D&D 4E Roles in 4E D&D - Combat and Non-Combat Roles

[Irda Ranger]

Because combat and roleplaying are the same thing

I guess that depends on how far away you're standing and how hard you're squinting. To a Martian (observing from Mars) Elle McPherson and Koko the Gorilla are the same thing. But I don't think they're the same at all.

Because combat and roleplaying are [both] elements of the game used to resolve a conflict.

To each his own preferred degree of abstraction, but for me that's too simple. You could just as easily say that butterfly-wings and catapults are both means for moving mass through space, and that therefore they are the same. But I'd probably use different systems for them, given my own preferences when playing D&D.

Combat rules are a model for describing a tactical melee at close range involving small teams of magic & medieval weapon-wielding badasses. Roleplaying is a bit more open ended than that.

 

[Irda Ranger]

KM, if making a definitive list of non-combat roles is even possible the only way you could ever do it is if you abstracted away the entire campaign setting to the point where the players couldn't tell (just looking at their character sheets) if they were Riders of Rohan or Ensigns in Starfleet. I think it's fair to assume that everyone else on this board prefers to know if their PC is licensed to pilot a starship or only has experience using sextants. Having 5 Ranks in "Getting from A to B" just doesn't really tell you enough about the PC to be enjoyable (for 99% of the people here, I'm guessing).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I guess that depends on how far away you're standing and how hard you're squinting.

That's very true, but that's equally true of D&D combat (hit points, in any edition, look pretty weird if you go up close and study them). Again, ideally, the system slides to accommodate heavier levels of resolution -- it's not hard to divide "trailblazer" into different environments if you want that granularity.

Combat rules are a model for describing a tactical melee at close range involving small teams of magic & medieval weapon-wielding badasses. Roleplaying is a bit more open ended than that.

What I'm presenting is basically there to resolve conflicts, just as combat is. There's only really two outcomes that are possible in resolving any conflict: either you win, or you fail.

If I'm trying to convince someone of something, either I convince them, or they remain unswayed.

If I'm trying to get somewhere, either I get there, or I get lost.

If I'm trying to figure out a puzzle, either I figure it out, or I don't.

It's not meant to replace in-character dialogue or players choosing how to respond, anymore than combat replaces players saying things like "I stab him in the eye!"

Conflict resolution isn't any more open ended than that. Conflict resolution isn't everything that roleplaying is, of course.

KM, if making a definitive list of non-combat roles is even possible the only way you could ever do it is if you abstracted away the entire campaign setting to the point where the players couldn't tell (just looking at their character sheets) if they were Riders of Rohan or Ensigns in Starfleet

It's not meant to be DEFINITIVE, but it is meant to illustrate what already exists in 4e. Those three things are what noncombat challenges ARE in 4e. New conflicts can be added (perhaps in Ravenloft you have Morality challenges; perhaps in Dark Sun you have Survival challenges, whatever).

"Striker" doesn't tell you if you're a ninja or a sniper or a wizard, either. It tells you what you do in combat. "Trailblazer" doesn't tell you if you're in the Riders or Starfleet, but it does tell you what you do when you are trying to find a way from Point A to Point B. That's what it's intention is, just like the other roles. No role is meant to tell you what genre you're playing in -- Strikers are just as applicable in a Star Trek universe as they are in the D&D universe.

I think it's fair to assume that everyone else on this board prefers to know if their PC is licensed to pilot a starship or only has experience using sextants. Having 5 Ranks in "Getting from A to B" just doesn't really tell you enough about the PC to be enjoyable (for 99% of the people here, I'm guessing).

There are other elements that tell you that, though. It's not like we're getting rid of classes or races or archetypes. "Striker" doesn't tell you if you're a rogue or a ranger or a warlock or a sorcerer, so I don't know why "Trailblazer" would have that burden -- that's not what roles do.

