Roles - do they work?

[The Little Raven]

Fighters tended to do well at things like grappling, bull rushing and tripping.

They tended to be good at those things if they focused on them, to the detriment of everything else they can do. They can lock down a single opponent with grappling or tripping after spending levels pumping feats into a circumstantially-based control ability. And as many monsters had stats for grappling and such that outstripped the PCs, fighters would often fail to keep control over their targets because it's hard to grapple a creature that gets +4 bonus to size on top of his obscenely high Strength score.

There may not have been anything mechanically compelling NPCs to attack him; but he was an obvious choice, and he had lots of HP which allowed him to stand there longer and take it.

How is he an obvious choice? He takes more damage, and usually has a higher capability for being missed due to wearing heavy armor. If I'm an ogre, and I have a choice between a fighter with full plate that I might not hit and even if I did, he's got oodles of hit points and a wizard with no armor (easy to hit) and low hit points (easy to kill), what makes the fighter an obvious choice?

In most 3E battles I participated in, wizards were in the rear and the fighters were up front blocking the ogre's ability to access the wizard.

How? I step past the Fighter, take my AoO for like 15 damage, then begin laying into the wizard. Hell, I can bull rush the fighter way better than he can do it to me, so he's not stopping me from moving anywhere.

There is no need for mechanics that compell the ogre to attack the fighter. It is up to the party to be arranged in a way that benefits them strategically on the board.

Strategic placement loses its value if there is no way to prevent enemies from changing placement during the fight. If the fight has no way of actually preventing the ogre from engaging the wizard, then the fact that the wizard started in the back and the fighter on the front line is only a delay to the ogre, not an actual obstacle.

Because of that, I had to actively play monsters as stupid quite often.

But healing isn't the only thing that a leader does. They can also Buff characters on the field of battle

Healing is the core element of the leader class, as "being alive" is the ultimate buff.

Again, I am not going to continue the discussion, if you can't soften your tone a bit.

Then stop responding to me or put me on ignore. I will respond to your posts as I respond to any other member's posts.

No they didn't. What about the Cleric? They could easily function as defenders and leaders. Wizards could easily function as controllers, leaders, and strikers. Fighters could funciton as defenders and strikers. etc.

Cleric was an exceptional case in 3e, because they went insane when designing him. The 3e Cleric is worlds away from the AD&D cleric, since they loaded him up with spells he had never had before (tons of damaging ones, ones to make him a better fighter than a fighter, etc).

As I pointed out, there was nothing mechanically to allow the fighter to defend his allies.

Again creating an artificial mechanic to simulate the defender role, is a little weak in my opinion. It already happened naturally in most battles.

All mechanics are artificial, and no, it didn't happen naturally in battle, as I explained above with my ogre and wizard example.

 

[Nymrohd]

Actually, the 3E wizard was a controller mainly, but also a striker, leader or even defender according to his built. An abjurer could well be a leader, an evoker a striker, and a master transmogrifist a defender.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Then stop responding to me or put me on ignore. I will respond to your posts as I respond to any other member's posts.
.

I wont, and I am sorry we cannot carry this discussion further as it was beginning to get interesting and you made some very good points. But I refuse to continue if I am going to be insulted. If others have been rude to you in 4E debates, I appologize, but I have been nothing but polite.

 

[Panzeh]

Yes he could by using the combat options available in the game. Fighters tended to do well at things like grappling, bull rushing and tripping. There may not have been anything mechanically compelling NPCs to attack him; but he was an obvious choice, and he had lots of HP which allowed him to stand there longer and take it. In most 3E battles I participated in, wizards were in the rear and the fighters were up front blocking the ogre's ability to access the wizard. There is no need for mechanics that compell the ogre to attack the fighter. It is up to the party to be arranged in a way that benefits them strategically on the board.





But healing isn't the only thing that a leader does. They can also Buff characters on the field of battle

Again, I am not going to continue the discussion, if you can't soften your tone a bit.





No they didn't. What about the Cleric? They could easily function as defenders and leaders. Wizards could easily function as controllers, leaders, and strikers. Fighters could funciton as defenders and strikers. etc.

Again creating an artificial mechanic to simulate the defender role, is a little weak in my opinion. It already happened naturally in most battles.

Well of course Clerics and Wizards can function in multiple roles, they are the overpowered classes(along with druids) and can pretty much do anything at mid to high levels.

