Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Hussar]

Not as such. Previous editions allowed for more mutable combat roles, and perhaps role was not necessarily merely a combat consideration. As far as combat goes, in OD&D (and AD&D, I would venture, maybe even in 3.XE, though perhaps less so), a character might be stepping into combat for a few rounds then stepping back to support, possibly administering healing, by potion or spell, then pulling out a bow/sling/x-bow and helping in that manner. Neverthless, the thread's real question might be moot for you, since the question that I'm asking as the OP is regarding how tightly "role" is tied to combat. Perhaps you see no sense of "role" in RPGs outside of combat?

Hang on a second. This example doesn't actually work. Everything you just outlined is pretty heavily punished by the rules in any edition.

1. Fighter steps out of combat - Pre-3e, every creature in melee combat with that character gets a free shot on him. In 3e, he might be able to disengage without taking an AOO, but, he's not going too far.

2. Heals. Ok, fair enough.

3. Pulls out a ranged weapon. Pre-AD&D - cannot fire into melee at all. AD&D - 50% chance of hitting allies when firing into melee, 3e, takes a -4 for firing into melee, possibly with an additional -4 because of cover (which his own allies might provide).

So, no, what you're talking about doesn't really happen very often. It might once in a while, presuming that the bad guys can't just move forward with the fighter and keep him in melee, but, it's a pretty rare corner case example you've brought up.

Certainly not a very good example of how combat roles could change in combat.

And, you still didn't answer my question - how are any of your other examples actually tied to class. Since all the things you listed exist in every edition, and none of them are tied to class, how does combat role have any impact?

 

[Mark CMG]

Hang on a second. This example doesn't actually work. Everything you just outlined is pretty heavily punished by the rules in any edition.

That has what to do with what? The point being that a character can and did fulfill multiple combat roles quite easily, whether they began a particular combat in a role and moved to another of simply fulfilled the various roles from the beginning of a combat. It makes no difference to me how you wish to slice it and it isn't the point of the thread, as I've tried to repeatedly point out to you despite your wishing to take it in that direction.

(For the record, stepping out of combat and risking one hit is often preferable to staying and taking many hits, healing you understood, and ranged can be taken against opposition which is also out of melee doing ranged or spells.)

And, you still didn't answer my question - how are any of your other examples actually tied to class. Since all the things you listed exist in every edition, and none of them are tied to class, how does combat role have any impact?

Well, leaving aside that they really aren't all in all editions, or in some regards are less so in one edition than another, at least as far as the two primary books (PHB, DMG, and ignoring the 1st MM of each edition for obvious reasons), your question was regarding where there were rules that were types of noncombat roles that characters could perform. Hence the point of the thread, which I would like for you to join rather than continue to try and derail, is . . .

A recent quote from the "Rule of Three" article from Rich Baker on the WotC website has me wondering if the designers of D&D are rethinking the trend in the last decade or so of thinking in terms of "roles" being codified as the role a character plays in combat.

Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all.

How does this affect your own sense of the game? Have your games always had "roles" tied to their combat role (regardless of edition)? Does codifying "roles" as combat roles affect the way players approach the game? How so, in your own experience?

So, the point of the thread takes up the question of "roles" in roleplaying games and how the designers (Rich Baker, in this case) moved in the last decade toward codifying that aspect as it pertained to roles in combat and my related questions regarding if this is how some people, your own personal experience, mirrors this even before it was by design or if it was otherwise, again, for you personally. Care to take a stab at the on-topic portion of this thread?

 

[Hussar]

Well, AFAIC, roles in D&D have always been tied to the combat roles of the classes. While it's been explicitly pointed out in 4e, it's something that has always existed and was always right there in the rules.

Saying that your character could hire hirelings in one edition doesn't change anything. Nor does the idea that you could somehow switch your combat role from melee to ranged (which, btw, is not actually a combat role as defined by 4e - you can be a melee or ranged striker and quite often both.)