If Rangers, in addition to being strikers, also happen to be trailblazers, and are described as warriors learned in the ways of the wilderness, you probably know pretty well how the ranger gets from Point A to Point B -- like a boyscout who knows what side of the tree moss grows on, or a hunter able to read the migrations of animals, or just a guy who knows which way the rat tracks are headed based on their toes.

Roles are a level of abstraction above "class," after all. The game has other ways to fill in those details. Roles are, by their very nature, not very specific to genre or archetype. They're descriptive. Your class is your archetype, your role describes what you do in certain situations (combat in the core rules, or the other three situations common in a D&D game with something like my expanded system).

And if you want more specificity, it's not hard to add. Power sources and Classes ALREADY add another level of nuance, and if you divide up the roles into smaller sub-divisions, you get added layers of complexity. What's important about any role is that you know what it does in the given challenge. If you divide up "trailblazer" so that every 100-square-foot area in your campaign has its own "trailblazer" subdivision, you still know that your trailblazer is going to find a way from point A to point B (and can use powers that relate to that).

Roles -- whether combat roles or these noncombat roles -- never, ever tell you HOW your character does what it does. You can say that's a failing of "roles" overall, but it's as much a failing in combat as out of combat, if that's the case.

 

[Irda Ranger]

If you're not comfortable with the idea of Rogues being able to sneak-attack undead, you're probably also not comfortable with the level of abstraction that would ask you to be comfortable with your ranger finding their way out of a wizard-tower's teleport maze, but 4e is more than comfortable with that level of abstraction, so it should be OK with this.

Why should it? Rogue "sneak attacks" are just doing normal damage "more efficiently" than a Fighter, Paladin or Warlord does it. If the Fighter can hit it, the Rogue can hit it better. Your teleport maze example (which I assume is magical) is outside the Ranger's skill-set (neither Nature nor Dungeoneering apply) unless perhaps he is trained in Arcana and has Ritual Caster.

But that's neither really here nor there ...

------------

The main problem I have with the NCRs (and I'm just sort of focusing in on this now, so bear with me) is that you want to emphasize results while most people (when roleplaying) organize their character around methods. The Nature-trained PC can be Trailblazer, Chef, Horse Whisperer, Survivalist or Scholar when the party is in the woods, but he's none of those in the Underdark. He's all those non-combat roles in the woods because he knows about Nature; that's the idea behind the character.

(and when the party is in the Underdark the Dwarf with Dungeoneering is all those things, because he was raised beneath the mountains and knows how the caves of the world work)

Likewise, a player may want to make a PC that's a smooth talker who can make friends and influence people, so they take Diplomacy. Then one day the party finds itself lost in the woods and no one has Nature; but all is not lost - because maybe the guy who has Diplomacy can convince a local centaur to lead them to the nearest settlement. Trailblazer! The methods available were adapted to to need.

Your suggested NCRs seem to turn that 180-degrees, and I don't think many (certainly not I) want to give up the method/knowledge-centered means of describing our character.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Noncombat has the same axes. Any challenge, of any kind, has those axises. On the one side is GOAL on the other side is FAIL. Chutes and Ladders has those axises. Monopoly has those axises. Poker has those axises. Football has those axises.

Yes, various forms of non-combat challenges have similar axes (though I would not agree that they are the same by any stretch of the imagination). Non-combat itself does not. As a whole, "non-combat" encompasses far too many different things that work under entirely different rules to really be comparable to combat. Arguably, you need directly competitive challenges, rather than individual vs. environment challlenges, in order to even come close...

Besides, your "one side is GOAL and the other side is FAIL" statement really has nothing to do with what I just said, so I wonder if we are having some kind of bizarre miscommunication here. Success and failure have nothing to do with the offense vs. defense and direct vs. indirect axes, which are based entirely on complimentary ways in which one tries to achieve success and avoid failure. A conflict that has success and failure does not necessarily have either axis (I will use disarming a bomb as a an example of a challenge that has neither).

