Roles and Classes...still a bit confused.

[bonethug0108]

To me, Striker implies precision and finesse whereas Aggressor or Assaulter implies brute force butt kicking. Truly though, it's really a super minor thing and it will fade to the background once in play so I'm not sweating it either way

I guess that makes sense, too.

On a side note, I wonder if there will ever be new roles.

 

[architect.zero]

On a side note, I wonder if there will ever be new roles.

I have a feeling that rather than new roles, we'll see new classes that blur the role boundaries. Look for them in PHB II, though probably (and I'm completely guessing here) in PHB III or later.

 

[bonethug0108]

I have a feeling that rather than new roles, we'll see new classes that blur the role boundaries. Look for them in PHB II, though probably (and I'm completely guessing here) in PHB III or later.

I actually think a little blending will be right in phb1. I can definitely see the warlord as maybe being a leader mainly with a little defender. That's just a guess, though. He's not the only one where I see potential for blending, either.

That is why I was curious if they could make a new role based on a new premise. Though likely that new role would be somewhat a blending of other roles.

 

[Vael]

I have a feeling that rather than new roles, we'll see new classes that blur the role boundaries. Look for them in PHB II, though probably (and I'm completely guessing here) in PHB III or later.

Well, the Druid is the only class that got a write-up in Races and Classes without it's role being defined. And it's one that one can debate. The example given in R&C implies it's a striker, but depending on shapeshift forms, it could function as a Defender, spells can make it a Leader or Controller, etc.

 

[Khaalis]

I have a feeling that rather than new roles, we'll see new classes that blur the role boundaries. Look for them in PHB II, though probably (and I'm completely guessing here) in PHB III or later.

I don't think this is true. I don't think we will see new ROLES at all. The four roles cover every possible niche in a party. I also don't think they will specifically "muddy" or water down the lines defining the roles more than they already are. From everything we have heard from development ROLE is a core design concept that WILL remain a core concept throughout design. They will not purposefully break their own design mold. I do not think you will ever see an "official" class in 4E that leaves you scratching your head asking - "And what is this guy's role in a group?"

However, with that said, keep in mind that a class's ROLE is NOT its sole design point. Each class has 1 role in which it EXCELS (e.g. Fighter = Defender). Yet each class is specifically designed to "blur" the edges however, dabbling in other roles to create the correct flavor for the class.

A Fighter, as a defender, is not a one-trick-pony being nothing more than a meat-shield. Their primary role is to take damage and keep their foes hitting themselves instead of their allies. This is what makes them defenders. However, they do this in a variety of ways, technically blurring the role boundaries in that they can also deal a fair amount of damage (but not as good or consistently as a striker), they can control the battlefield by being "sticky" * (but this control is not as good as that provided by a "controller", and they can do limited self healing as well as grant some situational 'buffs' to their allies (but no as good as a leader can offer). Additionally, each class will have utility outside of combat (new for the fighter).

The way I understand the class design (from what we have so far) is that each class is built on a template of a Primary Role. The designer asks- what Role is this class supposed to be able to fill? Once that question is answered, the next question is what flavor does the class use to achieve that purpose. Once that core concept is defined, then the class is designed with a secondary and tertiary role in mind that help the class do what it is meant to do flavor wise.

As in the above example, I see the Fighter as follows:
Primary Role: Defender (takes damage and protects allies)
Secondary Role: Striker (fighters aren't walls, they bash monsters too)
Tertiary Role: Controller (fighters are "sticky" *)


In addition to all of this design detail on Roles, you also have to add in the Power Source, which can drastically change the entire feel of the class - case in point how both the Fighter and Paladin are Defenders but will play and feel very different from one another.

Overall, I think this is a great design concept and should help a lot in the future for both "official design" and "home design" to keep a certain level of balance in class creation.

----------
* Note: References to "sticky" are from the Races & Classes term the DEV team is using for a warrior's ability to make monsters want to think twice about NOT attacking the fighter over other targets in the party. MMOers prefer the term Agro.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

----------
* Note: References to "sticky" are from the Races & Classes term the DEV team is using for a warrior's ability to make monsters want to think twice about NOT attacking the fighter over other targets in the party. MMOers prefer the term Agro.

