Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Imaro]

Imaro, I've given you alot of flak, but to be fair I can see how the game could have gone down this route. I'm just not convinced that 3E was any better in this regard. I hope they keep expanding upon these ideas and learning what works best to create the theoretically perfect game. But they can't make it perfect for everyone, so I merely hope they keep trying things to see what works and what doesn't and continue to head down a path I enjoy. And I'm happy for those who have other companies continuing to support their game of choice and hopefully growing it in a direction they enjoy.

Yeah, I'm arguing for my preferences but I don't want anyone to think that I don't recognize the fact that they are exactly that... my preferences and aren't objectively right or wrong... just what I enjoy. Really I just like the discussion...

 

[pemerton]

the DM tailored adventures (on the rare occasions it was necessary) so that it matched the party capabilities.

<snip>

there was never a NEED to have specific party 'roles' covered - and was all the better for it.

I think this is still the case. My 4e party played for 8 or so levels with no leader - only a paladin and a couple of PCs with warlord and cleric multi-classing. In combat, they made up for their lack of healing and buffing by just bringing more striking and defence to the table.

A player should define his character's role in and out of combat. Whether or not the class he chose best suits that role is one thing, but dammit, if you want to try to be a cleric striker or a rogue defender it should be common sense telling you not to do that, not the source material.

Are you saying that that definition should happen during PC building, or during play? D&D classes have always put limits on what can be achieved in play (eg a thief/rogue has never made a very robust front line combatant), and has always encouraged players to choose a PC build that will enable them to do what they want to do in combat. 4e doesn't seem to me very different in this particular respect.

I like class that are given a set of tools to solve problems, not a combat role.

This seems to be the equivalent, in 4e, of choosing a power source. Or have I misunderstood you?

If you pick fighter, you've selected it because you want to be a defender, not because you want to focus on martial weapons. I love martial characters but I tend to build them to suit my own designs, not to fit a predefined combat role.

What is the difference in principle between (i) choosing to play a fighter, and then choosing the combination of equipment/feats/etc that make that fighter suit your own design, and (ii) conceiving of the design for your PC, and then choosing the class that best realises that design (which in your example may be a fighter, a warlord or a ranger, or even some sort of hybrid)?

Both of these statements seem to be absolutely missing the point.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Imaro]

What is the difference in principle between (i) choosing to play a fighter, and then choosing the combination of equipment/feats/etc that make that fighter suit your own design, and (ii) conceiving of the design for your PC, and then choosing the class that best realises that design (which in your example may be a fighter, a warlord or a ranger, or even some sort of hybrid)?

Here is the difference in a very simple example... can I play a Ranger who fights with his powers unarmed?

 

[D'karr]

Which ties right back into my problem with role and class being explicitly connected in 4e.

I like playing lightly armored characters, rangers and duelists fit the bill. They are two of the character concepts I like most. Rangers are currently a class in the game, duelists are not a class, or build in the game.

I LIKE to play characters that are good at both melee combat, and ranged combat. So I CHOSE to build my ranger to be capable at both. To do that I had to split my ability scores for STR and DEX, and because WIS is important I also put some points there. Now, a ranger is a striker. If I split my abilities so that I can do both of the things I enjoy, he still does a lot of damage WHEN HE HITS. But because I CHOSE to split my abilities I hit less often. These are all choices I MADE.

I don't go around complaining about the game and the rules because my ranger misses, or is not an effective striker. I also don't go around complaining that I can't wear heavy armor without expending feats. The rules support the character I wanted to play, but there are tradeoffs. I don't go blaming the rules or the designers because of the CHOICES I MADE.

I'm happy to be playing the character I wanted, and don't worry about the times when I do miss.

Every class has trade offs. The class names are labels, and sometimes not very accurate labels. You want to call them archetypes but as soon as someone starts assigning mechanics to the class they might not have the same archetype in mind as you have. For example I can play a perfectly capable duelist with the ranger class, if I don't get hung up on the labels.

If the concept I like is an arcane dude with horns, and he fights with a sword, heavy armor, and shield. I go look for a Tiefling, and select a role/class that fits that. Like maybe a hybrid fighter/wizard, or a bladesinger, or whatever fits my concept. I don't select a gnome illusionist and then complain that I don't have horns, can't wear armor, use a sword, or a shield.

There are paladin builds now that are more strikerish, there are multiclass options to increase damage, and there are feats and a ton of powers to select from. You've decided to get hung up on "A paladin is NOT a defender", instead of looking for ways to complement the character concept you want to better achieve what you want. And your only complaint is that you don't do as much damage as a "first rate striker". My ranger misses often, and doesn't get to wear heavy armor...

If you want a character with no trade offs then you are not looking for a class based, level based game. At this point I think your argument really boils down to unrealistic expectations, and nitpicking.

