Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

Not too surprising since previous editions provided no mechanical class ability to defend. All you really had was tactical positioning. Someone mentioned upthread that there was something similar to OA in 1E, but I don't even remember playing with that rule. So basically they redefined the fighter into multiple classes. I don't really understand peoples' hangup on the naming convention, but obviously it is an issue for some.

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.

And what armor was best for this elven fighter? Light or Heavy?

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.

With the example of the potion-administering fighter? No. I think the post-AD&D supports that more by suggesting characters be able to purchase magical items more freely.

Outside of that specicfic example: Recently in my own game the defender stepped out of his role to use the Heal skill on the fallen leader to revive him instead of just swinging his sword. Many fighters can be built for effective battlefield control. And many fighters, before the advent of the Slayer, fulfilled the role of striker through weapon and feat choices. Most of the classes had secondary roles that they were competent in from the start of the edition.

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.

In my group its was always deemed that someone "had" to play a thief and another a cleric, as those were the only two classes that could, respectively, find/disarm/unlock and heal. Currently one character might spot the traps, another disarms/unlocks (not always a rogue, last time it was the warlock), and any leader can heal without "forcing" the player into cleric. Our campaigns seem to spend as much time in and out o dungeons as they always have. My experience has definitely been in the camp of the roles always having existed in one form or another.

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?

This is definitely a change from prior editions. If you've chosen to build a cleric that relies on ranged attacks, finding a powerful melee weapon will not appeal to the character and would most likely end up in the hands of another character, magic items are certainly more tailored to specific users (which I'm not the biggest fan of either). But again, this seems to be an example of roles changing based on items found, similar to Mark's example of the potion-administering fighter. It's not really based on the choice of the player but instead the whim of the DM or luck of random treasure tables.

 

[pemerton]

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.

How so? Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but I thought your point was that 4e players are coerced into a narrow range of activities. I have a player who does not feel coerced in this way.

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.

I'm still unclear - are you talking about adaptability in build, or in play? If you're talking about adaptability in build, I agree but don't care - it's no skin of my nose whether the important build choices are made after choosing a "class" or by choosing a "class".

If you mean adaptability in play, I don't think 4e play is as narrow as you contend - witness the wizard PC I mention above, or the drow sorcerer who from time-to-time holds the front line. Nor do I think that earlier editions in play were as broad as you contend - anything from weapon proficiency choice, to equipment options, to spell choices made by other members of the party, operated to narrow the viable range of options for any given PC.

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

I agree, although some builds - like the Binder Warlock - just seem ill-conceived. But these sub-classes are mostly just more classes with some overlapping utility powers. They are still focused builds - a Slayer can't defend anymore than a PHB Fighter can strike.

I've got nothing against the lists getting longer. If the focus of each element on the list gets lost, though, then quality play will be undermined.

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

Whereas I don't see this as any different in substance, other than marginal things like sharing utility powers and the like. I mean, suppose Slayer had been a seperate class, with the overlapping utility powers duplicated in its power list. The PC build options would be identical. The game would play identically. Making it a sub-class rather than a class has no effect except the efficiency gains from utility power and feat sharing. It doesn't provide any more flexibility in terms of building or playing your PC.

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 problem I've taken them to be concerned about is the "wall of powers" design - to which sub-classes are one solution. Are they concerned about having produced PC build rules that guarantee PCs with focused rather than generic expertise, thereby making a distinctive contribution to the tactical combat aspect of the game? I haven't seen that concern expressed, but maybe I've missed it.

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.

Well, that's one way of describing a game where (i) the aim of play is, in part at least, to gain level, and (ii) the GM has unilateral control over the sort of play that will earn those levels. I would say - if the GM is applying the rules of the book, and you play a cowardly fighter or a charitable thief, then you're hosed. (Although you may not know that you're hosed for some time, depending how "gotcha" your GM's approach is.)

I don't see this as any less coercive than a ruleset that says - here's one thing you can do pretty well (namely, raise the effective AC of your allies by marking), here's one other thing you don't do very well (shoot arrows), now choose which one you want to have your PC do.

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.

Well, to make a cowardly fighter, or a charitable rogue, viable in AD&D a group had to houserule - that is, the GM had to ignore the rules on level training.

Introducing a STR archery at will for a fighter PC strikes me as houseruling at the same level of difficulty ie none.

Letting an archer-ranger wear chain armour rather than Hide (perhaps via a free feat, perhaps with the feat granted in lieu of the Nature skill) strikes me as another houserule at the same level of difficulty. (And if your archer-ranger takes the two-weapon build rather than the archer build in order to get Toughness for free, the only thing you're giving up is the opportunity to take Battlefield Archer when you get to 11th level.)

Or build your armoured archer as a warlord.

I'm just not seeing these tremendous obstacles in the way of these various mooted character concepts.

 

[billd91]

But again, this seems to be an example of roles changing based on items found, similar to Mark's example of the potion-administering fighter. It's not really based on the choice of the player but instead the whim of the DM or luck of random treasure tables.

That is, until you realize that it's the players who decide how to use those items and not the DM or the random tables. Healing items - give them to the cleric and nobody gets to change roles. Give them to someone else who can use them, now you've got player choice deciding who is playing what roles.

 

[Tayne]

And what armor was best for this elven fighter? Light or Heavy?

Light, what with the high max dex on light armor and all

Can't wait to see where you're going with this.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That is, until you realize that it's the players who decide how to use those items and not the DM or the random tables. Healing items - give them to the cleric and nobody gets to change roles. Give them to someone else who can use them, now you've got player choice deciding who is playing what roles.

