Roles in Roleplaying Games

[billd91]

Something that has been tickling in my mind that finally came out as I was doing laundry.

People have been equating Combat Role with melee vs ranged and then saying how some characters could switch between the two. Sure, I might buy that, but, that's not really changing combat roles is it? If the fighter switches from a longsword to a bow, he's still doing essentially the same thing - hitting things with pointy bits in an attempt to kill them, by and large, one at a time.

<snip>

Note, none of this means that this is all those classes do and that they do this every single time. I'm painting with a fairly broad brush. But, the mechanics of the classes does define their combat roles pretty strongly. You can't switch between roles very easily. Multiclassing does allow some degree of it, although that comes with its own problems and issues as well.

Painting with a broad brush is right. I get the impression that some people aren't getting that there are roles different from the 4 that 4e solidified in the rules. Melee and ranged combat focuses are different roles and come with different expectations (and I would say that mounted combatant is yet another role). And contrary to some popular conceptions around optimizer boards, it was quite possible to be competent with both in 1e, 2e, and 3x/PF. You may not have been able to maximize both easily, but that's a question of super-competency not competency and the game doesn't require super-competency.

I'd also say that, on the spellcaster side, ally booster, healer, artillery, utility, and enemy manipulation are all different roles as well.

For my money, if the character uses a significantly different strategy, he's probably playing a different role. How much does a game focus classes into any of these roles? How does that compare to other games? How much should be flexible? How much can a player change and under what circumstances? How well does that map to role playing a reasonable character rather than a token on a board?

 

[Imaro]

My unfamiliarity with Essentials continues...

Regardless, the Slayer has a valid trade-off to achieve this flexibility. First, he is worse with either melee or ranged attacks depending on ability scores. Alternatively he can be slightly worse with each by equalizing Str and Dex. Second, if he focuses on or equalizes Dex (assuming ability score synergy with race) he would do a disservice to himself to wear heavy armor, thus becoming the lightly-armored mobile warrior. Third, he loses the encounter power capability the Power Strike provides with melee. Fourth, he'd be better off using a heavy thrown weapon like the Weaponmaster Fighter.

Again, I think it's safe to dispell the notion that anyone is asking for everything with no trade-offs. That said...

The slayer is worse with either melee wepaons or ranged weapons... but comparitively speaking he is still one of the best classes at using both.

As a half-orc, he gets a bonus to both Str and Dex thus he doesn't gimp either one. However with the ability to wear heavy armors, he can focus more on strength if he wants to and keep dex just high enough that his Weapon Talent class feature, and powers like Poised Assault give him bonuses that still elevate him to damn good to hit as an archer.

His Heroic Slayer class feature gives him extra damage on ranged and melee weapons...

Powers like Mobile Blade, Sudden Sprint and Line Breaker take care of mobility.

Single Out can give you combat advantage on ranged opponents, again making up for a focus on strength and melee.

Quick Swap allows him to easily switch between melee and ranged weapons...

And as to why he would use heavy armor... well Armored Mobility is a pretty good reason.

Now I'll give you the power strike point... but he wouldn't be a fighter that only fights with a bow, again the slayer is the warrior who can adapt between styles depending on what is needed at the moment not an archer.

He definately makes a decent secondary archer, but doesn't reach the mastery of the Archer Ranger. IMO it seems like stubbornness to insist upon a class named Fighter that equlas the master archer class, the Ranger, if that's what people are truly calling for, when the only barrier is story elements that the system encourages players to change to their tastes.

While he may not be the penultimate archer I would say he is much more than a "decent" archer with the added durability and toughness that the ranger is missing when he goes into melee.

 

[steeldragons]

For my money, if the character uses a significantly different strategy, he's probably playing a different role.

I would agree. So what is the point of slotting classes into pre-defined roles? Let the players play their characters in any role they can (with that classes given abilities/skills.)

How much does a game focus classes into any of these roles?

That seems to be the argument here...or...not "argument" but general discussion. Some think certain editions focus it more than is necessary or wanted by the players. Some think the amount of role-focus is fine...or even preferable. It comes down to a player-by-player, group-by-group opinion. Which makes no side of the discussion "correct" because we're all talking about what we would (or do) prefer/like better in our games/from the rules. This debate has no objective "ending."

