Power levels and more - Andy Collins quotes

[Irda Ranger]

Wasn't there a direct dev quote earlier that a party will still be functional if not every role is filled, but life will be easier if they are filled? That would be very different to "every role matters".

It would. I don't recall that quote.

 

[hong]

It would. I don't recall that quote.

Went for a quick search, and came back with the following:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a

Does every group need a Leader class? Not necessarily. Is it worth having more than one Leader in a party? Maybe.

We settled on crucial roles rather than on necessary roles. 4th Edition has mechanics that allow groups that want to function without a Leader, or without a member of the other three roles, to persevere. Adventuring is usually easier if the group includes a Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller, but none of the four roles is absolutely essential. Groups that double or triple up on one role while leaving other roles empty are going to face different challenges. They’ll also have different strengths.

So it doesn't seem as bad as all that.

 

[WhatGravitas]

It would. I don't recall that quote.

We settled on crucial roles rather than on necessary roles. 4th Edition has mechanics that allow groups that want to function without a Leader, or without a member of the other three roles, to persevere. Adventuring is usually easier if the group includes a Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller, but none of the four roles is absolutely essential. Groups that double or triple up on one role while leaving other roles empty are going to face different challenges. They’ll also have different strengths. That’s the type of experiment you’ll be running in eight months. Before then, we’ll have more to say about the other roles.

Source: Design & Development (scroll down a bit, it's near the end and also bolded for emphasis).

Cheers, LT.

EDIT: D'oh, hong beat me...

 

[Tharen the Damned]

As a DM and Player I rather like the challenge to master or play in an unorthodox party. If you do not cover all roles you have to chnage your playstyle and the DM maybe his adventure.
A 4 rogue party will have a hard time against a Lich Necromancer.
But then, why should a 4 rogue group go against a Lich Necromancer without support?
Likewise a 4 cleric party will have a hard time breaking into the Home of Karlos the Kobold Trapmaker.

If I remember correctly, Andy Collins party in Monte Cooks Ptolus Campaign was the Company of the Black Lantern. The mainly delved into the Dungeons below Ptolus to find loot.
Well, even in Character they should have seen that they need some Tank support for this operation. Hire a mercenary NPC and things look better. Hire a Cleric and things look much better.
OTOH his party seems to be a very good at ambushing and hit-and-run tactics.

It is like hiring a group of insurance specialists and complain that they suck at building a house.

If you have a non-core party, play to their strengths not to their weaknesses.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

From 16 levels of experience I can say that the only thing that a group of four clerics has a problem with in 3.5 with the windows down is massively over-ELed fights with large groups of Dispel Magic Spell Like Ability throwing monsters. Seems that, these days, there's a spell for everything, if we plan right.



Except for TDMSLA. Apparently you can't counter, interrupt, grapple, or in any way protect against a Spell Like Ability. All you can do is break Line of Effect.

I'm very much looking forward to the new class role design concept. I think it will help the designers come up with further classes that aren't marginalized. I'd like to see, eventually, role-designed classes of each power type. So that if you feel like playing a gish tank, you know that your Suel Arcanamach can actually stand toe to toe and do the duty, because the designers went forward designing a class that does that from the ground up. If you want to play a holy warrior that focuses on direct-damage single-target destruction, you'll have a Divine Striker typed class that fits that role well.


--fje

 

[hexgrid]

It could also be as simple as the fact that their GM was constantly throwing "bog standard" D&D encounters at them, despite their non-standard group makeup. Did he even try to tailor the game to the group? Do the 4e designers think they've found a solution to "incompetent DM syndrome"?

I've heard that Monte Cook is a pretty good DM.

 

[BadMojo]

I've played in groups without one of the "role" characters... more to the point, I've DMed a lot of them... and it hurts badly. It really does.

Agreed. Also, as a player it really sucks to be the guy who says "well, I guess I'll have to be the x class". It would be nice to be able to play whatever you want without severely crippling the party.

 

[Jhaelen]

If each PC has a "role," you're screwed when that PC goes down. I'd push for more class crossover, not less.

Well, the average party is supposed to have 5 members and there are four roles, so there is some backup

IMC there are currently 8 players, but it (almost) never happens that they're all joining a session: fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue, druid, mystic theurge, psion, wilder
If a minimum of four players are available we'll play.

I adapt the difficulty of the encounters based on how many of them are present, but not the kind of encounters, e.g. I don't care if they're going to face undead without a cleric. They're usually pretty resourceful, so it's never been a problem so far (though they've been complaining about tough encounters from time to time...).

 

[Klaus]

Y'see, my main disagreement with the whole "role" bit going on is that they only put together four roles (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader). More than a year ago I set out to write up all the bases that the core four classes (Ftr, Wiz, Rog, Clr) cover, and came up with NINE areas:

9 roles.

Primary Combat: High BAB, High AC, High hp, High damage output
Secondary Combat: Helps Primary Combat
Opportunistic Combat: Archery or mobility oriented, but low staying power
Magic Artillery: Big BOOM spells
Support Magic: Buffs, counterspells, divination, transport
Reconaissance: Sneaks around and/or asks questions, wilderness survival, avoids party being surprised
Healing: Cure wounds, removes poison, dispels adverse effects
Trap-dealing: Finds and disarms traps, mundane and magical
Undead-dealing: Turns undead and/or protects party from undead abilities

Fighter: Primary Combat

Cleric: Healing, Support Magic, Undead-dealing, Secondary Combat

Wizard: Magic Artillery, Support Magic

Rogue: Reconaissance, Opportunistic Combat, Trap-dealing

Artificer: Support Magic, Magic Artillery, Trap-dealing

Barbarian: Primary/Secondary Combat, Reconaissance

Bard: Support Magic, Opportunistic Combat, Reconaissance

Druid: Support Magic, Healing, Reconaissance, Secondary Combat

Monk: Reconaissance, Opportunistic Combat

Paladin: Primary Combat, Undead-dealing, Healing

Ranger: Secondary Combat, Reconaissance, Healing

Sorcerer: Magic Artillery

Soulknife: Secondary Combat, Reconaissance

With 9 roles, you can mix'n'match the classes to have all roles covered, and if one of the roles is deficient, the DM can simply downplay that aspect of the game most of the time, only bringing it up for those "oh, crap, we're screwed" moments (i.e., no Trap-dealing = minimize traps).

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm confused.

On one hand, we've seen several steps that are apparently meant to make the game easier to GM.

One of the responsibilities of the GM is to make sure that the encounters and even the rules themselves, are customized for the group the GM is running. This means that if there's no cleric, he makes sure that the's doing something to fill that healing gap at the very least.

Now they're trying to move around that and hold the hand of the GM by making players more niched and fitting single type roles?

GMing is a lot of work. Pity the poor GM who tries to run anything straight off the shelf without trying to customize it for his game that's not following the core four.... and pity the players who're forced into the role of the core four if they don't want to be.

Or am I just reading that wrong?