Based on the examples given by MarkCMG, how do you think this has changed over time? Do other editions take the decision out of the players' hands and put it into the hands of the DM? Or are items merely a carrot on a stick for those who could best use them?

Light, what with the high max dex on light armor and all

Can't wait to see where you're going with this.

I agree with you that this was a common bow fighter build in 3E. Do you believe that this concept has disappeared in the lastest edition?

 

[Tayne]

I agree with you that this was a common bow fighter build in 3E. Do you believe that this concept has disappeared in the lastest edition?

If I can jump ahead a few steps, are you saying classes AREN'T actually tied inextricably from the roles they've been assigned?

If so, Rich Baker disagrees... (see below)

 

[Imaro]

The problem I've taken them to be concerned about is the "wall of powers" design - to which sub-classes are one solution. Are they concerned about having produced PC build rules that guarantee PCs with focused rather than generic expertise, thereby making a distinctive contribution to the tactical combat aspect of the game? I haven't seen that concern expressed, but maybe I've missed it.

I take it you don't read rule of 3 then...

In the last Rule of Three, you talked a little about roles existing in earlier editions but being codified in 4E. How do you think having these roles has affected the game? Is there anything you would change or anything you've learned from this design choice?

...One more lesson learned: It's harder to customize a character or play against type when the class is built to serve a specific role. If you want to build a wizard who behaves like a striker by putting out a ton of damage on a single target, you can't really do it; you need to build a warlock instead. Similarly, if you want to build an axe-throwing fighter, you'll find that the fighter offers darned few ranged weapon powers; it's hard to make the fighter into a character who fights well at range. You have to create that character by figuring out which class makes that concept work (slayer or ranger, perhaps) and call yourself an axe fighter while using the chassis provided by a class in the "proper" role. 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.

Now is this the part where you tell us that even the designers and developers of the game are confused about their thoughts and 4e because of presentation or something like that?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If I can jump ahead a few steps, are you saying classes AREN'T actually tied inextricably from the roles they've been assigned?

No, I was not speaking to that subject. I wanted to know if you believe the elven archer character you gave an example of exists or does not exist in the current ruleset. Other than the class name changing from Fighter to Ranger, some fluff regarding nature warrior that the system suggests you re-envision to your needs, and two bonus skills over the Fighter, what has changed from your example of the elven fighter archer?

Fighter Skill choices: Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Streetwise (Cha).

Ranger Skill choices: Acrobatics (Dex), Athletics (Str), Dungeoneering (Wis), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Nature (Wis), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dex).

The ranger does lose Intimidate over his previous edition counterpart. He also loses access to Streetwise, which the previous edition fighter did not have as a class skill. He picks up access to Perception ove his previous edition counterpart, which is useful for ranged combatants. And even if you hate the notion of forced Dungeoneering or Nature you can safely ignore the chosen skill in protest and still be one up on the fighter.

The ranger also loses some durability in the form of lower hit points, which is mitigated by not being on the front line. It also mirrors your example of your elven archer fighter whose hit points suffer from low Constitution.

Has the archetype you describe changed to the point where you believe it no longer exists in the current system?

As to your inferred question: No, I believe there is overlap in the roles. You choose a concept at character creation that decides what your main role in combat will be. But situations, feats chosen, powers chosen, and magic items found or bought, can all help you fill other roles.

 

[Tayne]

No, I was not speaking to that subject. I wanted to know if you believe the elven archer character you gave an example of exists or does not exist in the current ruleset. Other than the class name changing from Fighter to Ranger, some fluff regarding nature warrior that the system suggests you re-envision to your needs, and two bonus skills over the Fighter, what has changed from your example of the elven fighter archer?

Fighter Skill choices: Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Streetwise (Cha).

Ranger Skill choices: Acrobatics (Dex), Athletics (Str), Dungeoneering (Wis), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Nature (Wis), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dex).

The ranger does lose Intimidate over his previous edition counterpart. He also loses access to Streetwise, which the previous edition fighter did not have as a class skill. He picks up access to Perception ove his previous edition counterpart, which is useful for ranged combatants. And even if you hate the notion of forced Dungeoneering or Nature you can safely ignore the chosen skill in protest and still be one up on the fighter.

The ranger also loses some durability in the form of lower hit points, which is mitigated by not being on the front line. It also mirrors your example of your elven archer fighter whose hit points suffer from low Constitution.

Has the archetype you describe changed to the point where you believe it no longer exists in the current system?

As to your inferred question: No, I believe there is overlap in the roles. You choose a concept at character creation that decides what your main role in combat will be. But situations, feats chosen, powers chosen, and magic items found or bought, can all help you fill other roles.

So you're asking me if I think archers still exist in 4E?

Yeah, I'm sure archers exist in 4E.

 

[Umbran]

... it's hard to make the fighter into a character who fights well at range. You have to create that character by figuring out which class makes that concept work (slayer or ranger, perhaps) and call yourself an axe fighter while using the chassis provided by a class in the "proper" role.

I see this argument often, and I always wonder, "So what?"

"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Who cares whether the class name is specifically F-I-G-H-T-E-R? Does it do what you want? You can fight, you can uses axes, you can toss them around effectively and impressively? Yes? Then what's the issue?

There's a legitimate issue in that sometimes the thing you want to do isn't represented by any current class. But that you cannot make a thing that happens to be named in the rules as "fighter" that does what you want I think is a weak critique indeed.

There's a second-order critique that folks who are just starting out will have their ideas kind of pigeon-holed for a while, I suppose. That's a theoretical problem that I haven't seen be a major issue in practice, myself - I find gamers to be far too free-willed and creative to be stuck in ruts for long. I'd like to see someone present more than anecdote that it is a major issue with the design.