How does that compare to other games? How much should be flexible? How much can a player change and under what circumstances? How well does that map to role playing a reasonable character rather than a token on a board?

We'd be here til the end of time and still not have a consensus comparing opinions. To my mind, this supports my position that the developers shouldn't bother trying to define class roles one way or the other. IMO, the more they try to codify it, the more players they will squeeze out/disagree/dislike the system. Making something different (i.e. defining/redefining rules/mechanics for combat roles) for the sake of being different [than the last edition] is not a good enough reason. Developers need to learn to leave well-enough alone...leave it to the players'/groups' discretion and imagination.

To paraphrase Moldvay, D&D doesn't have rules so much as rule suggestions...and what's wrong with that?

--Steel Dragons

 

[Hussar]

I've DMed a group that would have their fighter carry a lot of potions because he could step in and heal with them and take a hit while doing so. (He was also the least likely to becomed encumbered by the stores of minor items they had collected.)
/snip

Sorry, what edition are you talking about? That will make something of a difference. Because if you're playing 1e, where are you getting all these potions from? Unless the DM is tailoring the campaign to suit that group, you certainly can't rely on being able to do that.

And, of course you can tailor a campaign (cleric vs cleric campaign) to pretty much anything. But, that's going a bit far abroad. If I have to completely revamp what I use as a DM to customize the game to suit the choices of the player, that would tend to mean that the game isn't really supporting that style of play.

Not that you cannot do that, but, it's gets harder and harder out of the box.

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

Let's try a little thought experiment.

Create an D&D character with 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste. You roll and get one 18, and the other 5 rolls are 14 or less. Now, you try to make a character with those roles.

When you make the fighter, where does that 18 go? I'm fairly willing to bet that the vast majority of players out there put that 18 in Str. Its certainly the most mechanically rewarded thing to do - you gain that all important percentile strength in AD&D (+5-10% to hit and double your average damage) and +10% xp reward.

Now, once you've put that 18 in Strength, what's that character going to do in combat? Stand back and shoot a bow? Not likely. He's far and away more effective getting into the mix and laying the boots to something.

Put the 18 in Dex, and he loses that percentile strength, making him not a whole lot better than the cleric in melee combat, he's not strong enough to wear the heaviest armors without incurring encumbrance penalties although that's offset by a decent Dex bonus and he's still only averaging less damage per round than the strength fighter at 7 points per round with two hits.

Now, move forward to Unearthed Arcana and add in things like double weapon specialization. Sure, you could use a bow, but, good grief, why would you bother? +3 to hit and damage, with 3/2 attacks at 1st level. Now our melee fighter is leaving our bow fighter a long way in the dust.

2e doesn't make it any better. Our fighter still specializes, but, now he takes two weapon fighting and he's averaging about 30 points of damage every two rounds (18/XX strength+weapon specs longsword and proficiency short sword - 1st round 1d8+5+1d6+3 damage, 2nd round 2d8+10+1d6+3=about 30-35 points of damage per 2 rounds at 1st level).

Still think fighters weren't melee focused from the get go? Really?

Sure, you could pick up a bow. But, now we're getting into mounted combat? Really? How many horses do you bring into the dungeon? Again, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the overwhelming majority of attacks made by fighter characters are dismounted melee attacks.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think that 4e pushes as hard on the optimisation front as you do. The wizard in my game is far from optimised - he has two arcane familiar feats, Deep Sage and Skill Training (Dungeoneering). He's as much a scholar and ritualist as a controller. In combat, it's not uncommon for him to plink away with Magic Missiles (a very poor man's striker).

I'm not sure what you bringing up things outside combat role has to do with what I am discussing. When I said optimization, I was speaking to the inherent optimization that the building of a class for a specific combat role enforces upon that class. Things like the fighter's mark, the rogues backstab, or the wizards minion killer powers. The fact that your Wizard "plinks" away with magic missile and that you even recognize this as suboptimal and a "Very poor man's striker" supports my point.

But anyway, to say your class is optimised for a certain role, and thus "forces" you into specialisation, is only to say that build choices are made at the class-selection point, rather than the class-feature-selection point.

Which is a much broader and rather all-encompassing level than previous editions forced it at... thus the loss of flexibility and adaptability for classes.

