Roles - do they work?

[ProfessorPain]

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.

I am not trying to provoke you. I was saying you are insulting me. You may think it is just being strident, I find it insulting. Good bye.

 

[Panzeh]

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.

I would find that the roles overlap a bit more in 4e in terms of viability as fighters are no longer forced to use either charging or full attacks to do damage, both of which are quite limited. So a fighter can both be a striker and a defender. I'd rather have not had it said what a class's role is and I doubt we'd be having this discussion, but most of the 4e classes have more than one thing to do, they're about equal in options to a 3e character somewhere in between the top tier OP characters and the worthless non-casters.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I would find that the roles overlap a bit more in 4e in terms of viability as fighters are no longer forced to use either charging or full attacks to do damage, both of which are quite limited. So a fighter can both be a striker and a defender. I'd rather have not had it said what a class's role is and I doubt we'd be having this discussion, but most of the 4e classes have more than one thing to do, they're about equal in options to a 3e character somewhere in between the top tier OP characters and the worthless non-casters.

A fighter definitely needed to do a full attack to do more damage, but their number of attacks gave them an edge; especially if you had improved critical and were a dual weilder.

I don't think the non-casters were worthless. Just. You could make some pretty solid builds out of them. But I do think they tended to become much less valuable over the course of a compaign (which honestly wasn't a big problem for me because most games I was in tended to fade out around 9-10 level). Casters were still limited by their spells per day. How well this balanced out, really depended on how much combat occured in a single day. But it was something of a balancing factor. Not saying that wizards were not over powered. But as a GM, you could plan encounterd to make it as balanced as possible.

 

[Nymrohd]

Using the classes that could essentially feel every role in the game in 3E as an example makes you feel the 4E role system is restraining. Using classes that could hardly fullfill their primarily role in 3E and can now do so in 4E and usually can do a decent job at a secondary role as well makes the 4E role system seem like it works. The problem here is that you are not really discussing the role system but simply trading back and forth with reasoning based on favourable interpretations of the reality at hand. That is fallacious, right?

 

[ProfessorPain]

Using the classes that could essentially feel every role in the game in 3E as an example makes you feel the 4E role system is restraining. Using classes that could hardly fullfill their primarily role in 3E and can now do so in 4E and usually can do a decent job at a secondary role as well makes the 4E role system seem like it works. The problem here is that you are not really discussing the role system but simply trading back and forth with reasoning based on favourable interpretations of the reality at hand. That is fallacious, right?

I think what I find constraining about the roles is that I always seem to be limited to the same tactic in combat, and I just don't feel like I have enough options available to me. Even with the powers, my fighter is always getting tied up with opponents or shifting the halfing into positition. I feel like a basketball player, not a hero.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

I had a Ghost Elven (the glow-in-the-dark subrace from Dragon, not the undead template) Fighter/Whitehorn/Beloved of Valarian (can't get more unicorn-y than that, folks ) who's chosen weapon was the halberd.

In melee, she and her mount were very easily the Defender role, but mounted up, charging made her one hell of a Striker. They had the healing abilites to take care of at least a portion of the Leader needs, and could probably even have handled Controller duties, depending on how I had chosen to arrange their spells on a given day.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I think people are getting too worked up over the whole class/role association. The only reason that all fighters are considered defenders is because there is a heading on page 16 of the PHB that says Defender(Fighter, Paladin), and another one on page 75. That's it. In all actuality you can create a build to do pretty much whatever you want.

If you don't want to focus on roles in your group, then don't. Take the RP approach rather than the tactical approach. Think of a character concept, figure out what class it best fits under(if it fits any at all), then figure out what role what you thought of fits under as the last step before putting together a build. Despite WotC's attempt at artificially shoehorning classes into a specific role, the actual system they made is very flexible.

Let's try, shall we? I want to make a lightly armored duelist, and I am not interested in sneak attacks. Now I could make a rogue and use feats to try to fit in some fighter abilities, but that seems a poor fit, really. Besides, the system is flexible enough that I can make my own little duelist build for the fighter class.

So what do I want him to be able to do? Well, first of all, as a duelist, he would be trained to fight a single opponent at a time, so that is how most of his abilities will be designed. Second, he is going to need to be proficient at parries, ripostes and quick, deadly attacks. Seems to me that we have a bit of a defender/striker hybrid going here. Not exactly your "main tank," as they would say in MMOs, but capable of holding a single foe's attention and dispatching him.

OK, just so that we don't have powers all over the place, go ahead and establish that dexterity is going to be our primary ability, followed by wisdom and strength.

We will start by following MP's lead and creating a class ability that you can take in place of the weapon talent:

Duelist's Balance
You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with light blades.
When wearing light armor, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with melee and close weapon attacks against an enemy you have marked. This bonus increases to +2 if you're wielding a light blade.

I'm not sure if that is balanced or not, but it seems reasonable. If you want to make a more defense related duelist, you could take tempest technique and use a parrying dagger.

Next comes powers. I could come up with some, but since this is not the house rules forum and I am currently feeling a bit woozy from the percocet, I'll simply suggest that if one were so inclined and a bit lazy one could simply retool some rogue powers to work with the primary abilities I chose above and run with it. It wouldn't really fit my concept, but as I said, you could if you wanted to. Instead, let's pretend I came up with some really interesting powers involving my concept.