That's like saying you can't be a striker against minions.

A different environment doesn't change the role: "This is the guy who can get us where we're going" is a Trailblazer. It doesn't matter if it's in the dungeon or on the ocean or in the planes, the archetype -- the role -- is "guy who gets us from point A to point B," just like the striker role is "guy who deals direct damage." Direct Damage is just a combat-specific way to get from point A (you get in a fight) to point B (you win the fight).

Why would there be a change in skills? The ideas I had *replaced* the skills with something broader and more efficient. Maybe a given Trailblazer would have an "open locks" ability that works better in a vault, and another trailblazer would have a "shortcut" ability that works better in the wilderness, just like one striker has Sneak Attack and another striker has Eldritch Blast.

If you abstract it to that level it doesn't make any conceptual sense anymore, and you still don't quite fulfill the main purpose of roles. If there is no real difference between someone who navigates open wilderness and a guy who disarms traps in ancient ruins, then you have simply failed to make your system model the kinds of stories that people typically want to play in an RPG.

Besides, my comparison is not saying that you can't be a striker against minion. It is much more comparable to saying that, a class that can only deal large amount of damage to undead and a class that can only deal a large amount of damage to humanoids are not interchangeable in a party, and thus can't be said to fulfill the same role of a "striker".

No more than combat does. I don't think it's too big of a stretch for a game that assumes dragons can be stabbed in the kidneys to also assume that the guy with an "innate sense of direction" wouldn't get lost in a hedge maze OR a stone maze, and that the guy who can cook anything can make a rat edible OR a deer edible in the same way. They already assume that the guy who deals the damage can deal damage to oozes OR normal mortals, which, realistically, would involve two very specific skillsets.

You are misinterpreting the level of similarity.

I am not saying that a guy who can navigate a hedge maze can't navigate a stone maze. I am saying that a guy can't use his skills at navigating underground labyrinths to navigate the open ocean. There is a huge difference in skill-set between the two.

Seriously, your argument here has nothing to do with what I was saying. Or are you saying that the difference between having the skills to manage a merchant caravan and having the skills to be a master blacksmith are only as minor as the differences between having the ability to swing a sword at oozes and having the ability to swing a sword at a person?

I'll say it again:

Combat and noncombat challenges are the same thing.

I could use a 4e skill challenge to do a combat.

Heck, I could use a 4e skill CHECK to do a combat. One roll, add your level, compare with the monsters, done.

It's about the level of abstraction you want.

Yes, you can easily entirely replace the combat system with skill checks and challenges. That does not mean the inverse is true in the slightest. This argument is a total logical failure.

Why don't you need a dragonslayer to slay a dragon?

Because dragonslaying is subset of general fighting ability, not a totally alternate skill set.

Why don't you need a different kind of healer for your animal companion than for yourself?

Because healing people and healing animals are both subsets of the healing skill set, not totally alternate skill sets.

How does it work that a fighter who never fights a vampire is equally as good at killing them as he is at killing goblins that he's fought hundreds of?

Why shouldn't he be?

D&D takes a more abstract view of skill in general than you are demanding. I think the same level of abstraction can be applied to non-combat scenarios.

No, D&D doesn't take a more abstract view. It focuses entirely on a fairly limited range, abilities related to combat, and abstracts everything else. Within that range, it is amazingly detailed and specific. The minor abstractions made for that purpose don't mandate the kind of massive abstractions that you are advocating.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why should it? Rogue "sneak attacks" are just doing normal damage "more efficiently" than a Fighter, Paladin or Warlord does it. If the Fighter can hit it, the Rogue can hit it better. Your teleport maze example (which I assume is magical) is outside the Ranger's skill-set (neither Nature nor Dungeoneering apply) unless perhaps he is trained in Arcana and has Ritual Caster.