A different way of looking at it - which echoes what I and other said way upthread, that the impact of roles is more on the designer side than the player side - is this: while the 4e PHB is more narrow in the range of options it offers than are some other PHBs, it delivers a more focused game with tighter play.


I know that's not a universal experience, but it is certainly the experience of me and my group. The game's combat resolution is a sophisticated and elegant machine, and it's moving parts are the PC and encounter build elements that the designers have given us! Without the tight, focused design of the 4e classes, they wouldn't deliver this payoff in play.

So will this all break down now as builds that don't share the same combat role as their class (Slayer, Blackguard, etc.) are introduced... or even moreso builds like the berserker that allow one to switch combat role in the middle of combat? Somehow I doubt it and that's why I have a problem seeing these two things as intricately connected as you seem to be making them out to be.

I think for those who want a different sort of play experience - in particular, one where the relationship between build and action resolution is looser than 4e (perhaps certain styles of classic D&D, and even moreso I think 2nd ed AD&D) - can expect to find that 4e is not the game for them.

I would disagree, 4e is definitely moving in that direction. The problem is that because it adopted this design paradigm in the beginning... it will take alot more time, books and alot more money for 4e to accomodate that playstyle than in previous editions.

But other editions have also had features of the rules that (for better or worse) aimed at delivering the play experience that that editions authors thought was worth having. And to that end, I thought I'd quote a bit of Gygax's DMG (pp 61, 86):

Combat is a common pursuit in the vast majority of adventures, and the participants in the campgin deserve a chance to exercise intelligent choices during such confrontations. . .

The gaining of sufficient experience points is necessary to indicate that a character is eligible to gain a level of expereince, but the actual award is a matter for you, the DM, to decide.

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Breifly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance . . .

Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ingore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pul their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating.
​

This very strongly suggests that role, at least as Gygax conceived of it, flows not from the player - as many have posted upthread - but from the build, namely, the choice of class plus alignment (of far greater mechanical importance in AD&D play than in 4e play).

But this is adventure role, as in the role a PC plays in the overall adventure structure. A thief is suppose to be sneaky, sly and stealthy... how does that equate to "do tons of damage"? Magic-users should for the most part use magic... how does that equate that they should "kill minions and control the battlefield"? These are more archetypes (as in archetypical roles) than anything to do with how they should fight.

I also disagree with the point your last paragraph makes, the fact that this was discussed and brought up means that there was at least some room for players to do what they wanted and that "role" wasn't enforced by class structure but instead was enforced by the DM's concept of it and what he felt fit the behavior of certain archetypes.

Presumably, though, many players - all those who played charitable NG thieves, for example, or cowardly and treacherous fighters - just ignored these guidelines (or hoped that their GMs would). The same players, playing 4e, are presumably capable of doing comparably imaginative things: the GM building combat encounters that will reward players for breaking from role expectation, or letting the player of the fighter take a STR bow attack as one of his/her at will powers.

We seem to have ended up in a situation where at least some people don't want the experience that the designers have built the game to deliver, and yet seem strangely reluctant to depart from that design.

Likewise with the comment that 4e produces combat-centric play. Plenty of people ran AD&D games with less combat than the DMG (as quoted above) seems to envisage. Why would they become incapable of doing so when sitting down at a 4e table?

I guess that, despite my differing from him earlier in this post about when fighters encountered build rules (UA rather than 3E), I ultimately agree with @Hussar : the game designers have always had expectations about roles (combat and otherwise); they have build those expecations into the game in various ways (in AD&D especially via the alignment and advancement mechanics, in 4e via the PC build rules); and there is plenty of scope to at least tweak the rules, and thereby the expectations, while leaving the bulk of the game intact.

Which is not to say that the game will play the same. A game in which fighters have STR archery at-wills might play a bit differently from standard 4e. But then, a game without alignment will play pretty differently from standard AD&D. That was why, back in the day, at least some of us were very enthusiastic about Dragon articles that would give us advice on how to run alignment-free D&D!

So your answer is houserule it. Well that seems no better, and alot more work, than play a different game. To each his own though.

I'm curious... the designers have gone on record as basically stating the same thing I am claiming here about 4e's combat roles... The very people who design and developed the game recognize this as a problem. Yet you don't see it?