Take my current character - a human warlock in 4e. He has the at will that lets him use his melee basic attack as a power (I forget the name) and also has Eyebite as an At will that lets him do ranged stuff quite nicely. My character is constantly going from melee to ranged in every single combat.

Yet, according to you, once a role is codified, I shouldn't be able to do that. I'm a striker, so, I must only be doing ranged attacks. But, that simply isn't true. You can have a character that switches between combat roles quite easily. While a character might be best at one thing, that doesn't mean he fails at everything else.

But, trying to drag combat roles into the larger picture doesn't really work either. Combat roles are just that - combat roles. Just because I'm a defender doesn't mean I can't engage in every other part of RP as well, if I so choose. I can be the knowledge guy and possibly the face guy as well as the defender.

It's just that out of combat, there are no codified roles. That's left entirely up to the player. Pretty much the way it's always been.

 

[Mark CMG]

Just because I'm a defender doesn't mean I can't engage in every other part of RP as well, if I so choose. I can be the knowledge guy and possibly the face guy as well as the defender.

It's just that out of combat, there are no codified roles. That's left entirely up to the player. Pretty much the way it's always been.

So, you are saying that you agree with Rich Baker that "roles" are now codified as combat roles, and further that it is your belief that there was never any codification of roles combat or otherwise prior to the last decade but that the roles that were always implied were combat roles? And you further believe that RPing is not affected by the codification in any respect? Am I reading you right?

 

[billd91]

Take my current character - a human warlock in 4e. He has the at will that lets him use his melee basic attack as a power (I forget the name) and also has Eyebite as an At will that lets him do ranged stuff quite nicely. My character is constantly going from melee to ranged in every single combat.

Yet, according to you, once a role is codified, I shouldn't be able to do that. I'm a striker, so, I must only be doing ranged attacks. But, that simply isn't true. You can have a character that switches between combat roles quite easily. While a character might be best at one thing, that doesn't mean he fails at everything else.

Picking a striker character may be a loaded example - as long as you're slinging out spikes of damage, you're being a striker. Being able to switch between sub-roles of melee and missile attacker is easier (and yes, those are also roles worth looking at, not just the 4 broader ones in 4e). How well can a defender make that switch?

 

[Hussar]

So, you are saying that you agree with Rich Baker that "roles" are now codified as combat roles,

I would quibble with the "now" in that statement. I think 4e defined combat roles as combat roles. Previously, "roles" were never codified in any explicit way.

and further that it is your belief that there was never any codification of roles combat or otherwise prior to the last decade but that the roles that were always implied were combat roles?

Yup, I'd agree there.

And you further believe that RPing is not affected by the codification in any respect? Am I reading you right?

Yes, I'd agree with that. I have not seen any particular change in how people play going from one edition to another. People who really want to RP will continue to do so and those who want to bash stuff with dice will also do so.

Picking a striker character may be a loaded example - as long as you're slinging out spikes of damage, you're being a striker. Being able to switch between sub-roles of melee and missile attacker is easier (and yes, those are also roles worth looking at, not just the 4 broader ones in 4e). How well can a defender make that switch?

Well, this is a bit off topic, since melee vs ranged aren't codified roles and this is a thread about codified roles.

I'm not much of a 4e rules guru, and the only defender I played was a more controllery fighter (lots of pushing/pulling and AoE effects). The best bet, IMO, would be a Paladin for this sort of thing. Lots of Paladin powers work at range, or are decent AOE effects, and his marking powers work at range as well. Admittedly, it would be fairly short range, but in a dungeon setting, that wouldn't matter too terribly much.

But, this one I'll grant you. A defender that can switch between melee and ranged is not an easy thing to build.

 

[pemerton]

Picking a striker character may be a loaded example - as long as you're slinging out spikes of damage, you're being a striker. Being able to switch between sub-roles of melee and missile attacker is easier (and yes, those are also roles worth looking at, not just the 4 broader ones in 4e). How well can a defender make that switch?

