Roles - do they work?

[Gimby]

I agree, just straight fighter is a good fit here for your duelist. Picking carefully theres a good deal of single target powers that significantly hamper whoever they hit. Theres also a good selection of movement powers that let you get to and stick to your chosen target. While the damage you put out isn't ranger grade spectacular, you can build a character focused on picking a single enemy and cutting them down in single combat. With careful magic item selection and particularly if your target tries to get away you can go very respectable damage. You'll even have very competative defenses and attack bonuses.

I think this has been covered upthread, but the existing classes aren't as strongly pigeonholed into their roles as some people seem to think - they all have a secondary role as well, its just not strongly spelled out.

Its come up before but I think theres some truth in the idea that the secondary role is linked to power source - Divine classes do leadery type stuff, Arcane ones tend to the controller end while Martial ones tend to be more striker (or at least damage) oriented.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Well, that's totally legitimate, but now you're moving away from the class-based system entirely, and onto something more like HERO or GURPS. Building the classes you want out of the options available. That, of course, has its pros and cons, as does a more focused class system.

4e has a tightly focused class system to fulfill its goals of having every member of the party useful and able to fill a role in combat. If you don't see those goals as legitimate or don't want to have the system built around them, then of course 4e won't have turned out the way you wanted it.

Allowing characters to freely take powers from outside their role diminishes their ability to fill it, and makes them more of a Jack-of-all-Trades. They may still be an effective character, but they're less dependent on their party to cover their weak points and less effective at their primary role, which makes them (somewhat) less useful to the party. Both of these are against the goals of the system, so taking powers from other classes is restricted.

It all comes down to the goals of the system, what you want the system to do for you. I think 4e has accomplished its goals extremely well, which is both a good and a bad thing for the game's appeal towards gamers.

I still what base classes; just would like class to govern things like HP, BAB, Feats and Skills. But want the powers to be easily customized. I don't think it would hurt team work as much as people think. Even in games like heroes, GURPS, etc people tend to consult one another during character creation and strive for a balanced party that works well. In fact some of my favorite 'teams' have emerged from the heroes system. But you are right, this isn't the goal of the system.

I agree about it being about the goal of the system, and I did take a moment in an earlier post to praise the 4E designers (I may be unsatisfied with its direction, but I can recognize it is a solid and well built system). I just wasn't looking forward to a game with such an emphasis on roles, and balance (I realize they were trying to undo the imbalance of 3E, but it just goes too far for my taste).

 

[yesnomu]

I still what base classes; just would like class to govern things like HP, BAB, Feats and Skills. But want the powers to be easily customized. I don't think it would hurt team work as much as people think. Even in games like heroes, GURPS, etc people tend to consult one another during character creation and strive for a balanced party that works well. In fact some of my favorite 'teams' have emerged from the heroes system. But you are right, this isn't the goal of the system.

I agree about it being about the goal of the system, and I did take a moment in an earlier post to praise the 4E designers (I may be unsatisfied with its direction, but I can recognize it is a solid and well built system). I just wasn't looking forward to a game with such an emphasis on roles, and balance (I realize they were trying to undo the imbalance of 3E, but it just goes too far for my taste).

Fair enough! It's great how many different games are out there, each with different things to appeal to people.

 

[Mallus]

There is nothing wrong with the way you are laying out your concept, but it isn't the same concept, as I've pointed out before. At best, my duelist concept would be a striker/defender hybrid with a focus on the former. Aside from that, he would be designed around engaging and holding a single opponent to the death, thus the term "duelist."

As far as I know, no edition of D&D, or class-based version of the d20 engine can completely model this concept. You could do it using Mutants and Masterminds, it's not class-based, in fact, it's essentially the HERO system in d20 drag (which is a good, no, a great thing).

 

[yesnomu]

No, you.. acted like I said heroic tier feats were a waste and that paragon paths were, or something...

I said I didn't like LOSING three of the heroic feats and all of the paragon path.

Novice Power, Acolyte Power, and Adept Power are the waste.

Well, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, so I apologize if I did. But I think I did address those points as well:

-Nobody likes giving up feats, but I don't think the * Power feats are a waste. They let you dabble in another role, giving you versatility that I think is worth the cost. A wizard can take leader-ish Cleric powers, giving him a bit of a secondary role. Considering how many feats you get, they can be very much worth it.

