Power levels and more - Andy Collins quotes

[MerricB]

Or am I just reading that wrong?

Possibly.

D&D has always been about having its major roles filled - particularly those of Fighter, Cleric and Magic-User. (If you check the early modules, there's a lot of talk about balanced parties there).

D&D 3E not only wants the four roles to be filled, it provided a bunch of other character options that couldn't provide substitutes... and not only that, weren't strong enough on their own to contribute meaningfully in combat. The bard is a classic example: most parties are better with a bard, but the actual bard player is spending most of their actions just casting buffing spells and singing, not doing the fun things of, you know, attacking the enemy!

Want a Druid instead of a Cleric? Sorry - you can't heal as well, and if you need restoration you're *really* in trouble.

In D&D 4e, what I'm getting is the following vibe from the designers:
* It's not going to be quite as necessary to have a particular role in your party. No Leader (or healer)? No problem - you'll be able to proceed on; there will be other mechanisms that will allow you to survive. You'll still do better with a Leader, but you can survive without one. (reference: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a)

* However, each class will be good at the role it's made for. Regardless of whether you play a Cleric or a Warlord, you'll be able to do all the things you really need to do - you'll be able to heal the party and inspire them. You can fulfill the Leader role. You will have things you can do that the other classes that are Leaders can't do, so you're by no means going to be a carbon copy... but choosing the Warlord over the Cleric won't hurt the party because you'll be able to do all the important stuff.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

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:

Klaus, the very fact you have "Secondary Combat" there as a role displays a problem.

Give a player a choice: "Do you want to play a Primary Combat character or a Secondary Combat character?" So, one is better than the other... why do you want to play a Secondary Combat character again?

You've got a good bunch of descriptors for the roles in D&D, but they're lousy at describing what the primary focus of each character should be - especially in combat.

Like it or not, in D&D, over half the time is likely to be spent in one combat or another. (It's also the time the system mechanics come into play most strongly, so you'd better make sure they work). Thus, a huge part of doing an effective character design is giving a class a strong role it can fulfill in combat, and doing so the player can choose effective and enjoyable options each round.

That's the problem with the cleric casting heal. Sure, it's effective, but it's not enjoyable for the player, who sees his friends hitting the monsters with swords and blowing them up with fireballs.

Looking at your roles, which ones are going to be effective and fun in combat? I'll bold the ones that I think are strong roles, and italic the weak ones, because they're either superceded by another role, or don't actually do anything active.

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 - with provisos.
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... this isn't a role in itself.

Have you noticed the ones I've bolded? In order, they're Tank, Striker and Controller under the new system. The one that is missing is Leader, and that's because the current "Leader" role is done really badly. I expect it'll be a combination of Secondary Combat + Healing + Buffs, but done in a manner that keeps it enjoyable for the player.

Undead-dealing isn't a good descriptor, btw. It exists because of the cleric, but you could quite easily say "Dragon-dealing" or "Humanoid Dealing" or "Evil Outsider Dealing" because there are certainly prestige classes that fulfill such tasks, and there's also the Ranger to think of. It's more a special feature of the class rather than a role as such.

Cheers!

 

[Klaus]

Well, I was playing off the roles the Core Four fulfill. As for Undead-Dealing, Humanoid-Dealing, etc, those don't have special provisions to them, like turning and energy drain and incorporeality, like undead do. A large portion of the cleric's power was focused on dealing with Undead. If you diminish the "undead-only" special situations in the rules, the "undead dealing" role is diminished enough that it can be ignored. If you make Trapfinding an ability obtainable by any class that focuses on it (like, say, a Talent or feat), that role also goes away.

The "Leader" class, by the way it looks, is a Support Magic/Healing associated with one of the other roles (like Secondary for cleric and Reconaissance for Bard).

As for Secondary Combat, yo can have two Secondaries take the place of one Primary, like a Cleric and a Barbarian (good defense and good offense) take the place of a single Primary.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm liking this for a simple reason, it celebrates diversity in the party like I haven't seen in 3.x.

The problem came down to this: some classes were good at covering for the traditional core roles (tank, healer, nuker, trapfinder) and some weren't. (A paladin did well as a tank, but a bard as trapfinder?) Some were better at cover another role, but were purposefully gimped to avoid him from being too good (a ranger makes a find rogue replacement if you ignore that pesky trapfinding) but ultimately, some classes got second-tiered as "not quite" good enough to fulfill the niche it was intended to (or worse, lacking a niche to fill. Again, my glare falls on the bard).