The game is moving into an area where combat role is not hardcoded to class... but instead at the lower level of build selection (and with some classes like the Berserker not hardcoded at all). I honestly think it's a step in the right direction... maybe just too little too late though.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Note that having "class skills' in any shape or form, is pushing certain roles--i.e. if you want to be nature boy, you better get a druid or ranger to start with, or be prepared to lose options elsewhere. To the extent that abilities are key to certain skills, this is also indirectly reinforced--though so haphazardly in the games where it matters, the effect is somewhat muted.

On the class/combat role front being determinative, my experience is that this is less driven by rules than by the campaign style. Certainly, in 1st ed, with no options to speak of, you'd need house rules to allow certain morphing away from the expectations. (For example, we mistakenly allowed wizards to use short bows, but not long bows or crossbows in Basic, and liked the effect so much that we sometimes kept it as a house rule.) Even then, you could do a bit with magic items.

However, given some options in the rules, they only matter if the campaign will allow them to happen. If the campaign is heavy on the fighter being "the guy" that holds the line, all the time, then he will get the best armor and melee weapons the group will find, and will be expected to spend his options on doing that. He won't be using a crossbow much or a bag of tricks or spending a feat on Nature training or any other diversion. If the campaign backs away from that a bit, then the fighter will still mainly be holding the line and/or smacking things that try to cross it, but his diversions will be whatever interests that player and/or fit in his conception of the character.

 

[Imaro]

Sorry, what edition are you talking about? That will make something of a difference. Because if you're playing 1e, where are you getting all these potions from? Unless the DM is tailoring the campaign to suit that group, you certainly can't rely on being able to do that.

And, of course you can tailor a campaign (cleric vs cleric campaign) to pretty much anything. But, that's going a bit far abroad. If I have to completely revamp what I use as a DM to customize the game to suit the choices of the player, that would tend to mean that the game isn't really supporting that style of play.

Not that you cannot do that, but, it's gets harder and harder out of the box.

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

Let's try a little thought experiment.

Create an D&D character with 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste. You roll and get one 18, and the other 5 rolls are 14 or less. Now, you try to make a character with those roles.

When you make the fighter, where does that 18 go? I'm fairly willing to bet that the vast majority of players out there put that 18 in Str. Its certainly the most mechanically rewarded thing to do - you gain that all important percentile strength in AD&D (+5-10% to hit and double your average damage) and +10% xp reward.

Now, once you've put that 18 in Strength, what's that character going to do in combat? Stand back and shoot a bow? Not likely. He's far and away more effective getting into the mix and laying the boots to something.

Put the 18 in Dex, and he loses that percentile strength, making him not a whole lot better than the cleric in melee combat, he's not strong enough to wear the heaviest armors without incurring encumbrance penalties although that's offset by a decent Dex bonus and he's still only averaging less damage per round than the strength fighter at 7 points per round with two hits.

Now, move forward to Unearthed Arcana and add in things like double weapon specialization. Sure, you could use a bow, but, good grief, why would you bother? +3 to hit and damage, with 3/2 attacks at 1st level. Now our melee fighter is leaving our bow fighter a long way in the dust.

2e doesn't make it any better. Our fighter still specializes, but, now he takes two weapon fighting and he's averaging about 30 points of damage every two rounds (18/XX strength+weapon specs longsword and proficiency short sword - 1st round 1d8+5+1d6+3 damage, 2nd round 2d8+10+1d6+3=about 30-35 points of damage per 2 rounds at 1st level).

Still think fighters weren't melee focused from the get go? Really?

Sure, you could pick up a bow. But, now we're getting into mounted combat? Really? How many horses do you bring into the dungeon? Again, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the overwhelming majority of attacks made by fighter characters are dismounted melee attacks.

The thing I find hillarious about this is that you just made a striker... not a defender.

 

[Tayne]

Sorry, what edition are you talking about? That will make something of a difference. Because if you're playing 1e, where are you getting all these potions from? Unless the DM is tailoring the campaign to suit that group, you certainly can't rely on being able to do that.

And, of course you can tailor a campaign (cleric vs cleric campaign) to pretty much anything. But, that's going a bit far abroad. If I have to completely revamp what I use as a DM to customize the game to suit the choices of the player, that would tend to mean that the game isn't really supporting that style of play.

