remmen]

Very true, IMO. The fighter went from being the simplest class, to the maybe second or third-most complicated class to play. The optimal newbie choice used to be "Human Fighter". In 3E it became "half-orc barbarian."

What's so complicated about fighters?

 

[Li Shenron]

Fighter (martial defender)
Cleric (divine leader)
Wizard (arcane controller)
Rogue (martial striker)
Paladin (divine defender)
Warlord (martial leader)
Druid (divine controller)
Ranger (divine striker)

This is a selection for the first PHB that would satisfy me very much, although I would be glad to see the Druid and Ranger move away from being "divine" and become something separate from deities, just "nature"-powered.

But... this new 4e paradigma of characters role it starting to bother me a bit. Good idea in principle, but now the consequences are that we are already trying to shoehorn the PHB into serving the paradigma rather than just making the paradigma useful to the game.

For instance, the Wizard is the best candidate of the 3e class to be a "controller", however depending on spell selection a pre-4e Wizard can work very well as a striker, or as a leader (harder to think of it as a defender). Except that now if the mantra is "wizards are controllers, period", does it mean they're going to take some old spells away from the wizard if they look too striker-like? :\

It's ok if a class gets some attention to work better at its staple role, but I definitely want to be able to build both defender fighters and striker fighters for example...

 

[Rechan]

I personally would prefer the Ranger not be a divine anything.

 

[Mercule]

It's ok if a class gets some attention to work better at its staple role, but I definitely want to be able to build both defender fighters and striker fighters for example...

Absolutely. My interest in this is to make sure that each niche has someone who could fill it. I don't want to shoe-horn any class, just make sure there is sufficient variety of options.

What I was saying about sorcerers maybe becoming more of a customizable warmage/beguiler class fits nicely with that mode of thought. As does the possibility that a warlord could branch into either controller or leader roles.

One thing that I think I've gathered is that you'll be able to build a real swashbuckler directly from the fighter base (by making becoming "trained" in a couple extra skills). I'm quite excited and pleased by that possibility and I'd definitely throw swashbuckler under the striker role -- at least as much as ranger or rogue.

The different builds of Druid that I mentioned would also allow for some breadth.

 

[hong]

What's so complicated about fighters?

Feat choice. Fighters are complicated to build, without gimping yourself.

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer D&D to be a game of hard choices.

Attack the monster and hope to finish it or stop and heal a companion who needs it? It is these kinds of choices that make the games exciting for me.

I am not down with the "you can do two things at once" (except for some occasional exceptions at higher levels with spells or feats at the end of chains) thing.

I don't too see the problem with cleric having to make a choice between healing and striking, I've played clerics too and it wasn't boring to cast healing spells. Actually it's been much more boring to play some characters whose only option was "attack".

I don't know how much this is based on market research and how much that research is valid, but we've never had a lack of clerics in the game, ergo it means (to me, IMXP) that they aren't boring to play. I wonder if these worries are real or hypothetical. :\ Plus, other 3e classes have healing abilities, and there's always potions, and the game still works without a cleric.

I can accept easily the use of auras for healing or buffing "in the meantime". But the image of a cleric that heals automatically when attacking a monster is very bleah for me, just like it would be of a cleric that every time he casts a healing spell on a friend would cause damage to one of the enemies.

 

[Szatany]

Feat choice. Fighters are complicated to build, without gimping yourself.

And inflexible - once you choose your feats you're stuck with them. Casters, on the other hand, can modify their main tactic (spells) on a daily basis.

 

[Frostmarrow]

For instance, the Wizard is the best candidate of the 3e class to be a "controller", however depending on spell selection a pre-4e Wizard can work very well as a striker, or as a leader (harder to think of it as a defender). Except that now if the mantra is "wizards are controllers, period", does it mean they're going to take some old spells away from the wizard if they look too striker-like? :\

They just have to shift such spells to the once per day category. Besides, wizards make poor strikers as it is. Sure, they have one-shot-one-kill spells but if the wizard fails he is surely dead on account of his poor defenses and mediocre staying power. I remember it quite difficult to strike with the wizard.

 

[Mercule]

I can accept easily the use of auras for healing or buffing "in the meantime". But the image of a cleric that heals automatically when attacking a monster is very bleah for me, just like it would be of a cleric that every time he casts a healing spell on a friend would cause damage to one of the enemies.

I've been wondering about this, too. I don't have any inherent aversion to trigger actions, but they should make sense. Something as simple as, "if you strike an opponent who has wounded one of your allies in the last round, your ally heals hp" would be fine. If it's "Hang on Bob, let be punch this kobold so you can heal" the whole thing will feel contrived and silly.