"More Efficiently"? Where do you stab an ooze more efficiently? How do you trip a gelatinous cube? And how would anyone raised in the back alleys of a city know how to hit the "weak spot" of a walking graveyard or an elemental or a living shadow? 4e, quite blatantly, is perfectly OK with a results-oriented design motif. If you can explain away attacking a creature made of fire in a way that is "more efficient" than other ways, I'm sure you have the necessary base to explain how the Ranger finds his way through the Teleport Maze by sensing which direction the wind is blowing from, or what happens to the fleas that jump out of Hrothgar's hide armor when he gets by the teleporter. Heck, according to the 4e Skill Challenge system as it exists, you can figure out that puzzle with any skill that you can make a persuasive case to the DM about. Not only that, but the Ranger DOES learn something about Arcana as he gains levels, so it's not like he's never heard the word "teleport" before.

The proposed idea is totally in line with the level of abstraction that 4e already assumes. We can debate whether or not 4e is right to assume that level, but, as I pointed out, I'm working within the bounds of 4e with this idea, not to surmount it. This isn't even a particularly hard pill to swallow compared to some of the things that 4e asks of its players.

The main problem I have with the NCRs (and I'm just sort of focusing in on this now, so bear with me) is that you want to emphasize results while most people (when roleplaying) organize their character around methods.

In 4e, the methods don't matter; only the results do. In D&D combat throughout the editions, this is also true: it only matters who wins the HP Attrition War. It doesn't matter if that sword blow hit my hand or my head or my ear or my toe, it doesn't matter if it was a thrust or a slash or a one-two-combo, it doesn't matter if it's six seconds in or six hours in, all that matters is if I can make him stop moving before he stops me.

I don't believe out-of-hand that people organize their character around methods. When my players do something, they couch it in terms of results: "I want to shove him off a cliff," or "I want to kill the man that killed my father," or "I want to master the riddles of the halflings." They don't say "I want a character who is intelligent," they say "I want a character who can outfox the Sphinx." This is true for a pretty vast swath of players over three different editions, and while it's just anecdotal experience, I think it at least puts an experiential hole in the idea that people care about methods very deeply.

The Nature-trained PC can be Trailblazer, Chef, Horse Whisperer, Survivalist or Scholar when the party is in the woods, but he's none of those in the Underdark. He's all those non-combat roles in the woods because he knows about Nature; that's the idea behind the character.
(and when the party is in the Underdark the Dwarf with Dungeoneering is all those things, because he was raised beneath the mountains and knows how the caves of the world work)

In a lot of ways, 4e takes the air out of that idea. Just like everyone can contribute to a fight against a goblin or an ooze, everyone can ALSO contribute to exploring the woods or the underdark. Even our ranger friend gets Arcana; even our sickly weakling 4e wizards can climb mountains with their bare hands that mere mortals could never attempt. Our city-bred rogue who couldn't draw a horse if it was described to him can charm an unruly stallion into becoming a docile lap-horse.

I understand that you might not like that level of abstraction, but the fact remains that it exists, and that was the context in which the idea was presented. It doesn't do anything especially new -- characters in 4e already are not defined by their methods as much as the results.

Likewise, a player may want to make a PC that's a smooth talker who can make friends and influence people, so they take Diplomacy. Then one day the party finds itself lost in the woods and no one has Nature; but all is not lost - because maybe the guy who has Diplomacy can convince a local centaur to lead them to the nearest settlement. Trailblazer! The methods available were adapted to to need.

There's a few different misconceptions at work, here. The first is that "no one has nature." Like a combat without a Striker, an exploration team without a Trailblazer SHOULD be a little "unbalanced," but not so much as to handicap them. Like the roles, these are not binary -- there's Striker-like powers in a lot of classes, and other classes might have Trailblazer-esque abilities as well. Like the 4e skill and the 4e combat systems exist now, this system would retain that level of "everyone can do everything" that is already inherent in 4e. In 4e, there is never a situation where no one has Nature.

