Roles and Classes...still a bit confused.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I think I used the wrong term with "meta-game". What I meant is that it was an abstract measure with little foundation. It's just a numbers game, not something you could describe as something that would happen in the "real" world. "logically", the threat should be related to actual damage done (or healed), but due the specific mechanics in place, it's artificially inflated for melee warriors so that they get hit instead of the casters.

I think that's the key difference between the WoW and the D&D 4 approach (aside from the fact that D&D monsters are run by a DM who could and probably often would ignore any "threat" generated, unlike the computer). Stickiness doesn't just pretend it's a bad idea to ignore the fighter - it makes it a bad idea to ignore him.

 

[Lord Zack]

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.

But Martial Striker is only his combat role. If all classes are the same outside of combat that's fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case, what with Rogues said to have the Trapfinding feat automatically. The Ranger presumably has Track. What if you don't find traps or track outside of combat, but do things similar to say a Fighter while being a Martial Striker?

 

[bonethug0108]

For referrence, stickiness is a defender trait, not a contoller one. It may seem like something that falls under the controllers domain, but most controllers would actually want to be very unsticky.

 

[rkanodia]

I think that's the key difference between the WoW and the D&D 4 approach (aside from the fact that D&D monsters are run by a DM who could and probably often would ignore any "threat" generated, unlike the computer). Stickiness doesn't just pretend it's a bad idea to ignore the fighter - it makes it a bad idea to ignore him.

I think that goes double for the players. Telling a player, "Sorry, you can't attack the caster, because the fighter just taunted you for 25 points of threat" is going to make him feel frustrated.* I would prefer to tell him, "The fighter's jeers really got to you. You can attack anyone you want, but you're so preoccupied with smashing in his smug face that you'd have a -5 attack penalty against anyone else." The player still has a choice, and either way, the Defender has done his job of reducing the danger facing his companions.


*In my experience with MMOs, players get very, very upset about other players being able to control their targeting with non-magical 'Taunt' effects

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

*In my experience with MMOs, players get very, very upset about other players being able to control their targeting with non-magical 'Taunt' effects

Amusingly, the high aggro abilities like Sunder Armor and Disarm Weapon for warriors are fairly realistic...I know I'd be ticked off if someone tried attacking my armor or my precious, precious weapon.

But, yes, the stickiness abilities are far more palatable than an artificial aggro mechanic. And while unnatural mental influences are perfectly fine, it's best to keep those at a minimum.

Brad

 

[Insight]

From a design perspective, the nice thing about the role definitions is that you are much less likely to have these "orphan" base classes that don't seem to have anything to do in a party. If you start with "power source" + "role" when considering a new base class, it goes a long way towards determining whether or not it should even be a base class.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Speaking as someone whose gaming includes lots of emphasis on social interaction and investigation...the lack of a "information gatherer" or "talker" role is a little concerning.

Granted, these roles seem to be the combat ones, so I suppose I am inquiring whether or not there is any indication of "secondary roles" for non-combat purposes being available.

I mean I assume thieves can still sneak around and steal things, but is there anything about every class having a non-combat role or niche as well as a combat one?

 

[bonethug0108]

Speaking as someone whose gaming includes lots of emphasis on social interaction and investigation...the lack of a "information gatherer" or "talker" role is a little concerning.

Granted, these roles seem to be the combat ones, so I suppose I am inquiring whether or not there is any indication of "secondary roles" for non-combat purposes being available.

I mean I assume thieves can still sneak around and steal things, but is there anything about every class having a non-combat role or niche as well as a combat one?

Yes, they actually said that every class has out of combat roles. I forget where the exact quote was, though.

I don't think they called them secondary. That would be a bit of an insult.

My view on it is that out of combat roles are so varied and the lines can be blurred so much that you couldn't give them role names like for combat. Combat is pretty straightforward, where as the rest of everything you can do in the world is not.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Oh, good. I'm glad to hear that.

 

[marune]

Please, the confusion between "out of combat suff" and "roleplay" must stop.

Firstly, if roleplay is defined as something along the line of "acting"*, combat can be roleplayed and "out of combat stuff" can be resolved without any roleplay.

Secondly, IMHO in a good RPG both should be resolved with rules and acting (that can be made before and/or after the "rolls" are made).

* I know it's a bad definition because roleplaying is not limited to acting.