Roles in Roleplaying Games

[JamesonCourage]

OK. But I don't quite get why a Ranger built with Dungeoneering as a trained skill (rather than Nature) doesn't adequately realise your desire to play an archetypal archer warrior. You wear light armour (leather or hide), you're really good with a bow, you can fight with your sword or knife in a pinch (using the DEX melee powers for Rangers from Martial Power 2), and you have both attack and utility powers that let you move around the place to avoid/escape melee assailants.

I mean, what else would an archer warrior whose light on his feet look like?

Well, Dungeoneering comes from 3.5 (it wasn't in 3.0), and I expunged it from my game. So, I (personally) don't want to take it when it comes to taking it with any character. What class features does the Ranger have? Does he have any sort of wild or animal empathy? A companion (is that a separate build)? I'm not completely sure whether or not the class abilities are nature-oriented, and if they are, that'd be why. If not, I don't see why that wouldn't work.

Your Warlord sounds like either a Warlord with the right suite of class features (init bonus for allies, to hit bonus for allies based on INT, etc), powers (those that let allies move around the battlefield cleverly and effectively) and who treats Inspiring Word as helping allies who have got themselves into tactical dire straits out of those dire straits (I think this is one permissible reading of martial healing).

Yeah, when I said great tactician, I meant excelling at both tactics and strategy. In what way does being a Warlord help you achieve your long, overall aim? On the battlefield, having forced movement powers and having buffs helps out on the tactics front, but what reinforces strategy? And it's not like 3.X was any better here. I'm not arguing that 4e fails where 3.X succeeded. I'm saying that I prefer broad archetypes, and I don't see how being "a great mundane tactician and leader" should innately throw you into the Leader role (healing and buffs) automatically. Why can't a great tactician and leader be a striker, defender, or controller?

I know you said that you can mix and match as appropriate, but at the end of the day, I run across the same problem with that philosophy that I had with 3.X: why not just let someone build their character to concept? If you still had classes but only worried about flavor mechanics (Rangers are nature-oriented, Paladins have Lay on Hands and can evil creatures, Clerics serve a god and can affect undead, etc.), you could just break down different pools, and let people pick their primary pools at character creation. You could let them choose one power source pool, one role pool, etc. Allow feats or the like to grab a few options from other pools.

I'm sure you can play a lot of concepts with 4e. I'm not saying it's not doable. And I mean play those concepts well, and to a satisfactory end. I'm just saying that I don't see why roles are innately tied to class (not to get rid of roles, necessarily).

I don't have any strong preference as to how PCs should be built. But in a game like 4e, where PC building depends upon looking through long lists of options and putting them together in more-or-less subtle ways, I'm not going to fuss too much about the precise labels given to elements of the lists, provided that in the end my PC does what I want it to. (Practical example - when I rebuilt my 2nd ed Skills and Powers cleric for 4e, I eventually settled on a paladin as the best way to realise him. What's in the change of class name? For me, nothing. It's all about the powers and class features.)

See, this is where we differ. I am going to fuss about how to get PCs their powers. I did when I made my RPG. What I prefer, personally, is being able to assemble the PC you've conceptualized and envisioned. I think that separate pools of powers to choose from really help towards that goal. A Ranger with the Leader role and Primal power source will be nature-oriented, and perhaps better tactically and perhaps more capable of healing than his fellow rangers, or just more inspiring. It'd also allow for PCs to advance different stats, as appropriate (the Ranger might want to boost Cha, now).

As for what class someone is called, it depends on what they are. The more focused the class, the more I care. I'm going to be picky about Paladins, because they're a very flavorful class. I'm not picky about a Fighter (though he has his place flavor-wise). The broader the archetype, the less I'll be picky about it. Yes, the warrior archetype can include the paladin, and I'd like to see the archetype reflect that. Be a warrior, grab some powers to reflect your paladin-ness, and we're good (Role of whatever, Divine power source). Or, be a warrior, grab some powers to reflect your barbarian-ness, and we're good (Role of whatever, Primal or Martial power source). Have class abilities that reflect the flavor of the class, as described previously. Just my preference.

What I do care about are keywords of powers and abilities, because these are one of the key anchors, in 4e, between mechanics and fiction. So I do have some sympathy for scepticism about the suggestion to build a paladin as a hybrid barbarian - I can't just ignore the "primal" keyword on those powers. Unlike the label "barbarian", which is just the label for a suite of mechanical options (although intended to tell you something about the likely sort of build you'll get out of those options), "primal" is a part of the power description that means something. It gives the power a "home" in the gameworld.

And this is how I feel about "paladin" and associated class abilities. To me, a paladin is clearly different from a cleric, especially since I hated that paladins were no longer tied down to Lawful Good and their devotions. They basically made paladins warriors of specific gods, which is similar to what a cleric was already fulfilling. Personally, I'd like to see a paladin be a Warrior with the divine power source. Or a cleric be a Spellcaster with a divine power source, while a wizard or sorcerer a Spellcaster with an arcane power source. It's my preferred breakdown, if you're going to have pools of powers (which I'm also kind of against). Then again, as someone who plays a fantasy game and prefers point-buy for abilities, I don't think I speak for most people.