The second is that the challenges are exclusive. Challenges can be nested like little nesting dolls. 4e already has elements of this with traps being common in encounters. There's no reason that an exploration challenge can't have a persuasion challenge put inside of it. That is, essentially, what you're describing: the Persuason Challenge is "Can you convince the centaurs to give us directions?" after the team had already failed the Exploration Challenge. Of course, given the point above, no team should automatically fail an Exploration Challenge just because they don't have a particular role, just like no team should automatically loose a battle because they didn't bring a Leader.

Your suggested NCRs seem to turn that 180-degrees, and I don't think many (certainly not I) want to give up the method/knowledge-centered means of describing our character.

That means is already, to a large extent, gone in 4e, most obviously within combat, but also without (everyone gains ranks in everything -- a desert hermit who has never seen a body of water deeper than his arm of 15th level can swim better than a sailor of 1st who has lived his entire life on the ocean). If you don't want to give it up, that's a different debate, but to suggest I'm doing something revolutionary here is kind of bizarre. I'm working well within the bounds of abstraction that 4e has already set. The framework above isn't doing anything that isn't already very present in the game.

Separately, I'd argue that the 4e design team had a good reason for doing this, and that it's a useful approach in designing a game that's easier to learn and play, and, again, encourage those who want more complexity to add more complexity. Roles in 4e already have multiple sub-divisions in power source and class. You could divide them by encounter type, too. The roles I've proposed can vary by power source, by class, by background, by knowledge skill, by environment, by locality, by personality, whatever. You don't want Rangers to be able to find their way in the dungeon? Go for it. Here's the consequence you may have to face (one I'm sure you're familiar with): Sometimes, it might suck really hard to play a Ranger in your game, if the party is, through circumstances, forced to spend a huge portion of the game in a mage's dungeon. Just like a rogue sucked in 3e against a campaign featuring large numbers of undead (or, really, how certain warlock builds suck in 4e against the same adversaries; and how certain paladin or cleric builds are even mightier in those situations). If you're cool with that, or have a solution for it, go wild. If you're not OK with that, maybe you should abandon that level of detail in this particular instance, because it wouldn't add much to your game.

But the fact of the matter is that 4e, with or without this system, tells you over and over and over again, don't worry about the fluff -- don't worry about the how or the why. Just worry about what it does.

All this system does is take the existing skill system to that logical conclusion.

 

[Quickleaf]

I wanted to chime in about my approach to martial rites which I think has a lot of bearing. Basically it's "skills++", or skill challenges from Iron Heroes/True 20. In those systems it was if you succeed by 5, you can do this super cool move with the skill. You could adapt that concept to the non-combat roles you are proposing. So you'd have the "Face" be able to pull off cool stuff like intimidate multiple creatures with a high enough Intimidate check. That sort of thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, various forms of non-combat challenges have similar axes (though I would not agree that they are the same by any stretch of the imagination). Non-combat itself does not. As a whole, "non-combat" encompasses far too many different things that work under entirely different rules to really be comparable to combat.

I said that in the original post. I'll say it again. This is an idea for how to use non-combat roles in 4e to add variety to non-combat challenges. Aside from resolving challenges, the roles system doesn't have much of a use. What's a striker do when he's not fighting stuff? "Striker" only defines how he fights stuff. What's a Trailblazer do when she's not going somewhere? "Trailblazer" only defines how she responds to a kind of challenge.

Success and failure have nothing to do with the offense vs. defense and direct vs. indirect axes, which are based entirely on complimentary ways in which one tries to achieve success and avoid failure. A conflict that has success and failure does not necessarily have either axis (I will use disarming a bomb as a an example of a challenge that has neither).

Success and failure DO have to do with offense and defense, though.

When you're disarming a bomb, there are two basic outcomes: you either disarm the bomb, or you do not (and, presumably, if you don't, the bomb blows up). An "offensive" bomb-disarmer might gut the thing to cut the right wire, while a "defensive" bomb-disarmer would just make sure you don't cut the WRONG wire. A successful offense means you've clipped the right wire. A successful defense means that when you would've clipped the wrong wire, you instead realized at the last minute that it was wrong.