Fighters can be built effectively(like other non-casters they are going to be relying on alternative ways to do damage than full attacks), but the builds are basically spiked chain tripper and ubercharger. These builds still don't give fighters longevity against opponents that would challenge CoDzillas and wizards. They can't really make intelligent opponents fight them or stop someone's movement very well as higher level enemies will shrug off the AoO.

 

[The Little Raven]

But it produces something totally different. And that is the point.

Totally different in that it doesn't actually fulfill a role. Otherwise, it's nothing different except to cut out two existing elements from existing roles merely to say "Look, another role!"

"I have high hit points, and I can move around" doesn't tell me what it does like "I keep my allies from being attacked by enemies" or "I take down enemies with tactical placement and high damage output" or "I can reshape the battlefield to hinder my foes, as well as damage groups of them at a time" or "I can increase the combat effectiveness of my allies by providing benefits, removing penalties, and restoring hit points."

Yes it does. They are supposed to fight up close. It is just how you cut it. Ranged characters are supposed to fight far away. That is a role.

That doesn't tell me what they do on the battlefield. It doesn't tell me if they draw enemy fire away from others (defender), deal high damage to single targets with their melee/ranged attacks (striker), aid their allies through bonuses and healing (leader), or deal damage to groups of enemies or reshape the battlefield/tactical situation (controller). It only tells me in general terms the distance at which they will be doing... something, but not what that something actually is.

But roles are much more specific about what actions and strategies you can perform on the battlefield.

No, classes are specific about what actions and tactics you use. A Swordmage and a Fighter fill the same role, but do it in an entirely different fashion. The fighter hampers enemies by threatening with attacks and restricting movement. The swordmage hampers enemies by mitigating damage, threatening with attacks, and changing tactical positioning (but not restricting movement). The paladin hampers enemies by inflicting damage.

Three methods of performing the same role, with class, not role, determining the specifics.

I don't think you are characterizing my position accurately. The alternate roles I proposed were not solutions to the problem, but examples of how roles can be cut up and defined differently.

So, you're proposing adding additional roles for what reason, then? You complain that the 4 are too restrictive, but suggest making more of them with more narrow definitions, and then say that isn't even what you consider to be a solution to the problem.

I still think the classes should have strengths and weaknesses, but they should be limited to the same tactic on the battle field every time.

This is at odds with your "3e fighters can grapple/trip" sentiment, since that fighter would be doing the same tactic every time in order to keep his allies safe from foes.

I shouldn't be attacked because there have been jerks insulting one another over the new system.

You're not being attacked. I don't care enough about you to attack you.

But when you use insults, it makes people more resistent to what you are proposing.

Which is why I'm not insulting anyone.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

It wasn't kind to players with its Ivory Tower Game Design aka "we put in sub-par choices intentionally instead of striving to make all choices desirable, thereby making some concepts less viable in a mechanical regard."

It wasn't perfect, but it was a lot better than 2E, and certainly more free than 4E.

(I think this has turned far more 3E vs 4E than it was supposed to...)

 

[ProfessorPain]

You're not being attacked. I don't care enough about you to attack you.
Which is why I'm not insulting anyone.

Yes you are.

 

[The Little Raven]

(I think this has turned far more 3E vs 4E than it was supposed to...)

I think you're right, which is why this should probably end pretty quickly.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yes you are.

Ah yes, pointing out that I don't have enough of an emotional attachment to you to get the personal level of making attacks or insults is an insult. Right.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Well of course Clerics and Wizards can function in multiple roles, they are the overpowered classes(along with druids) and can pretty much do anything at mid to high levels.

Fighters can be built effectively(like other non-casters they are going to be relying on alternative ways to do damage than full attacks), but the builds are basically spiked chain tripper and ubercharger. These builds still don't give fighters longevity against opponents that would challenge CoDzillas and wizards. They can't really make intelligent opponents fight them or stop someone's movement very well as higher level enemies will shrug off the AoO.

Your right, there were definitely some balance issues. But I think the point still stands, that characters were free to perform the function of multiple roles. Fighters tended to become less significant over the course of the campaign for sure. But they could serve easily as defenders and strikers. I would stand by my earlier point that it was easy enough to have them operate as defenders without the specific defender mechanics of 4E. The fact that they couldn't always fulfill that role, was in a way, part of the balance. Wizards did become very powerful (but their HP totals always remained pretty low) so having them vulnerable to attack was important to balance.