I do like that you take keywords into account. They seem anchored in the fiction to me, too, but so does a paladin. It's just where someone draws that line. I dislike having narrow archetypes (or subtypes, as you called them) like the paladin (even the Lawful Good paladin), but if you're going to make them, don't make paladin "warrior of a god" and cleric "priest of a god". Make a "servant of a god" archetype and let you tweak it to fit your concept. The Servant of a God class with a Divine power source and Role might be a cleric, but he might be a paladin if he has the Martial power source.

Personally, I'd prefer working in potential secondary power source or role powers, too. Something like every 4-5 levels, you can pick a new power that you qualify for. It can be from any power source. That way, you can stay focused on your concept, whether it's purely martial (and grabbing a new Martial power) or hybrid-oriented (this really helps bards, clerics, paladins, rangers, and the like). Just my opinions on how I'd prefer it if roles are going to be used in a game like 4e. As always, play what you like

FYI - casting spells is not a requirement of controlling the battlefield.

Who said it was? I've even mentioned that I might like to play a paladin controller some time. And I could see that either martially or through spells.

Yes, the Weaponmaster Fighter (capital F) must be that guy, but there are other fighters available to you that don't have to be that guy. Why would you insist to play a Weaponmaster Fighter if that's not what you want to play? Why would you eschew other fighting classes that match what you want?

Because I'd like to see all the "warrior" archetypes under one class, ideally. And playing a nature-charged classed like the Ranger may not fit my concept of an archer.

If they had made Rogue, Ranger and Warlord builds under Fighter so he could fulfill all four roles [Ranger has a Controller build] would that have been more to your liking?

If you had to pick and choose powers (therefore still making sacrifices), probably, yes. You wouldn't get to fulfill all four roles simultaneously, or at least not to any significant degree. Why not let all those powers fall under one class if you still have to pick powers? If my concept lines up with the Warlord, won't I still pick healing and buff powers? When addressing pemerton, above, I go more in-depth as to how I'd like to see that goal fulfilled. As always, play what you like

 

[Tayne]

The Striker can do lots of damage consistantly. The 3E paladin runs out of Smite Evil uses. The wizard runs out of spells. The 3E rogue can keep Sneak Attacking as long as he has a team and isn't fighting certain creatures. The 3E rogue has the only class feature that compares to 4E strikers in a meaningful way.

There you go again amending your own definition after the fact to suit your agument.

Striker abilities in 4E run out of uses as well (per encounter abilities, per session abilities), that doesn't prevent them from being considered striker abilities. Stop equivocating, it's disgusting.

Besides, the paladin and wizard can take a nap, and a sorceror will probably never run out of spells at higher levels. A smart wizard wouldn't either, and both can always buy wands and scrolls.

In my humble opinion your actions were similar to those of an someone who is being an asshat. You can take my in my humble opinion comments with a big old grain of salt, in my humble opinion.

I accept your apparent intellectual surrender and refuse your playground insult challenge.

And keep twisting my words if it makes you feel better.

You're the one clearly twisting the definition of "striker mechanics" to suit your argument, as I've proven time and again.

 

[pemerton]

I think back to 1E when the Fighter was basically a decreasing THACO and the only real difference mechanically between two fighters was their stats, armor they could afford, and weapon choice. Yet we still imagined our characters as saracens, bodyguards, barbarians (before the class actually existed), etc.

I had a similar thought upthread.

FYI - casting spells is not a requirement of controlling the battlefield.

<snip>

If they had made Rogue, Ranger and Warlord builds under Fighter so he could fulfill all four roles [Ranger has a Controller build] would that have been more to your liking?

I think it is already possible to build a controller fighter. The dwarf polearm fighter in my game is a melee controller - bursts with push, prone, etc, plus immobilisation on opportunity attacks, plus utilities that let him move around the battlefield (Mighty Sprint), or move his allies out of danger (Create Opening). He's actually a more reliable controller than the wizard, who is more of a scholarly type - with the exception of the wizard's Twist of Space, which is unrivalled encounter control, and the wizard's daily walls and conjurations.

I think the 4E DMG is the best D&D guide since the 1E DMG for this advice.

Agreed, but I wish it were better. HeroQuest, Maelstrom Storytelling and BW's Adventue Burner have been the books I've relied on for advice on how to GM 4e (especially outside tactical combat).

I very much said why can't my Paladin be a striker, not a striker/defender... just a striker. i like the gameplay of a striker and the Paladin fits my concept to a tee... in 4e what do I do?

Build a blackguard?