One of the PCs in my game is a dwarf polearm fighter - so he is mostly a melee controller with reach attacks, lots of forced movement, stopping opponents with OAs (including via Polearm Gamble), etc. Up until recently his ranged defending has been limited to charge + mark, but he has now got some items/abilities that will let him immobilise targets he hits with a melee basic attack, and to use at-wills (like Footwork Lure, which he uses to knock enemies prone through an item/feat combo) in place of melee basic attacks. So his ranged defending/controlling is about to get better.

(He also carries a +1 longbow for longer ranged combat, but very rarely uses it. He has recently acquired Whelm, a +3 dwarven thrower artefact, but I don't except him to do much throwing of it either.)

Lots of Paladin powers work at range, or are decent AOE effects, and his marking powers work at range as well.

The paladin in my game uses a mixture of melee, close and ranged attacks, including a couple of close bursts/blasts that mark all targets (via Divine Sanction).

The sorcerer in my game uses a mix of ranged and close attacks, and has recently acquired an at-will power that can also be used as a melee basic attack. (His weapon is a +3 wyrmtooth dagger). The only PCs who, left to their own devices, would never enter within melee range are the wizard and the archer.

 

[Mark CMG]

In keeping with the above, allow me to ask a few questions about the level of roleplaying outside of combat in the games some of you experience . . .

(. . .) the only defender I played was a more controllery fighter (. . .)

What sorts of things did he do outside of combat? What level was he? Did he have a lot of background info that informed his in-game choices?

One of the PCs in my game is a dwarf polearm fighter (. . .)

The paladin in my game (. . .)

The sorcerer in my game (. . .)

Same questions, if I may. What sorts of things do they do outside of combat? What level are they? Do they have a lot of background info that informs their in-game choices?

 

[pemerton]

A question to those who think that "combat roles" have an adverse effect on the play of the game:

Is your concern about the narrowness of build options for a given PC?

Or, is your concern about the labelling of a given PC as filling a given role?

I understand the first sort of concern, although personally don't share it - between feats, sub-classes, multi-classes and hybrid classes there are a range of options for building pretty nuanced PCs.

But I don't understand the second concern at all. I mean, once a suite of options for building PCs has been presented which means that, in practice, any PC built as a wizard is going to be pretty sucky at damage dealing, but quite good at battlefield control, what is wrong with pointing that out to the players of the game? (And likewise for the other classes?)

But maybe no one has the second sort of concern.

 

[pemerton]

In the November 14 Rule-of-Three column, Rich Baker said:

I mentioned last week that the striker was essentially new to D&D in 4th Edition [...] The primary functions of the leader, defender, and controller revolve around damage mitigation … and the best damage mitigation of all is killing stuff before it attacks you [...] 4th Edition is, for better or worse, a striker's game.​

This is interesting, but doesn't entirely fit my own experience (which undoubtedly is a hell of a lot narrow than Rich Baker's).

My game has two strikers. One is an archer ranger. His turns are quick - choose a target (or targets) and shoot. The other is a sorcerer. His turns are quick, too, but he has more immediate actions than the ranger and so gets to act more often.

On the other hand, the controller (wizard) and the melee controller (polearm fighter) have long turns. They choose between options, weigh pros and cons of shifting a target here or there, look for synergies with the other PCs etc. And when the wizard does something like Arcane Gate or conjures a Wall of Fire, it creates a visible effect on the table (we use red counters for walls of fire, and the player of the wizard uses a couple of his d6s as the markers for the Gate portals). And its effect on the combat is highly visible over multiple rounds.

I think to describe all this as "damage mitigation" is really a misdescription. It's like saying that, in a classic dungeon exploration, the player/PC who contributed to solving the puzzles, finding and opening the secret doors, disarming the traps on the chests, ect, were really just contributing to the ultimate act of putting the coins into the sacks! Yes, the strikers killing things is the culmination of combat, but it's not necessarily the bulk of, or even the focus of it.

And then there's the further question of whether killing things in combat is the main aim. In some of the combats I've run recently, a lot else has been at stake besides killing things.

A bit like my comment upthread about Encounters - I don't think Rich Baker, in the passage I quoted, is doing the best job he could of selling his game!