Removing Class Roles

[Sadrik]

Removing roles from the character classes, how would you do it? Which classes would be easy and which would be difficult.

This is mostly a brain exercise so I don't want the naysayers chiming in on the thread.

In previous editions, everyone was essentially a "striker" and to a lesser extent a "buffer" that helped the strikers. Then you further had a differences between a striker who could stand up in a fight and one that would prefer ranged attacks or flanking attacks. The one that could stand up in a fight became the defender role and the one who attacked at range became the striker role. Both types in previous editions tried to deal a lot of damage.

The following is a list of all the classes for us to easily copy paste in the thread.

Defender
Fighter
Paladin
Swordmage
Warden

Leader
Cleric
Warlord
Bard
Shaman

Controller
Wizard
Druid
Invoker


Striker
Ranger
Rogue
Warlock
Avenger
Barbarian
Sorcerer

So what purpose would this serve? Shrinking characters back to their non-designer-designed role and letting the player select their role is the goal. For instance, if you wanted to play a class in a non-traditional role you could then add a role back on top. So that is the second step to this, I would like to create general roles for all the classes. So where a fighter's traditional role is defender the player might select a different role for their character say "striker".

So putting it all together, strip out character roles from the character classes (which would be their class features and at-will powers?), then add back role options for classes, in the form of class features and at-will powers.

I know this may not create the opti-max defender or striker or whatever the idea here is to give the players design options for constructing their character by selecting the class and fluff they want and tacking on the role and mechanics they want.

 

[FireLance]

How concerned are you about balance? Would you allow a "fighter" character who has high hit points and good armor proficiencies (typical hallmarks of a defender) who swaps out the ability to mark for the extra damage dealing ability of a striker?

 

[Sadrik]

Hmm,
I think the balance will all but sort itself out. A fighter who wants to be a ranged striker say may have an issue that most or all of their encounter and daily powers are melee attacks. But if you gave them the ability to "strike" with their class features as an archer I think it simply gives them the option to go to range or heavy hit in combat at the cost of not being sticky and defendery.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

A key thing to note about 4e's roles is that they're not as strictly defined as in, say, EQ or WoW. A fighter can defend, but can also dish out good damage. Paladins are good at defending but can also heal and support allies. Warlocks are strikers, but they inflict loads of status effects.

Basically, just about every class is some form of hybrid. Also, given DM control, you can get past missing a role. As far as what all of the hybrid minor roles of each class are, Dragon 373 had a great table that should be useful for the purposes of this conversation:

Basically, what can be given to classes to fill out the areas not covered in the table?

 

[Kinneus]

Great table, MadLordofMilk, though I'd definitely refute a few of those. I mean, Swordmage is a striker secondary? Really? (Also, where's Warlord?)

The trouble with this exercise is that I'm having trouble even wrapping my head around it. In a way, I think it'd be easier to remove classes from the game than roles. Roles are pretty central to the party make-up... a group without a leader is a playing a very different game than a group with two leaders, for instance.

If I was to remove classes, I'd pool all the powers together based on role. I'd put all the Druid powers together with the Invoker and Wizard powers, all the Cleric powers with all the Shaman, Bard, Artificer and Warlord powers, and so on. I'd have the players select a role and then pick their powers from these 'pools' and make up whatever flavor text they'd like.

Maybe something similiar could be done for a game without role? Put all the level 1 powers together, and let the players pick whatever they want. Their class would define their class features, but nothing else. That way you'd get a Paladin with both Righteous Smite and Scorching Burst for their At-Wills, a leader and controller combined. For their Encounter power, they might select a Rogue's Dazing Strike, adding in some Striker/extra Controller. Awesome, you've officially blown roles wide open.

Only thing is... you now have a Paladin-ish character that can toss fireballs whenever he wants, rather than a 'proper' Paladin. In removing roles from the game, you've also muddied the classes a fair bit.

I suspect that roles and classes are inextricably linked, and that roles are in fact more important than classes at this point. Not trying to threadcrap, just my two cents.

