Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think this comes down to personal preference. I like my classes loosely defined so I can impose my character idea upon them. I dislike my classes strongly defined where I need to pick the class that best represents my character idea.

Would you say then that D&D in general has always had this problem because it is a class-based system? The Thief/Rogue, the Fighter and the Paladin have always used the same "tools" as you put it, but in different ways. What if you wanted to be a holy warrior that snuck around and Backstabbed/Sneak Attacked people. The classes got in the way in previous editions also.

 

[Imaro]

Interesting assumption since the "archetypes" are enforced by Class Features. If they were not they'd be simply labels.

In combat the label "rogue" without sneak attack has no mechanical difference to "paladin". The same as the label "wizard" without spells has no mechanical difference to "paladin"

Without class features the archetypal labels are simply labels.

No the archetypes are represented through the class features... there's a difference. The archetypes are the overarching ideal of a rogue or a warrior or a wizard... In other words the fact that the wizard class casts spells is part of the wizard archetype... what you don't get is a wizard archetype with no ability to cast spells or a warrior archetype that is not competent in combat.

What isn't part of said archetype, IMO, is whether the warrior fights by taking damage and protecting his comrades or whether by hitting enemies hard and fast. The same way a wizard archetype isn't defined by whether he uses spells that do alot of direct damage to a single target or spells that divine the future so he can lead his companions better... both are still under the wizard archetype.

So you're saying without the defining characteristics of an archetype, the classes become interchangeable and meaningless... Uhm, yeah the defining characteristics are what make the classes archetypical... without them they aren't archetypes, just misleading names. I'm not understanding your point.

 

[Tayne]

The role of a striker is to do lots of damage. This is accomplished by every existing striker via class abilities that allow him to do lots of damage.

The reason we keep asking for a 3E Paladin that Sneak Attacks is because Sneak Attack was the only striker mechanic in 3E. You couldn't make a paladin in that edition or any previous edition that met the current definition of striker without multiclassing or feats, which you handily turned down when suggested for 4E.

I know I said I was done, but one last thing - wasn't smite evil in 3E? Smite evil is "a striker ability."

It kind of seems like 3E had way, way more than one striker mechanic, anyway... Magic missile?

 

[Imaro]

The role of a striker is to do lots of damage. This is accomplished by every existing striker via class abilities that allow him to do lots of damage.

The reason we keep asking for a 3E Paladin that Sneak Attacks is because Sneak Attack was the only striker mechanic in 3E. You couldn't make a paladin in that edition or any previous edition that met the current definition of striker without multiclassing or feats, which you handily turned down when suggested for 4E.

I don't have a problem using feats or multiclassing, what I have a problem with in 4e is that every suggestion has been that in order to get my paladin character to be a striker (a role that has more to with my style of playing the game as opposed to concept or archetype), I have to dilute the actual archetype I want to play.

In 3e if I took Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Improved Smite, used a weapon with a higher damage die, and so on I do more and more damage without the core concept of my paladin being dilluted or mixed with primal powers or themes that don't fit the concept of my character... that is my issue. If I want to play a holy warrior and not some frakenstein combo character... It seems like I'm outta luck in 4e... In other words I feel like roles shouldn't have been hardcoded into archetypes or classes because one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[D'karr]

No the archetypes are represented through the class features... there's a difference.

So the class features play no part in defining what that class can do. Because it's only "representing" the archetype.

Talk about double speak.

A paladin is a word, a label, and at some point someone decided to assign it mechanical features that represent what that character can do within the game. In 1e the Paladin had Lay on Hands, in 3e he had Lay on Hands, in 4e he has Lay on Hands.

If you take the Lay on Hands Class Feature from the Paladin he's a guy with Heavy Armor and Shield.... Oh, a Fighter.

So saying that Class Features represent the archetype but that they are no important because they don't define the archetype is ridiculous.

The ONLY thing that defines an archetype in "game terms" are the Class Features.

Your definition of Paladin might include righteous warrior of a peaceful god, but if the class features don't support that then it's just a label, and you can apply that label to any righteous warrior of a peaceful god. A "barbarian class" that defines himself as a RWoaPG is a Paladin.

 

[Gryph]

The bard is the traditional arcane healer.

Even if you limit your thinking to 4 roles, the existence of power source to expand archetypes in design is key. With the six existing power sources you have a base of 24. And even that isn't a limitation. Even in the first PHB you have two Martial Strikers that play and feel very different. Class concept adds a multiplicative variable to the base that is only limited by the imagination of the designers.

1e Bard was a Druidic caster based on Irish mythology. An archtype I still prefer to the arcane mess that 2e intriduced and the later editions have continued.