Not that you cannot do that, but, it's gets harder and harder out of the box.

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

Let's try a little thought experiment.

Create an D&D character with 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste. You roll and get one 18, and the other 5 rolls are 14 or less. Now, you try to make a character with those roles.

When you make the fighter, where does that 18 go? I'm fairly willing to bet that the vast majority of players out there put that 18 in Str. Its certainly the most mechanically rewarded thing to do - you gain that all important percentile strength in AD&D (+5-10% to hit and double your average damage) and +10% xp reward.

Now, once you've put that 18 in Strength, what's that character going to do in combat? Stand back and shoot a bow? Not likely. He's far and away more effective getting into the mix and laying the boots to something.

Put the 18 in Dex, and he loses that percentile strength, making him not a whole lot better than the cleric in melee combat, he's not strong enough to wear the heaviest armors without incurring encumbrance penalties although that's offset by a decent Dex bonus and he's still only averaging less damage per round than the strength fighter at 7 points per round with two hits.

Now, move forward to Unearthed Arcana and add in things like double weapon specialization. Sure, you could use a bow, but, good grief, why would you bother? +3 to hit and damage, with 3/2 attacks at 1st level. Now our melee fighter is leaving our bow fighter a long way in the dust.

2e doesn't make it any better. Our fighter still specializes, but, now he takes two weapon fighting and he's averaging about 30 points of damage every two rounds (18/XX strength+weapon specs longsword and proficiency short sword - 1st round 1d8+5+1d6+3 damage, 2nd round 2d8+10+1d6+3=about 30-35 points of damage per 2 rounds at 1st level).

Still think fighters weren't melee focused from the get go? Really?

Sure, you could pick up a bow. But, now we're getting into mounted combat? Really? How many horses do you bring into the dungeon? Again, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the overwhelming majority of attacks made by fighter characters are dismounted melee attacks.

As far as 3e goes -

elf fighter 20 dex 14 str rapid shot, point blank shot, weapon specialization, compond bow - weapon finessed rapier for backup.

eventually you will multiclass that but it's a good base. They practically hit you over the head with that build. Buddy of mine did it and outstruck everybody. It was like having flurry of blows at a full BAB, forget about it.

In pathfinder I do something similar - I add quick draw to the mix and throw weapons to negate the need for a compound bow. when I need a magic launching system, there are spear launchers for that. That build allows me to be super flexible. I can switch to reach weapons or specialized combat maneuver weapons at will.

Are there better powergaming builds out there? Of course there are. But when you start powergaming to the exclusion of your own enjoyment you've already lost.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sorry, what edition are you talking about? That will make something of a difference. Because if you're playing 1e, where are you getting all these potions from? Unless the DM is tailoring the campaign to suit that group, you certainly can't rely on being able to do that.

And, of course you can tailor a campaign (cleric vs cleric campaign) to pretty much anything. But, that's going a bit far abroad. If I have to completely revamp what I use as a DM to customize the game to suit the choices of the player, that would tend to mean that the game isn't really supporting that style of play.

Not that you cannot do that, but, it's gets harder and harder out of the box.

To my mind, that only raises the question of what the game can do out of the box by design and what the game assumes it will support. (Just a look at the 1E [since you mention that edition] random treasure tables potions are fairly common when magic is included. I'll leave it to those who regularly play 1E to feel free to comment on how frequently they are available in modules.) So, what you again seem to be saying is that in your experience Rich Baker's premise is correct that the last decade of design is less supportive of role-switching.

Let's try a little thought experiment.

Create an D&D character with 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste. You roll and get one 18, and the other 5 rolls are 14 or less. Now, you try to make a character with those roles.

When you make the fighter, where does that 18 go? I'm fairly willing to bet that the vast majority of players out there put that 18 in Str. Its certainly the most mechanically rewarded thing to do - you gain that all important percentile strength in AD&D (+5-10% to hit and double your average damage) and +10% xp reward.

Now, once you've put that 18 in Strength, what's that character going to do in combat? Stand back and shoot a bow? Not likely. He's far and away more effective getting into the mix and laying the boots to something.