Offense = Things that get you toward success. Things that earn you successes and deplete enemy HP.
Defense = Things that stop your offensive failures from being COMPLETE failures. Things that allow you more failures and restore your own HP.

If you abstract it to that level it doesn't make any conceptual sense anymore, and you still don't quite fulfill the main purpose of roles.

The main purpose of roles as they exist now, just to be absolutely clear here, is to give you diverse ways to contribute in combat. The idea of roles as I have slightly expanded it is to change "in combat" to "in a challenge" (of which combat is one type).

Sorcerers and Warlocks and Rangers and Rogues are all the same role. "Striker" doesn't tell them how they do what they do, it just tells them what they do.

In my example, I basically have five classes all sharing a role. "Trailblazer" doesn't tell those classes how to do their job, it just tells them what their job in such a challenge is.

If there is no real difference between someone who navigates open wilderness and a guy who disarms traps in ancient ruins, then you have simply failed to make your system model the kinds of stories that people typically want to play in an RPG.

"If there is no real difference between someone who stabs you in the kidneys with a dagger and a guy who makes deals with the devil, then you have blah blah blah..."

There is a difference, the difference is not the role. You look for difference in the class (which, you'll see, my outline above included), in the powers (which I mentioned, but didn't actually show), in the build (sure, why not?), in the power source (again, why not?), in whatever level of other definition you care to add.

The role, however, remains the same. There are a lot of different kinds of strikers in the world. Why wouldn't there be a lot of different kinds of Trailblazers? My post includes at least five.

It is much more comparable to saying that, a class that can only deal large amount of damage to undead and a class that can only deal a large amount of damage to humanoids are not interchangeable in a party, and thus can't be said to fulfill the same role of a "striker".

You notice 4e rogues can sneak attack elementals, yes? 4e doesn't divide you up based on such a binary system. My idea doesn't, either, and this remains consistent with 4e's philosophy. If you're looking for a different philosophy, that's a different concern -- my goal was to work within 4e's assumptions to create a natural extension of the roles concept into types of challenges aside from combat.

I am saying that a guy can't use his skills at navigating underground labyrinths to navigate the open ocean. There is a huge difference in skill-set between the two.

There's a huge difference in skill-set between stabbing with daggers and shooting magic lasers, but both are strikers. There's also a huge difference in stabbing an alien being made of fire and stabbing some guy down at the pub, but both are covered under "sneak attack." I'm well within 4e's bounds of abstraction.

Or are you saying that the difference between having the skills to manage a merchant caravan and having the skills to be a master blacksmith are only as minor as the differences between having the ability to swing a sword at oozes and having the ability to swing a sword at a person?

That's getting at it, yes. 4e doesn't even assume the difference between a blacksmith and a merchant caravan manager is worthy of being mechanically represented in any capacity. My sketched system could at least allow you to posit a kind of challenge (say, an "economic challenge" about earning money performing your duty) and have characters vary in their approach to it.

Yes, you can easily entirely replace the combat system with skill checks and challenges. That does not mean the inverse is true in the slightest. This argument is a total logical failure.

A skill check and combat are just two different ways to measure if you succeed at a goal or not.

The core of the D&D game mechanics is just finding out if characters succeed at their goals or not. Every type of encounter, every type of challenge, every type of check, every type of die roll in the game, is about only this. Does my guy successfully do what I want him to do? This only has two possible answers.

Any method you can use for one question, you can, without any doubt in my mind, use for another.

It's not always the best -- my original formulation of the idea was too close to combat, probably (challenges had "challenge hit points" and such), but it's entirely possible and entirely plausible. Combat is just the most complicated method of this (on the flip side, the least complicated method is DM Fiat).

The only detail that is relevant, however, is subjective: how much detail do YOU want in this particular challenge?