 

[silverwhisper]

sadrik quoth:
so what purpose would this serve? shrinking characters back to their non-designer-designed role and letting the player select their role is the goal. fr instance, if you wanted to play a class in a non-traditional role you could then add a role back on top. so that is the second step to this, i would like to create general roles for all the classes. so where a fighter's traditional role is defender the player might select a different role for their character say "striker".

i'll confess, short of doing a lot of development of new powers, i'm fuzzy on how you might have, say, a wizard go from controller to leader or defender. does part of your concept involve restricting roles, or is the intention for this to be open fully?

ed

 

[Sadrik]

A key thing to note about 4e's roles is that they're not as strictly defined as in, say, EQ or WoW. A fighter can defend, but can also dish out good damage. Paladins are good at defending but can also heal and support allies. Warlocks are strikers, but they inflict loads of status effects.

Basically, just about every class is some form of hybrid. Also, given DM control, you can get past missing a role. As far as what all of the hybrid minor roles of each class are, Dragon 373 had a great table that should be useful for the purposes of this conversation:

Basically, what can be given to classes to fill out the areas not covered in the table?

I see were you are going with that list. I would have to disagree with many of the assessments on which additional roles classes fill but it is true you can jimmie a particular class into different roles in a pinch.

What I would like to do is remove the roles from the character classes. Insofar as the roles are defined primarily by the character's encounter and daily powers rather than their class features and at-wills.

For the moment lets remove all at-will powers from the classes and deal just with the class features.

So what class features make a leader a leader? The "word" class features? Which classes are problematic to strip away the feature?
Cleric
Warlord
Bard
Shaman

What class features make a defender a defender? The marking class features? Which classes are problematic to strip away the feature?
Fighter
Paladin
Swordmage
Warden

What class features make a striker a striker? The bonus damage class features? Which classes are problematic to strip away the feature?
Ranger
Rogue
Warlock
Avenger
Barbarian
Sorcerer

What class features make a controller a controller? I am not sure this was ever clarified. at least there is no class features that explains what a controller does. Does the reduced HP and surges equate to their added benefits?
Wizard
Druid
Invoker

 

[Sadrik]

The trouble with this exercise is that I'm having trouble even wrapping my head around it. In a way, I think it'd be easier to remove classes from the game than roles.

Mostly, I want the role based class features to be dealt with in such a way that makes them independent of the character class.

If you want to be a "sticky" wizard why not let them? Obviously this is sub par but why not let the player decide the role they want to play "mechanically" and let the game system's fluff be determined by that? I really conceptually like that idea. Can we simply strip away the role defining class features? Then let the players decide on their class feature either the printed one or a new one defined by what we come up with.

So the scope is not that big yet... We need to determine which class features mechanically set the classes role and target them for removal. Then come up with a list of class features that player can select from to set their mechanical role in the game. Mechanical role is not the same as game role, as that chart that madlordofmilk put up classes can be played in any role but mechanically they are tied to one role. Switching this so that the mechanical role meets the game role is the idea here.

 

[Sadrik]

i'll confess, short of doing a lot of development of new powers, i'm fuzzy on how you might have, say, a wizard go from controller to leader or defender. does part of your concept involve restricting roles, or is the intention for this to be open fully?

ed

Well, I understand the concern but I think that the overarching concept here is mostly to deal with class features and maybe some at-will powers. Mostly to add a certain basic sense of control over your character classes underlying role.

As an example you may want to play a rogues thievery fluff, but you see him more in a leadery type role so if we determine through this thread that sacrificing sneak attack the feature that makes the rogue a striker and we decide that the word feature makes them a leader, then we can swap those out and now you have a leader rogue. Of course the rogue's powers are more striker like so they never cease becoming a striker completely but now they have the ability to do some leader like ability for the party.

 

[Storminator]

You'll have to address class features... pretty much all of them except wizard cantrips. You'll definitely need to address the at-wills, tho some more than others. Both encounter and daily powers will have to be scoured - either changed or consciously not changed.

You'll want to go thru all the class-based feat prereqs. You'll want to make sure the races still make sense, tho that will likely be a minor concern. You'll want to address weapon and armor proficiencies.

Then you'll want to expand into the DMG and make sure the encounter design section still works. This probably leads into the MM...

Roles are the cornerstone of the game design. EVERYTHING flows from decisions made about class roles. You can't just fiddle with that and think it'll all work out. It's like wondering "can we redesign the Golden Gate Bridge to get rid of those two big towers?" Sure, but it'll be an entirely different bridge when it's done.

PS