Put the 18 in Dex, and he loses that percentile strength, making him not a whole lot better than the cleric in melee combat, he's not strong enough to wear the heaviest armors without incurring encumbrance penalties although that's offset by a decent Dex bonus and he's still only averaging less damage per round than the strength fighter at 7 points per round with two hits.

Now, move forward to Unearthed Arcana and add in things like double weapon specialization. Sure, you could use a bow, but, good grief, why would you bother? +3 to hit and damage, with 3/2 attacks at 1st level. Now our melee fighter is leaving our bow fighter a long way in the dust.

2e doesn't make it any better. Our fighter still specializes, but, now he takes two weapon fighting and he's averaging about 30 points of damage every two rounds (18/XX strength+weapon specs longsword and proficiency short sword - 1st round 1d8+5+1d6+3 damage, 2nd round 2d8+10+1d6+3=about 30-35 points of damage per 2 rounds at 1st level).

Still think fighters weren't melee focused from the get go? Really?

Sure, you could pick up a bow. But, now we're getting into mounted combat? Really? How many horses do you bring into the dungeon? Again, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the overwhelming majority of attacks made by fighter characters are dismounted melee attacks.

You seem to want to focus on a single class and suggest if you use a particular manner of character creation that supports your premise and under the conditions of playstyle (dungeons over outdoors, while trying to steer away from ranged and mounted combats) there is an optimal way to play that class toward a particular role. Given the narrow parameters you accept for your premise, it is difficult to discuss.


However, if we discuss this with Rich Baker's assertion being the only consideration and realize that in the last decade systems have moved further toward creating the mindset you seem to embrace then it's not hard to understand how he arrives at the conclusion. As part of your thought experiement, take a look with fresh eyes at the number of things you take for granted in your example, from the method of ability score generation, the environments the characters will find themselves in, etc. and it seems to support Rich Baker's point.


Let me ask, are you assuming there are a certain number of players? Are you assuming that certain character classes will need to be represented and in certain numbers for a given group? Your use of the word "tailored" above seems to suggest your premise(s) includes design mindset ideals of the last decade or so. These are assumptions also made in design over about the last decade or so. It's not uncommon prior to the last decade or so for groups to be larger, sometimes much larger, than 3-5 players and for campaigns. While one player might wish to optimize for melee combat if they had an 18 to put into one of their ability scores, there might be several (or more) fighters in a group and given that many campaigns spent as much time out of dungeons as in, or even rarely went into dungeons, ranged and mounted combat were of greater importance. But you sweep all of that aside as if they are not even a consideration for your thought experiment and that, again, seems to support Rich Baker's premise regarding how "roles" have become codified in the last decade or so.

 

[billd91]

Let's try a little thought experiment.

Create an D&D character with 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste. You roll and get one 18, and the other 5 rolls are 14 or less. Now, you try to make a character with those roles.

When you make the fighter, where does that 18 go? I'm fairly willing to bet that the vast majority of players out there put that 18 in Str. Its certainly the most mechanically rewarded thing to do - you gain that all important percentile strength in AD&D (+5-10% to hit and double your average damage) and +10% xp reward.

Now, once you've put that 18 in Strength, what's that character going to do in combat? Stand back and shoot a bow? Not likely. He's far and away more effective getting into the mix and laying the boots to something.

Put the 18 in Dex, and he loses that percentile strength, making him not a whole lot better than the cleric in melee combat, he's not strong enough to wear the heaviest armors without incurring encumbrance penalties although that's offset by a decent Dex bonus and he's still only averaging less damage per round than the strength fighter at 7 points per round with two hits.

Now, move forward to Unearthed Arcana and add in things like double weapon specialization. Sure, you could use a bow, but, good grief, why would you bother? +3 to hit and damage, with 3/2 attacks at 1st level. Now our melee fighter is leaving our bow fighter a long way in the dust.

Is this codifying in a particular role? Or is it just dangling a very nice carrot in front of you that you can't pass it up? How does that track with a cleric who gets ahold of gauntlets of ogre power?

Now another thought experiment. Suppose you didn't roll an 18 (only a 1.6% chance after all) and the highest score you got was a 17? That melee carrot isn't quite as appealing compared to the ranged options. Now how much does the class determine your role between the fighting style options?