 

[D'karr]

Here is the difference in a very simple example... can I play a Ranger who fights with his powers unarmed?

Why couldn't you? Unarmed attacks are an improvised weapon that has no proficiency. Unless you are a one armed ranger you have two fists that have no proficiency bonus and do 1d4 damage.

If you are a one armed ranger you have a problem because you would not be using two weapons to begin with and your choice of ranged weapons would be limited. But a Melee Basic Attack is still a power, and anyone can use one of those.

Can you fire a ranged weapon when you have no ranged weapons? NO! But I'd assume that of any ranged attack for any class.

So what's the next "gotcha" question?

Can your Paladin use his weapon powers without a weapon, as I said an unarmed attack is a melee weapon. Can he use a ranged weapon power without a ranged weapon? NO!

What's your point?

 

[Imaro]

Why couldn't you? Unarmed attacks are an improvised weapon that has no proficiency. Unless you are a one armed ranger you have two fists that have no proficiency bonus and do 1d4 damage.

If you are a one armed ranger you have a problem because you would not be using two weapons to begin with and your choice of ranged weapons would be limited. But a Melee Basic Attack is still a power, and anyone can use one of those.

Can you fire a ranged weapon when you have no ranged weapons? NO! But I'd assume that of any ranged attack for any class.

So what's the next "gotcha" question?

Can your Paladin use his weapon powers without a weapon, as I said an unarmed attack is a melee weapon. Can he use a ranged weapon power without a ranged weapon? NO!

What's your point?

Edit: not even worth it since it would diminish the point I was trying to get across to pemerton who actually seems interested in real discussion.

On a more serious note... As far as continuing this discussion with you in particular... I have no desire to continue since your arguments and points are bordering on nonsensical.

 

[D'karr]

I said powers... As in plural... So GOTCHA!!!

On a more serious note... As far as continuing this discussion with you in particular... I have no desire to continue since your arguments and points are bordering on nonsensical.

All of his melee powers work just the same. So who's being nonsensical?

Can a 3e fighter use a bow without arrows?

Once again what's your point?

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you wanted to be a "first rate striker" then you should have picked a class that supports that fully.

Well, that's kind of the problem in a nutshell.

Why can't any class support being a "first rate striker" (or whatever)?

Or, to go with some of the Rule of Three talk recently, why can't every class be a first rate striker, in certain circumstances?

Fact is, "character concept" is entwined with class, but it is not necessarily entwined with combat role. Combat role in 4e is entwined with class, entwining it with character concept. It doesn't need to be, and a pretty persuasive argument can be made to liberate them, making combat role something that is not dependent on your class choice (or even a choice at character creation, such as the idea of changing roles round-to-round).

 

[D'karr]

Well, that's kind of the problem in a nutshell.

Why can't any class support being a "first rate striker" (or whatever)?

Why can't every class cast magic missile?

Every game has trade offs. If I want to cast magic missile I choose a class that offers that as a feature. I don't pick fighter as a class and then complain that I can't magic missile.

Or, to go with some of the Rule of Three talk recently, why can't every class be a first rate striker, in certain circumstances?

Sure as an excercise in design it's great to discuss these things. As a matter of fact several examples have been provided, for those that wanted them, of having a defender class that had more "strikerish" powers.

Fact is, "character concept" is entwined with class, but it is not necessarily entwined with combat role. Combat role in 4e is entwined with class, entwining it with character concept. It doesn't need to be, and a pretty persuasive argument can be made to liberate them, making combat role something that is not dependent on your class choice (or even a choice at character creation, such as the idea of changing roles round-to-round).

Sure, but a way to look at character concept can also be to choose a role/class that best supports your character concept, specially in a class based game set. Instead some are arguing that the game does not support their concept, which has no trade offs, by coming up with ridiculous expectations.

Even point buy systems have trade offs, class based systems simply have more of them cooked in.

 

[Imaro]

What is the difference in principle between (i) choosing to play a fighter, and then choosing the combination of equipment/feats/etc that make that fighter suit your own design, and (ii) conceiving of the design for your PC, and then choosing the class that best realises that design (which in your example may be a fighter, a warlord or a ranger, or even some sort of hybrid)?

Hey pemerton, upon further reflection I decided I actually want to go more in depth with my answer to you...

IMO the difference is that of customization. In your first example I get an archetype and the details of both concept and gameplay are left up to me to decide upon. In the second example I have to hope that the individual details of a simgle package will line up with what I want in both concept and gameplay.

Now within a class system certain compromises in concept and gameplay are a fact of life but given a choice I want to pick my broad concept...but decide the details as opposed to hoping I find a specific archetype ( Also lets not forget the point about differing ideas on how to implement an archetype which become even more problematic as the details you customize is lowered )that both encompases my concept, as well as the gameplay experience I desire.