Role rigidity

[HandofMystra]

I am starting to worry about roles. Here is a quote from the feats article:

After some discussion, we came to see feats as the “fine-tuning” that your character performed after defining his role (via your choice of class) and his build (via your power selections). Feats would let characters further specialize in their roles and builds, as well as to differentiate themselves from other characters with similar power selections.

Does this imply that if a party does not have all the roles filled it will not be successful? Does this mean that I will not be able to make a PC that fills multiple roles (at least in a pinch). My concern comes from RPGA play where I do not know who will be at a table until we sit down. If it is hard to have a PC take on another role (I just read an interesting article about bards acting as fighters), what will happen if that role is not filled at your table?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

My concern comes from RPGA play where I do not know who will be at a table until we sit down.

What do you do now when you have a table with no cleric or wizard?
4e doesn't seem to presume more about role than before.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

What do you do now when you have a table with no cleric or wizard?
4e doesn't seem to presume more about role than before.

Once that decision was made, a lot of the most exciting feats suddenly looked more like class-based powers. Spring Attack, for example, now looked an awful lot like a power for the rogue or melee-based ranger, rather than a feat that just anybody could pick up. Manyshot, Whirlwind Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Shot on the Run—these were specialized powers appropriate for particular character archetypes.

that sounds an awful lot like role rigidity to me. You can argue that it's a good thing, obviously, but tying what were combat options for any appropriately built character to one or two "character archetypes" and telling us that our character archetype is our class is greater role rigidity than allowing those options to be taken by any class.

 

[Warbringer]

What do you do now when you have a table with no cleric or wizard?
4e doesn't seem to presume more about role than before.

Potions and Wands (with that whole level of sorcerer)...

 

[Cadfan]

that sounds an awful lot like role rigidity to me. You can argue that it's a good thing, obviously, but tying what were combat options for any appropriately built character to one or two "character archetypes" and telling us that our character archetype is our class is greater role rigidity than allowing those options to be taken by any class.

1) Giving uncanny dodge out as a feat choice is an increase in flexibility. Just, you know, thought I should throw that out there.

2) It seems to me that tying combat style to class choice is exactly what the game should do. A heavy bruiser in plate needs different class features than a fast mover who cuts hamstrings. Putting them in the same class may be more trouble than its worth. Even in 3e, where you could use the heavy bruiser classes to run fast and cut hamstrings, it didn't work out very well.

Metaphorically speaking, your class is your chassis. You can put the engine from a ferrari in the chassis of a ford pickup truck, but it doesn't work out well. Its usually better to start with a chassis designed to accept the engine you've selected.

3) I'm reminded of a player I had several years ago who wanted to play a iajutsu master. And not just a realistic one, an anime styled one who draws his weapon, cuts once, and returns it once per round. There weren't any rules for one at the time, so I suggested we design a character for him out of the rogue class. That seemed like the best option- he wanted to be fast on his feet, agile, mobile, and he wanted to attack only once per round with high accuracy and damage. A rogue with Improved Feint seemed ideal. Feinting would make his attacks more accurate, and grant him sneak attack damage, which would make them more damaging.

He HATED my idea. He didn't WANT to play a rogue! He wanted to play an iajutsu master! That's completely different than a rogue!

To this day I do not understand this attitude. If you can build a character that does all the things you want, then the game is flexible enough to accommodate your vision. The fact that you have to play a fighter, or a rogue, or a fighter/rogue to accomplish your goals shouldn't be important.

But I guess some people feel strongly otherwise. I'm not sure whether accommodating them is a good thing, or whether its just giving in to irrationality.

 

[smathis]

Does this imply that if a party does not have all the roles filled it will not be successful?

I don't have the source on me at this time but one of the designer's blogs or the Design & Development articles addressed this concern.

As I recall, the designer said that a party does not have to have all the roles filled but that it would be a little bit more difficult for them if they don't.

Not much different from a party not having a cleric nowadays. Possibly even less of an issue.

At the very least, we're getting different options for the roles we were already used to: a "warlord" instead of a cleric, a melee-based ranger, etc. That shows good faith that the designers are aware of the issue (as does going ahead and officially defining the four roles up front).

I can't recall how many times we've had discussions in a new group about why a player couldn't play a barbarian or somesuch because we already had three fighters and needed a cleric (or a thief or a wizard). That's been going on since at least 1981.

At least now we can give those poor schmoes options. Instead of saying "you have to play a cleric" we can say "you can play a cleric or a warlord" and be reasonably assured that the group will not suffer as a whole because this player didn't choose to play the one class we really need to heal wounds or find traps or deal damage to incorporeal enemies, etc.

Even better, it looks like they're giving different flavors of the class (ala PHBII) which broadens the field even more. I'm referencing the "melee-based ranger" bit here. So instead of saying that a player must play a cleric, we can now say that a player can play a cleric but we have all these different types like a straight-up priest/noble or a combat-heavy holy warrior or a shaman type, etc.

Really if the designers come at us with 2 or 3 options like this per class (ala the Scoundrel in Star Wars Saga) we'll be getting not just 8 or so classes but 20+ spread across 4 party roles.

Doesn't sound too bad to me.

 

[Counterspin]

This rigidity could be a problem if you were restricted to one class. But you're not. So as long as you're not someone like the person described by Cadfan, who's more interested in the class written on your sheet than how close you can get to your character concept, you should be fine.

 

[DandD]

He HATED my idea. He didn't WANT to play a rogue! He wanted to play an iajutsu master! That's completely different than a rogue!

To this day I do not understand this attitude. If you can build a character that does all the things you want, then the game is flexible enough to accommodate your vision. The fact that you have to play a fighter, or a rogue, or a fighter/rogue to accomplish your goals shouldn't be important.

He probably wanted the BAB from that class and the snazzy Iajutsu bonus damage when quick-drawing. If he had to feint with bluff, you can use a counter-roll with the target's BAB as a modifier to his Sense-Motive-check, and so ruin his attempt, where-as with the Iajutsu skill, you always do Iajutsu damage when quick-drawing, and there would be no Sense-Motive-check.

At least, that's what I would honestly say if you asked me why a rogue isn't viable.

 

[Cadfan]

There was no snazzy iajutsu bonus at the time.

 

[Desdichado]

This rigidity could be a problem if you were restricted to one class. But you're not. So as long as you're not someone like the person described by Cadfan, who's more interested in the class written on your sheet than how close you can get to your character concept, you should be fine.

I disagree. I couldn't care less about what the class field on my character sheet says, but I care a lot about building the character I want regardless of the classes I need to use to get there.

Unless the multiclassing rules are a lot better than they are currently, the easiest way to do that is to make powers and abilities more readily available regardless of class, not more closely tied to class. I'm already headed the exact opposite direction in my games; converting class abilities (especially from prestige classes) to feat chains right and left.