-As I mentioned, Paragon Multiclassing kinda blows right now. Grabbing a PP from your multiclass is much better. But PMing gets you an at-will from your multiclass, which has to be heavily restricted (or everyone grabs Twin Strike). It's limited in utility right now, but it looks like the designers are targeting it for more feats to make it better.

PMing is sucky, but 4e's muticlassing has enough good points to make up for it, I feel.

 

[yesnomu]

And that would be fine if I was making a defensive light fighter designed around engaging multiple foes, but I'm not. There is nothing wrong with the way you are laying out your concept, but it isn't the same concept, as I've pointed out before. At best, my duelist concept would be a striker/defender hybrid with a focus on the former. Aside from that, he would be designed around engaging and holding a single opponent to the death, thus the term "duelist."

You should check out the Avenger when it gets printed, it looks like it'll do a lot of what you want, sticking close to one enemy at a time and destroying it. It is divine, though.
Flickr Photo Download: S1051701
Flickr Photo Download: S1051700

 

[Scars Unseen]

You should check out the Avenger when it gets printed, it looks like it'll do a lot of what you want, sticking close to one enemy at a time and destroying it. It is divine, though.
Flickr Photo Download: S1051701
Flickr Photo Download: S1051700

Looking at the links you gave me, it does look like the tactical concept is similar, even if the mechanical construction and flavor are likely to differ. As I work on my duelist build I will keep an eye out for that class for inspiration. Thanks for the link.

 

[Spatula]

And that would be fine if I was making a defensive light fighter designed around engaging multiple foes, but I'm not.

There's nothing about multiple foes in there. You take single-target exploits with appropriate riders for the flavor that you're after.

The only reason that the classes are tied into a single role

...except that they're not, as has been repeatedly pointed out here.

Also, what Cadfan said.

 

[Sadrik]

Quite honestly you guys have been splitting hairs for pages...

Martial character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff is all pretty interchangeable. A duelist really is simply a rogue with some multi-classed fighter powers or a ranger with some fighter powers or a fighter with some ranger powers etc. Mix it as you will to get the character you desire.

The real problem with character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff and roles is when you get into arcane, divine, primal, shadow, psi and ki power sources. They don't easily translate into different character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff.

Each one is set up to be pretty distinct now. Warlocks are different from Wizards which are different from Swordmage which is different from a Bard which is different from a Sorcerer. These are all different roles and different tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff.

I like all of those characters tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff and think that they should be distinct. However, the problem is that they are hardwired into a single way to play them (role). I may want to play a Necromancer (A wizard leader), an Enchanter (A wizard controller), an Abjurer (A wizard defender), or an Evoker (A wizard striker). I could go on and on with each and every class in this way but the point is made. That wizard's tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff is the important part here (cantrips, spellbooks, scholarly pursuit, etc) not that all wizards are controllers and must be played in that way.



Also several pages back someone asked if their was a specific way they could have split the PC roles up in a better way and there is. Look at the monster roles (minus minion, elite and solo of course). See post #1 for more specifics on this.

 

[AngeltheTechrat]

Quite honestly you guys have been splitting hairs for pages...

Martial character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff is all pretty interchangeable. A duelist really is simply a rogue with some multi-classed fighter powers or a ranger with some fighter powers or a fighter with some ranger powers etc. Mix it as you will to get the character you desire.

The real problem with character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff and roles is when you get into arcane, divine, primal, shadow, psi and ki power sources. They don't easily translate into different character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff.

Each one is set up to be pretty distinct now. Warlocks are different from Wizards which are different from Swordmage which is different from a Bard which is different from a Sorcerer. These are all different roles and different tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff.

I like all of those characters tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff and think that they should be distinct. However, the problem is that they are hardwired into a single way to play them (role). I may want to play a Necromancer (A wizard leader), an Enchanter (A wizard controller), an Abjurer (A wizard defender), or an Evoker (A wizard striker). I could go on and on with each and every class in this way but the point is made. That wizard's tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff is the important part here (cantrips, spellbooks, scholarly pursuit, etc) not that all wizards are controllers and must be played in that way.

Thank you. This is exactly what I'm talking about.