Roles - do they work?

[ProfessorPain]

My question to you here would be How do you define Striker in this case?

What I mean is that no, the fighter isn't going to run up to the BBEG and lay out a Daily power that does 4[W] damage in one shot. BUT, the total aggregate damage dealt to the BBEG by the Fighter might approach that of the Rogue or Ranger if you take into account damage dealt by Opportunity Attacks while trying to protect those other characters. Especially if your weapon and feat selection supports doing as much damage as possible.

I really want the fighters do be able to dish out as much damage as the strikers in one blow. Or at least the ability to build my fighter that way. I basically feel like my character's role is a sponge. And making a ranged fighter is very difficult.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I'd just like to take a moment and quote Kain from Soul Reaver.

"Free will is an illusion."

The way D&D works there are really only two situations that you end up with if you care about power. Either you have no choice that matters or there are only a few correct choices with all others being sub-optimal. In my mind it's best just to come up with a fun concept and roll(role?) with it. Right now the edition is still young, so if you want options you are going to have to make them yourself. Later on WotC will shove enough choices down your throat to choke on.

I would rather have sub optimal choices on the table; otherwise your decisions don't really matter. And sometimes things that are normally sub optimal, can end up working out in the right situation.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Not very easily. The 4e fighter's OA also ends movement, preventing the ogre from going past. At best, the ogre could use his standard action to move past, but at that point, he can't attack. Also, in 4e you get one OA per opponent's turn, so the fighter can do that to every enemy, not just the first one.

Given the limited amount of damage per turn, why wouldn't the ogre up an attack and take limited damage getting past the fighter to pound on the squishy in the future.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I would rather have sub optimal choices on the table; otherwise your decisions don't really matter. And sometimes things that are normally sub optimal, can end up working out in the right situation.

Oh, I agree with you on that, but then, I prefer playing diverse fun characters over time rather than the same boring, yet optimal build over and over again. In time we will have those choices in splat books. Till then, it's up to us.

 

[yesnomu]

I would rather have sub optimal choices on the table; otherwise your decisions don't really matter. And sometimes things that are normally sub optimal, can end up working out in the right situation.

Therein lies "rules mastery" and catering towards the more experienced players. It's the attitude that got us worthless (or at least, mostly worthless) feats like Dodge or Toughness in the 3.5 PHB.

Suboptimal choices are a waste of ink and paper, and I don't want them anywhere near my books. I'd ideally like to be able to pick options at random, and not end up too much worse than a focused, planned build.

Also, if you want your Fighter to do a lot of damage and not protect allies, why aren't you a Barbarian/Ranger/Brutal Rogue? There are plenty of classes that do high melee damage.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would rather have sub optimal choices on the table; otherwise your decisions don't really matter. And sometimes things that are normally sub optimal, can end up working out in the right situation.

Your choices matter because they change _how_ you solve the tasks ahead.
It matters a great deal whether you use a Bow or two weapons to kill your enemies. Just like it matters whether you convince the Lord to aid you by diplomacy or by making threats against his life.
It results in different stories being told.

And of course, your choices can also affect the difficulty of individual encounters - a character build for ranged combat will fare great in the wilderness, but if he's limited to close quarters, he might feel weaker. While the Fighter just loves to stand at the door and keep the enemies at bay.

And making a ranged fighter is very difficult.

Do you want suboptimal choices in your game or not? Or do you want them to exist, but the choices you make never suboptimal? Because making a ranged fighter in 4E is suboptimal. You give up most if not all his powers.
In all editions of D&D, it was difficult to build a wizard (or magic-user) to become a healer. The design motivation behind this changed over time, of course.

Given the limited amount of damage per turn, why wouldn't the ogre up an attack and take limited damage getting past the fighter to pound on the squishy in the future.

Maybe because the Ogre doesn't like to get hurt. Overall, it is because it's a net win for the party. The party deals 1[W]+Fighters STR damage, while the Ogre deals 2d10+5 (guesstimate) damage to the Rogue. (multiplied by hit probability yaddayaddayadda). If he had attacked the fighter, he had dealt 2d10+5 damage and the party wouldn't have dealt any damage. Of course, the Rogue will feel the 2d10+5 stronger then the Fighter, but does he feel it 1[W]+STR stronger?

For specific scenarios, we might actually be able to calculate precisely which option is better. But most of the time, we will have to go by our gut - and incidentally, it's the Ogers gut that the Fighter strikes at, to mangle our metaphors further.

 

[Spatula]

You may have a point here, as I only have the PHB and the DMG, so I am not familiar with the newer classes. But my understanding is that none of them blend roles (could be wrong though).

You are wrong.