I think that's what Umbran is getting at. Your tradition and mine aren't the same and I would hesitate to make any claim to rightness of either.

So which traditional bard should the system incorporate?

 

[D'karr]

In 3e if I took Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Improved Smite, used a weapon with a higher damage die, and so on I do more and more damage without the core concept of my paladin being dilluted or mixed with primal powers or themes that don't fit the concept of my character... that is my issue. If I want to play a holy warrior and not some frakenstein combo character... It seems like I'm outta luck in 4e... In other words I feel like roles shouldn't have been hardcoded into archetypes or classes because one has nothing to do with the other.

Interesting, so by adding feats that do more damage you increased the damage of your character.

I'm not sure if you even play 4e so this is an honest question, have you seen all the feats and class features that increase damage in general, and all the Paladin Specific powers that do so? Divine Power has an actual build called the Ardent Paladin that is more of a striker.

What are you losing by selecting feats that complement your Paladin? Go to the charop boards and you'll find 101 ways to do more damage if that is what you're after.

The rogue (a striker) gets his first 4[w] power at level 15, a daily power. The Paladin gets one at 1st LEVEL!, and his next one at 5th LEVEL!!!!

I honestly don't understand your complaint.

 

[Imaro]

First some context for you...

An archetype (

/ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/) is a universally understood symbol or term[1] or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.

So the class features play no part in defining what that class can do. Because it's only "representing" the archetype.

Talk about double speak.

I guess if I had actually said what you claim here... it would be double speak.

A paladin is a word, a label, and at some point someone decided to assign it mechanical features that represent what that character can do within the game. In 1e the Paladin had Lay on Hands, in 3e he had Lay on Hands, in 4e he has Lay on Hands.

If you take the Lay on Hands Class Feature from the Paladin he's a guy with Heavy Armor and Shield.... Oh, a Fighter.

Wrong... the paladin (or exemplary holy warrior) is an archetype that existed before D&D was created. The archetype's holy powers are represented in part by the ability of lay on hands in the D&D game... D&D however did not create the archetype or define it.

So saying that Class Features represent the archetype but that they are no important because they don't define the archetype is ridiculous.

I never said they didn't matter... and saying class abilities define the archetype is wrong... the archetype existed before the class abilites for D&D were created. The class abilities were used to create a classs that represents the archetype... they don't define the archetype itself.

The ONLY thing that defines an archetype in "game terms" are the Class Features.

In game terms sure... but if you stick superfluous features that contradict or narrow the archetype (like assigning a combat role to it) it's unnecessarily restrictive and can weaken or dillute the archetype. Now we don't have an exemplary holy warrior of a god... we have an exemplary holy warrior who is much better, for some odd reason, at taking a beating and drawing enemy fire than at actually killing the enemies of his god. Sorry you get to define the mechanics in-game that represent the archetype (which is restrictive enough but necessary in a class system)... but don't also define how I have to play my archetype let me do that.

Your definition of Paladin might include righteous warrior of a peaceful god, but if the class features don't support that then it's just a label, and you can apply that label to any righteous warrior of a peaceful god. A "barbarian class" that defines himself as a RWoaPG is a Paladin.

You've missed the point entirely.

 

[Imaro]

Interesting, so by adding feats that do more damage you increased the damage of your character.

Yep.

I'm not sure if you even play 4e so this is an honest question, have you seen all the feats and class features that increase damage in general, and all the Paladin Specific powers that do so? Divine Power has an actual build called the Ardent Paladin that is more of a striker.

I play 4e and PF...

Going this route I'll still always be a second-rate, probably even a third rate striker compared to a true striker class that maximizes for damage (I would say about the only defender class this isn't true for is the fighter right now). I will only truly excel as a defender... because the class was built that way.

What are you losing by selecting feats that complement your Paladin? Go to the charop boards and you'll find 101 ways to do more damage if that is what you're after.

I honestly don't understand your complaint.

I'm not loosing anything (except the ability to defend better)... the problem is that I am in an uphill race at this point where other "true" strikers are already ahead of me.

 

[Imaro]

1e Bard was a Druidic caster based on Irish mythology. An archtype I still prefer to the arcane mess that 2e intriduced and the later editions have continued.

I think that's what Umbran is getting at. Your tradition and mine aren't the same and I would hesitate to make any claim to rightness of either.

So which traditional bard should the system incorporate?

I don't have an answer to this... but I guess my question would be... once the designers have decided what archetype we are basing the class on... why restrict it further with the unnecessary attachment of an explicit combat role??