Because dragonslaying is subset of general fighting ability, not a totally alternate skill set.

"General fighting ability" doesn't exist, any more than "general ability to get where you're going" exists. If you took a four-star general from today and plopped him in front of an angry, hungry sabre-toothed tiger in 3,000 BC, he'd probably get mauled.

D&D is totally OK with an abstract level of fighting ability. It's not a huge leap to make that an abstract level of ability to deal with challenges -- fighting is just one kind of challenge.

Because healing people and healing animals are both subsets of the healing skill set, not totally alternate skill sets.

Veterinary medicine and surgery are not the same thing. D&D is totally OK with an abstract level of "healing ability." It's not a huge leap to make that an abstract level of "ability to persuade others." Persuading others is just one kind of challenge.

Why shouldn't he be?

Hey, if he can be equally as good no matter the monster, why shouldn't my Ranger be equally as good no matter the maze? If not having any vampire-fighting experience can still translate into a dead vampire, why does not having any dungeon-maze experience not translate into getting through the dungeon-maze?

No, D&D doesn't take a more abstract view. It focuses entirely on a fairly limited range, abilities related to combat, and abstracts everything else. Within that range, it is amazingly detailed and specific. The minor abstractions made for that purpose don't mandate the kind of massive abstractions that you are advocating.

Take a look at any thread regarding Shoedinger's Wounding and tell me with a straight face that 4e D&D is "amazingly detailed and specific." Heck, play Rolemaster and tell me that. Or Harn.

Or just take a look at the 4e roles system, which is what this parallels, and tell me THAT is amazingly detailed and specific.

Or, perhaps more damningly, take a look at the existing 4e D&D skills system, which would be what this proposed system basically replaces. It is by all means NOT amazingly detailed and specific, even by comparison to earlier editions (Non-Weapon Proficiencies and 3e's skills were both much more detailed, and even they had a lot of abstraction). These roles for other challenges are not insanely abstract for a 4e D&D game.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Kamikaze, I think this discussion has already hit the point where it doesn't quite seem like we are speaking the same language anymore. I don't think I can persuade you, and I don't think you can persuade me. I really don't want to get any further into this "level of abstraction" discussion, since I simply don't want to argue definitions with you.

However, there is one fundamental point of difference that I should point out.

In my mind, the entire point of the roles system is to allow different classes of the same role to replace another. Sure, a Rogue is very different from a Warlock, but a team of characters works just as well with either. A Warlord and a Cleric are very different, but a team works just as well with either. What is more, it makes sense how they are interchangeable, and it is never forced.

In your "role" system, all you are doing is trying to force totally different ideas to be equivalent. You try to claim that the difference between a sailor navigating the open seas and a guy skilled at disarming traps are equivalent to the difference between a rogue and a warlock, but you are simply wrong. Rogues and warlocks get their powers from different sources and use different methods, but ultimately they both do the exact same thing: deal large amounts of damage to a target in battle. This similarity is not an abstraction, it is a logical result of their actions. The similarity between navigating the seas and opening locks is an abstraction, since it only makes sense within the conceptual framework you devised and doesn't make sense on its own merits. Basically, these two situations are only equivalent if we presuppose the existence and validity of your "roles", which I am not going to do.

The thing is, I can easily imagine that different kinds of challenges would have different "roles" that can be fulfilled in different ways. I can imagine that sailing would be its own challenge that has a captain role, a navigator role, and so on. One captain may run the ship using authority and respect. Another captain may run the entire ship using a psionic mind-link network to create a ship hivemind. One navigator may plot the ships course using specialized instruments and knowledge of the sun, moon, and stars. Another navigator may chart a path by calling upon the guidance of spirits and animals. These are true non-combat roles and classes, and you could even construct them using existing power sources without any trouble. However, I don't accept that there are global non-combat roles and classes that work independently of individual challenges. Such things only make sense within individual frameworks like "sailing a ship", which are equivalent to "combat" in level of detail.