CLASS TRAITS
Role: Controller. ...Depending on your choice of class features and powers, you might lean toward either leader or striker as a secondary role.

As Mustrum_Ridcully pointed out, that's not even true of the PHB classes, most of which are dual-role as well. It's just not explicitly called out, as it is with the newer classes.

Fighter - can function as a striker (while still being a defender!) with a big weapon and a focus on the high-damage exploits. This applies to any class that can use big weapons, actually (warlord, paladin, etc.).
Cleric & Warlord - both have some defender powers & paragon paths. Clerics also have a bunch of battlefield control (i.e. controller) prayers.
Paladin - is basically a defender/leader.

and so on. The strikers, for the most part, seem to be the only ones without much flexibility.

I guess what I am saying, is a character that functions as a highly mobile interceptor on the field. Someone who can get around defenders, can take tons of damage, and possible engage the controllers and leaders in melee.

Barbarian.

Wait, is someone whose viable niche in combat is to buff the group a leader even though he does not heal or is this a fifth role?

Yes, you could probably split healing & buffing into two different roles. Healing isn't a terribly interesting schtick in its own right, though (see: the Healer class) which is possibly why they combined them.

Certainly in the leader classes we've seen so far, there are ranges of ability - all leaders have a healing word-like power, but they're not all equally effective. And the playtest artificer, at least, has an ability that it can use in place of its healing infusion (gives temp HP, as I recall), meaning you could possibly ditch healing from the class altogether.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Therein lies "rules mastery" and catering towards the more experienced players. It's the attitude that got us worthless (or at least, mostly worthless) feats like Dodge or Toughness in the 3.5 PHB.

Suboptimal choices are a waste of ink and paper, and I don't want them anywhere near my books. I'd ideally like to be able to pick options at random, and not end up too much worse than a focused, planned build.

.

Suboptimal doesn't mean they are always a bad choice; it depends what you are trying to build. But I do think it should be possible to create different power levels within a group of characters that are the same level. I realize not everyone prefers this, but that is how I like to game (and I am not no of those guy who is brilliant at making uber powered builds either); but I really did enjoy getting creative with the d20 system. I understand why some people may not share that view, and can appreciate how that makes 4E highly enjoyable for some. But for me, it just doesn't get me very excited. I feel as though no matter what I do to my fighter, he will be equal to all other fighters. That just isn't what I am looking for.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Your choices matter because they change _how_ you solve the tasks ahead.
It matters a great deal whether you use a Bow or two weapons to kill your enemies. Just like it matters whether you convince the Lord to aid you by diplomacy or by making threats against his life.
It results in different stories being told.

I want my choices to impact outcomes, not flavor.

Do you want suboptimal choices in your game or not? Or do you want them to exist, but the choices you make never suboptimal? Because making a ranged fighter in 4E is suboptimal. You give up most if not all his powers.
In all editions of D&D, it was difficult to build a wizard (or magic-user) to become a healer. The design motivation behind this changed over time, of course.

I want suboptimal choices and optimal ones. So for the ranged example; i don't just want the option to make a crappy ranged fighter; I want to be able to create either a crappy or stellar ranged fighter depending on the choices I make.

I understand that certain classes wont lend themselves some concepts. The wizard is a good example. But I don't see anything about firing a bow really well that is outside of the fighter concept. Even if it were; I could always take a few levels in ranger if I want my fighter to be a better ranged attacker, and a few levels in Cleric if I want my wizard to heal (in previous editions).

 

[Voadam]

Suboptimal doesn't mean they are always a bad choice; it depends what you are trying to build. But I do think it should be possible to create different power levels within a group of characters that are the same level. I realize not everyone prefers this, but that is how I like to game (and I am not no of those guy who is brilliant at making uber powered builds either); but I really did enjoy getting creative with the d20 system. I understand why some people may not share that view, and can appreciate how that makes 4E highly enjoyable for some. But for me, it just doesn't get me very excited. I feel as though no matter what I do to my fighter, he will be equal to all other fighters. That just isn't what I am looking for.

What is the point of the suboptimal builds and different power levels? Is it to make you feel good that you chose a strong build instead of a weak one? Is it to allow you to explore being weaker than your companions or the opposition you face?

I really like the 3e design goal of balance, every class is roughly equal to every other class in combat at every level. I hate looking at a build I think would be interesting then realizing it would be significantly weaker in combat than a character of that level should be. That is a failure to meet the 3e balance design goal, not a feature IMO. I don't want to be the only player in the game playing Call of Cthulhu when everyone else is playing superheroes.

In D&D I want to be able to meaningfully engage in combat with the group. I want to explore lots of different D&D concepts. I want them all to be viable in combat. I don't want mechanical power discrepancies to affect group dynamics or interactions.