I think they refrained from using the term "Aggro" because the typical implementation (World of Warcraft?) seems to work like this:
Everything you do generates aggros, like dealing damage or healing allies. A tank generates extra aggro without dealing extra damage. The monsters attack the target with the highest aggro. The extra aggro is a pure metagame concept with no base inside the game world. It's not as if the tank was really that dangerous to warrant the attacks. He just pretends to be.

The "stickiness" is something that is achieved by providing a hard - so to say physical - reason for continuing to attack the Fighter. If you don't, he will hinder your attacks or movements, or will use the oppertunity to make an extra attack against you, or he deals extra damage on his next attack, meaning that he not just provides a metagame property of threat, he _really_ threatens you.

 

[xechnao]

IMO, as of 4th Ed, assigning roles to classes is not the best way of design philosophy. I would very much prefer esplicit roles on talent trees (or feat trees) dealing with equipment and spells available as choices for each class. Besides, it is clear that classes are about being trained on favorite equipment -be it sword or spellbook. So it would be much more interesting to only assign roles to feats and spells.

 

[Khaalis]

I think they refrained from using the term "Aggro" because the typical implementation (World of Warcraft?) seems to work like this:
Everything you do generates aggros, like dealing damage or healing allies. A tank generates extra aggro without dealing extra damage. The monsters attack the target with the highest aggro. The extra aggro is a pure metagame concept with no base inside the game world. It's not as if the tank was really that dangerous to warrant the attacks. He just pretends to be.
The "stickiness" is something that is achieved by providing a hard - so to say physical - reason for continuing to attack the Fighter. If you don't, he will hinder your attacks or movements, or will use the oppertunity to make an extra attack against you, or he deals extra damage on his next attack, meaning that he not just provides a metagame property of threat, he _really_ threatens you.

I agree they specifically avoided the term Aggro because too many people would do the "Oh its WoW" complaint. However, overall it is the same basic concept (not that I have a personal issue with this, I think its a good thing).

FYI:
Aggro is the term used for the creature's current target of attack ("Who has aggro?") What determines who a mob aggros (targets) is "Threat" but Aggro is often used in general to cover both concepts in one word. Also, the terms predate WoW by many years. Additionally, threat IS a hard, calculable number, not a meta-game concept. Each action a PC does ranks up "threat points". The PC with the most "threat" gets aggro. Warrior's in WoW (and most games) are designed to generate as much threat as possible, so as to hold the attention of the mob. Obviously this doesn't equate over to a tabletop RPG due to the high volume of number crunching and equations involved. However, the basic "idea" of threat is being used and described as "stickiness" - keeping a foe's attention focused on the fighter (or other defender) instead of the more squishy members of the party.

 

[Klaus]

From what I gather from previews and blogs, the 4e creation paradigm has you choosing the role you want your character to fulfill, and the power source you want the character to draw from, and that will determine what class best represents your concept.

So if you want a swashbuckler-type who fights with finesse, you want a Martial Striker, so you should make a rogue.

 

[DJCupboard]

How important are "Roles" going to be in the game when it comes to role-playing? Is it a concept that can be fairly easily ignored, or is it to be hard-wired into the game, telling us that "Since you are playing a fighter, you are a striker...so get up to the front and bash things really hard" ?

I don't think the intention is to have roles have anything to do with out of combat roleplaying. There is nothing wrong (and I don't think the rules will hinder this) with the defender being the "leader" of the party when it comes to social interaction, like getting jobs or representing his group to the queen.

He will still be most effective in combat when he stands up front getting whacked, but in his eyes, that's what a leader does, get in the way of the bad guys to protect everyone else. Even if there is a warlord in the party, he might still be able to give out orders. (Think of the new Transformers movie, specifically the dynamic between the guy from Las Vegas [the tv show] and his second in command. Number 2 was clearly a warlord, organizing everything, giving the party plusses to their actions by his coordination of their actions, but he still took orders from the other guy, who was some kind of striker/defender.)