I may actually do a write up on the concept later on when my head isn't spinning quite so much, but here I only wanted to demonstrate how it doesn't matter what WotC say the roles for each class are. You can decide that for yourself in anything other than a RPGA event. The system is actually more flexible than 3E. About the only place that it really fails is with the gish concept, and 3E didn't do so hot at that either until well into the product's life cycle.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Spend months getting insulted for liking a game, with them ranging from "clever" nicknames like 4ron to being called a 13-year-old with ADD, and see how friendly and open you are to people who make the exact same arguments all over again.

(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.

Or perhaps it shouldn't. Or at the very least it shouldn't be dragged down with valid arguments tainted by bitter, sarcastic comments. Why not leave all the 3E hate and hyperbole at the door to this thread and see where it goes instead. Just stick to playing the ball perhaps?

I have found this an interesting topic as I think this is one of the areas 4E could be improved upon. I think I read or heard (podcast?) somewhere one of the designers talking about a class that primarily filled one role but also covered in a lesser way a secondary role. I think this would be an interesting path to investigate without making characters take multiclassing feats that feel more like a role-veneer rather than a genuine secondary role.

The main problem I have found with roles is that the "solution" to a combat "problem" is obvious - the roles are that clearly defined (to the point of starkness). Our party knows each other's character's powers so well that we have established power chains for maximum effect. While this was certainly not something I think the designer's planned, I suppose you could consider it the "min-maxing" of 4E.

Thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Nymrohd]

I would say I consider it tactics tbh. My players always do that and they are not so much powergamers as they are tacticians.

And I think most builts essentially fill two roles. My party's cleric is a second defender, and the archer is a second controller or at least multi-target attacker. Most classes can do this already.

What I find the weakness in the role system in 4E is that the controller role in particular was ill-defined at release. That pretty much only affected the wizard, and after arcane power I expect that issue to be fixed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Or perhaps it shouldn't. Or at the very least it shouldn't be dragged down with valid arguments tainted by bitter, sarcastic comments. Why not leave all the 3E hate and hyperbole at the door to this thread and see where it goes instead. Just stick to playing the ball perhaps?

I have found this an interesting topic as I think this is one of the areas 4E could be improved upon. I think I read or heard (podcast?) somewhere one of the designers talking about a class that primarily filled one role but also covered in a lesser way a secondary role. I think this would be an interesting path to investigate without making characters take multiclassing feats that feel more like a role-veneer rather than a genuine secondary role.

The main problem I have found with roles is that the "solution" to a combat "problem" is obvious - the roles are that clearly defined (to the point of starkness). Our party knows each other's character's powers so well that we have established power chains for maximum effect. While this was certainly not something I think the designer's planned, I suppose you could consider it the "min-maxing" of 4E.

Thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I think the designers expected that the optimizing of the party would become the min-maxing goal. The entire system allows for synergies between different PCs. I am not sure if they predicted how big the power difference could be (I think that's hardly possible, unless there are actually only very few "hidden variables" that hide behind the powers abilities), but they might have thought that this wouldn't be an issue.
If the min-maxing is possible for just one PC, there are power differences that can irk some players and cause problems for the DM. If the entire party is optimized, the DM just can take from that that he can throw harder encounters at them - it's not like he has to avoid targeting weak characters or anything. (In fact, it becomes more important that he does hit the weak spots.)

---

The roles work well, but it's also obvious that most classes perform a "secondary role". The roles are also realized in different ways for the classes. It's typically easiest with Strikers and Leaders - Leaders get their healing powers, Strikers get their extra damage.

But Leaders also have some subtle differences, even within the same class. The Warlord is the best example.
- Inspiring Warlords grant lots of healing and saves. They are a "defensive" build.
- Tactical Warlords grant a lot offensive bonuses. Extra attacks and attack & damage bonuses.
Incidentally: If you want to help minimize "grind", ensure that you have a Tactical Warlord and a Striker or Defender good at basic melee attacks, e.g. Barbarians, Fighters, Avenging Paladins or Rangers.

Defenders main "shtick" is not AoOs. It is their ability to "motivate" their enemies to attack them instead of someone else in the party. The Paladin might say "Strike me Instead", the Fighter says: "If you don't, I'll hit you twice as hard!", the Swordmage (Shielding) says: "You don't deal damage to them anyway".

Someone asked why the roles forbid his Wizard to be a "Defender". That is simply because the Wizard never was the guy that said "hit me!". Yes, he "defended" the party by disabling enemies, granting them defensive bonuses. But that is a mix of control and leadership. The only Wizard that said "hit me" was the Fighter/Wizard (Eldritch Knight, Mageblade, Duskblade and so on) and in 4E is the Swordmage.
Even the core Wizard still has some "leadership" capabilities, but they tie in with his control features. He can grant Energy Resistance, Invisibility, Damage Resistance, or grant defensive bonuses from spells like Displacement.
The shtick of Controllers is to decide how the enemy can react to the party. Scorcing Burst says "don't bunch up", Magic Missile says: "We don't want no stinking artillery", Thunderwave says "I am not the target here, but the tough guy over there might want a word with you." Illusory Ambush says "Now is not a good time to use your stronger but limited powers."


(The wizards only problem for some seems to be that maybe his powers might need to get a little louder in what they say... I am eagerly waiting for PHB 2 and Arcane Power to see how this can be done)