Now, I have a choice. If I want to be a healer/leader but don't want to be a cleric, I can be warlord or a druid and still be as effective in doing something as the cleric was. I don't have to walk to the table and assume the core-roles must be filled first (we need a cleric!) before I can play something cool (like a druid).

Now, my "wilderness" party (Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer, Scout) could be just as effective as the Iconics. Or my Psionic Party (Psychic Warrior, Psion, Ardent, Lurk) just as effective as the Iconics, Or (you get the idea...)

 

[Cadfan]

My hope is that there will not only be valid, fun combat roles for every character, there will be valid, fun non combat roles for every character. No more fighter sitting on the sidelines while everyone else interacts with NPCs, wishing that he had more social skills than intimidate, and then remembering that he doesn't have enough skill points to invest in intimidate anyways.

Socially, there's room for several types. A paladin might help the party make a good impression, a rogue might help the party deal with the underworld. A wizard might have spells to beguile, etc. And in non combat non conversational situations, there's room for several types. Spellcasters have utility spells, rogues have a wide collection of sneaky abilities, and melee heavies can be useful when the easiest way through an obstacle is to smash it.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

My hope is that there will not only be valid, fun combat roles for every character, there will be valid, fun non combat roles for every character.

Given that they seem MORE focused on locking characters into their roles and somewhat hostile to versatile multi-role characters (bard, cleric), I don't know if you'll get your wish. I may be misinterpreting what has been said.

 

[frankthedm]

Now, I have a choice. If I want to be a healer/leader but don't want to be a cleric, I can be warlord or a druid and still be as effective in doing something as the cleric was. I don't have to walk to the table and assume the core-roles must be filled first (we need a cleric!) before I can play something cool (like a druid).

Oh, don't worry about needing a cleric in 4E. After 4E gets done with them, CoDzilla fans will not be happy.

And, frankly, there shouldn't be classes that fulfill multiple roles simultaneously (cleric, I'm looking in your direction again). If the fighter rolls his eyes and wonders why he bothered showing up, that's just stupid...and it's flawed game design.

 

[hong]

Given that they seem MORE focused on locking characters into their roles and somewhat hostile to versatile multi-role characters (bard, cleric), I don't know if you'll get your wish. I may be misinterpreting what has been said.

See posts 22 and 23 in this very thread.

 

[Cadfan]

Given that they seem MORE focused on locking characters into their roles and somewhat hostile to versatile multi-role characters (bard, cleric), I don't know if you'll get your wish. I may be misinterpreting what has been said.

I think you're misinterpreting. The hostility has been directed against characters with multiple combat roles, who either render other characters obsolete (cleric) or who suck at every role they attempt (bard).

Set aside combat roles. Now think about out of combat roles as an entirely separate entity. I'm hoping that all character classes will have not only a valid in combat role, but also a valid out of combat role.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

See posts 22 and 23 in this very thread.

Right, I get that no role is really necessary (just very useful). But the overall emphasis on "This is your role, this is what you do" seems a little strict. The multiclassing rules in 3E were a fantastic innovation, allowing for well-rounded characters who were pretty good at a lot of things. I like that kind of character. RogX/Ftr3X is a superb Swashbuckler without needing any new base classes. Ftr1/ClrX is a great "non-LG paladin." I can envision a game in which everybody starts with one level of Aristocrat for Knowledge and social skills and armor/weapon proficiencies, then goes in different directions from there.

I imagine that 4E will go back to 2E, making multiclassing less of a central mechanic to creating the character concept you want.

As to out-of-combat roles... in 3E, you can make a character who is good at a particular type of challenge. This means you will more often be called upon to handle that sort of challenge. It's not impossible to make a fighter-type who's good at diplomacy. It's not impossible to make a cleric who's good at stealth. But if you've made certain sacrifices in character design (taking Skill Focus instead of Weapon Focus) to be good at one aspect of the game, shouldn't you get the benefit of it?

And I have NOT had the experience that bards suck. They have been amazingly effective as support, defense, direct offense, and out-of-combat challenges in my experience. Perhaps just very skilled players that I was watching.