Huh, I guess I ended up trying to continue the argument after all... Sorry about that. Debating is a bad habit that is hard to break.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In my mind, the entire point of the roles system is to allow different classes of the same role to replace another. Sure, a Rogue is very different from a Warlock, but a team of characters works just as well with either. A Warlord and a Cleric are very different, but a team works just as well with either. What is more, it makes sense how they are interchangeable, and it is never forced.

Sure. I think that's a good aspect of the roles system, too. I don't think that's entirely what roles are about, but it's a great benefit -- a party with any striker is "balanced" for combat.

My concept continues that -- a party that meets the offensive and defensive side of each challenge is "balanced" for that challenge.

The game still works fine if you're missing one of the roles, however. You don't NEED a rogue or a warlock or any striker. You'll feel their loss, but you don't need them to win a battle.

In your "role" system, all you are doing is trying to force totally different ideas to be equivalent. You try to claim that the difference between a sailor navigating the open seas and a guy skilled at disarming traps are equivalent to the difference between a rogue and a warlock, but you are simply wrong. Rogues and warlocks get their powers from different sources and use different methods, but ultimately they both do the exact same thing: deal large amounts of damage to a target in battle. This similarity is not an abstraction, it is a logical result of their actions.

No, it IS an abstraction. There is nothing inherent to "I use the powers of Satan to kill my foes" that indicates the role of a Striker. There is nothing about being the stealthy, sneaky rogue that indicates Sneak Attack. There is nothing about being a wilderness warrior that requires you be a phenomenal archer/two-weapon fighter.

The sailor and the traps guy both ultimately do the exact same thing: get you where you're going. It's actually a bit similar to what the Striker does: going forward, directly, to reach your goal.

That's an abstraction.

That's a level removed.

That's the same level that "Striker" exists at.

Basically, these two situations are only equivalent if we presuppose the existence and validity of your "roles", which I am not going to do.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees, I think.

If you can understand the concept that combat is the same as a skill check, then you can understand how roles can get applied outside of combat.

If you don't understand that concept, I can keep explaining it. But even if you never understand it, it doesn't make it any less true. And regardless of if you understand it or not, it doesn't make the proposed system any less useful. I explained -- a couple of times -- how different layers of division can be added, so you can wind up having a sailor and a trap-disarmer who can't easily solve each other's problems, if that's what you want. Just like how different warlock builds add levels of division to the Striker role, and play very differently. But you can construct a system on my concept that enables a sailor and a lock-picker to both contribute in a balanced (and exclusive) way to the non-combat encounter, including the possibility that if you don't have one guy who gets you where you're going, you can use another one.

The thing is, I can easily imagine that different kinds of challenges would have different "roles" that can be fulfilled in different ways. I can imagine that sailing would be its own challenge that has a captain role, a navigator role, and so on. One captain may run the ship using authority and respect. Another captain may run the entire ship using a psionic mind-link network to create a ship hivemind. One navigator may plot the ships course using specialized instruments and knowledge of the sun, moon, and stars. Another navigator may chart a path by calling upon the guidance of spirits and animals. These are true non-combat roles and classes, and you could even construct them using existing power sources without any trouble. However, I don't accept that there are global non-combat roles and classes that work independently of individual challenges. Such things only make sense within individual frameworks like "sailing a ship", which are equivalent to "combat" in level of detail.

You're not thinking broad enough. You're not thinking with 4e "ends-justify-the-means" logic. Maybe you don't want to and that's fine, but 4e in general doesn't care. 4e doesn't want you to have a different role for slaying the Dragon or slaying the Zombie -- dealing high damage to the monstrous ooze with a knife or the goblin chief with a volley of arrows doesn't demand a separate role. All of these things are "striker." You probably shouldn't hold my concept to any higher of a standard than you'd hold the concept of roles in the first place. They do the same thing.