 

[pemerton]

What class features does the Ranger have? Does he have any sort of wild or animal empathy? A companion (is that a separate build)? I'm not completely sure whether or not the class abilities are nature-oriented, and if they are, that'd be why. If not, I don't see why that wouldn't work.

A 4e ranger has no nature-flavoured stuff except the requirement to choose either Nature or Dungeoneering as a class skill. No tracking, wild empathy etc.

 

[Imaro]

Build a blackguard?

You do realize we are talking in a general sense, and that the Paladin striker is just an example?

I'm fully aware of the Blackguard and even gave the designers/developers of 4e acknowledgement for finally opening classes up to different roles... but I think this should have been done from the beginning and am against those arguing it shouldn't happen. Also Blackguards have to follow a vice... and I want to be a paladin not an anti-paladin.

 

[pemerton]

I want to be a paladin not an anti-paladin

Fair enough. I was being flippant.

But I do think a STR paladin - with Holy Strike (+WIS vs marked target) and Ardent Vow in lieu of Lay on Hands - is a modest approximation to a striker. You should be able to lock down a target and do a fair bit of damage. (Take Ardent Strike (?) as your other power and charge in to combat as your first action. And take that feat - Powerful Charge? - that boosts your damage on a charge.)

You do realize we are talking in a general sense, and that the Paladin striker is just an example?

Yes. But I think the lists are long enough that the problem isn't as serious as it is being made out to be.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The only concrete expectation given, so far, was a paladin striker.

Nope! The expectation of class to be flexible in terms of the function of your class abilities is the expectation I was talking about. There's been multiple examples of people who can't meet their expectations here (tough thieves and crossbow-using sharpshooting fighters are two others, though high-damage paladins also work). "Paladin Striker" is...not the expectation that is not being met, here. The expectation is about character customization more generally.

I'd buy this argument about conceptual archetypes if people were able to more easily step outside the box and see 'agile wilderness warrior' in more classes than just the one labelled Ranger. Instead it seems that people are unable to think outside the box and pigeonhole the class themselves because it's labelled Ranger.

It's not a failing of a player when they see Rangers described as agile wilderness warrior, and warlocks described as pact-sworn soul-selling spellcasters, and can't see them as flip-flopped. It's exactly what should be expected, since that's how the classes are described.

Is it useful to just "look at the mechanics" and use that to support whatever character concept you have? Sure. But a ranger who can be ANYTHING doesn't make an evocative agile wilderness warrior. And it shouldn't be a prerequisite.

And that's a problem. Like I said, in 3E I played a big-city noble-born character that was a Barbarian/Sorcerer. It's not the game's fault if people can't mold fluff material to their liking.

It's not a problem, it's the way the mind works -- it grabs big ideas long before it grabs specific details. If you can shoehorn the rules to your style, that's great, but it's not a problem if others can't. I guess it's less effort, but effort shouldn't be greatly required to play a game of make-believe with magical elves.

I'm not sure I understand. Fluff without rules is a constant reminder that you're playing a game? Fluff without rules makes you feel like you're not pretending to be a character? Fluff without rules makes you feel like you are numbers on a sheet? Is that what you're saying?

More or less, yeah. Disconnection doesn't reinforce the fragile suspension of disbelief that playing the game requires, it points at it and says, "Look at me, I am an arbitrary construct of mathematics!"

I would be higly interested in seeing this too. But who's going to be the company that risks entering uncharted territory?

If not WotC or Paizo, then there's no one left who would notice it.

That is a very good reason for why the archetype needs to be represented somehow in the game. It says nothing about why "class" needs to be that something, other than some people expect it to be that way.

Short answer: class doesn't need to be the thing that represents your archetype.

Supplemental: If it's not class, you will face an initial period in explaining why "class" in D&D doesn't mean what it means in any other game. You will also have to explain why your...theme?...is that thing. You will also have to abandon sacred cows like "druid" being a class. On the whole it is probably just more expedient in actual design to let classes be what they are understood to be, or to just go classless.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Short answer: class doesn't need to be the thing that represents your archetype.

Supplemental: If it's not class, you will face an initial period in explaining why "class" in D&D doesn't mean what it means in any other game. You will also have to explain why your...theme?...is that thing. You will also have to abandon sacred cows like "druid" being a class. On the whole it is probably just more expedient in actual design to let classes be what they are understood to be, or to just go classless.

Well, alternately, you could leave class as nothing but a synonym for "archetype" and move all the niche protection and other related mechanics into some other construct. I wouldn't mind that, either. You'll have to explain to another set of people why "class" in D&D doesn't mean this other thing that it used to mean. I think those are the two choices. I'd rather that than classless for D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, alternately, you could leave class as nothing but a synonym for "archetype" and move all the niche protection and other related mechanics into some other construct.

Like swap-able "class features"? I think we might have something.

 

[Mark CMG]

Fair enough. I was being flippant.

You really need to learn more from my anti-examples of near felonious flippantry. They lead to nothing but heartbreak and Internenvy.