PC Roles (New Design and Development Article)

[Nahat Anoj]

I still just don't like the whole 'Role' concept. It feels to me that they're going to have to pigeonhole classes into one of these, instead of just saying, lets make a class cool with different abilities from the other classes. I also think it will lead new players to have more of a "do what you're told to" by the core books instead of trying new ideas out.

I think that with Roles WotC is just distilling the essence of what characters generally do into four broad types. I also think that characters in one Role will be able to reproduce the functions of the other roles to some extent, but it will be harder. For example, I think a Cleric will be able to do many "cleric-y" things like heal and buff for little or no "charge" (like, heal as a Free action, or perhaps immediately as the result of another action/event such as scoring a critical hit). Whatever the case, the Cleric won't have to spend many resources (in the form of spell slots or combat actions) to do what he does. On the other hand, if the Cleric wants to do concentrated damage to someone (that is, act as a Striker), I believe he will be able to but it will take more of his resources. Perhaps it takes a full-round action to do a flamestrike style spell, or perhaps he'll have to use up one of his per day abilities.

Let's do another one. As a Striker the Rogue should be able to deal out big damage fairly easily (I think the 3e version of Sneak Attack is a pretty good example). However, perhaps the Rogue can expend more resources to use a "hamstring" ability that slows someone up and helps control the battlefield, thereby acting as a Controller.

I really believe that all classes will be able to fulfill some of the functions as other classes. Exactly how they do it will be different (for example, when a Fighter is trying to be a Controller that may operate differently than a Wizard being a Controller, and probably not as efficiently), but the results will be much the same. I just think that it'll somehow cost more when a class strives to act beyonds it's general role. And perhaps a class will be better at fulfilling some Roles than others. For example, a Paladin might be better at doing the Leader thing than he is doing the Striker thing, while a Fighter might be better at doing the Striker thing than she is at the Leader thing. And so on.

In an unrelated note, I'd really like to see a Martial Controller class - the first thing I think of is "Mastermind", someone who manipulates the flow of battle with supreme skill and, perhaps, minions.

 

[Andor]

I just started playing a new character. A crusader. I held the door against a hoarde of undead. Between Stone power, crusaders strike and my crap AC my hp went up and down at a staggering rate. I almost died one round, because I missed. I would have healed a pile if I connected. If 4e combat captured that dynamisim and tension it will be a great great thing.

 

[Merlion]

Unless you didn't want to. I think they've established that the Warlord is a leader like the Cleric, which means they will heal, and having a healer will at least be helpful, if not necessary to a party. .

I don't think thats a safe assumption. I don't think Leader=healer. I think Leader=support abilities. My guess is the Warlord will be able to grant bonuses to allies, but I doubt very much it will be able to heal.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Sounds just like an MMORPG. Man I am really not liking 4ed.
Sorry to cut in..

No snark intended, bu have you played many MMORPGs? Most MMORPGS require you to concentrate on doing just one thing and one thing only if your group wants to succeed. You're effectiveness is judged SOLELY by how well you do that. If you're a healer, you heal and thats it (Hopefully not healing enough that you draw aggro). If you're the tank, you're judged solely on how well you keep the monsters from pounding on the squishy guys in the back. Do something beyond a very limited set of actions, defined by your role, and you're likely to get kicked out of the group. Dont have a build designed with that role in mind, and no one will group with you. Anything that broadens what a character can do with his activities is LESS like a MMORPG.

What I described is not like a MMORPG at all.

 

[Insight]

I personally think a better solution that keeping the barbarian around as a noob class (not to mention keeping the barbarian as a class at all - do we get a Greek Citizen class too? Roman plebe? Norman serf? Barbarian is a judgment, not a job) is to make all classes equally attractive and comprehensible to noobs in the low levels, while giving plenty of neat toys to play with going forward. You don't learn a game by dodging as many rules as possible.

I think the Barbarian as a class name is going to be gone. Personally, I think the Warlord is subsuming Barbarian and maybe some other stuff.

If the Warlord is going to be a 'leader', it doesn't mean he has to heal. Providing support means many things. What if the Warlord can rage, and cause others to rage (or at least provide nominal benefits along the same lines)?