Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Hussar]

No one is claiming combat role includes archetype, in fact the hard coding of combat role to an archetype is the very thing we are arguing against. I feel like you really are misreading the entire argument being placed forth.

If combat role, as you claim, is hard wired to an archetype, then how can an archetype not include a combat role?

My argument is, combat role has nothing whatsoever to do with archetype.

A warlock could include fifteen different kinds of archetypes - lone wolf, scholar, mad scientist, member of a coven, etc. How he operates best in combat has nothing to do with that archetype.

Let's spin it around then. How does dealing lots of damage (plus status effects since we're talking about a warlock) have anything to do with the fact that I'm a dabbler in mystic arts, making pacts with out planar beings?

Yep, and yet by the fluff and class abilities wizard and warlock are not interchangeable as archetypes. They encompass different fiction, different skills, different proficiencies, different class abilities, etc.

As an example... any wizard I create will be a scholar as pertains to arcane lore. It is presented that way in the fiction of the class (how the wizard learns and casts magic) and it is presented that way through the mechanics ( if you are a Wizard you will always have Arcana trained, you will have a spell book with spells, etc.).

Yet, my warlock can have arcana trained as well. And, pouring over grimoires is hardly solely a wizard archetype. After all, warlocks are "armed with esoteric secrets and dangerous lore". So, I can make a warlock the fits pretty much any wizard archetype you want to name.

And vice versa. Why can't a wizard fit any warlock archetype? After all, both are "wizards" in the traditional sense of the word - users of magic. Any wizard archetype you want to come up with can be done with a warlock.

The Warlock on the other hand accomodates the practitioner who gained his power through a pact with a powerful being. This is presented that way in the fiction and in the mechanics...He has a pact, has no actual spells in a spellbook, and he may or may not have learned anything about arcane lore (Arcana is an optional skill for him).

This is just a very simple example of a pretty big difference in the two archetypes these classes represent, there are alot more when you get into skills available, weapon/armor proficiencies/implements/etc. I don't really understand how you see them as the same archetype with just a differing combat role... they clearly aren't... and after reading that Rule-of-3 article, I would say the developer/designers of 4e agree... at least to a certain point with my argument.

I would point out that Arcana is an option for a wizard as well. He doesn't gain it as a bonus feat. In fact, you don't even need arcana to be a wizard. You get Ritual Casting as a bonus feat, but, rituals don't need Arcana to be used.

Again, we see how misreading the rules actually leads to false premises.

Skill wise, there is some variation, and there should be, these are different classes after all. But, it would be pretty easy to make a warlock or a wizard with the same skill set.

Weapon and armor differences? Hrm, warlocks can use leather and wizards get orbs. Yeah, seeing that huge gulf of difference there.

My point is, any "wizard archetype" (by this I mean caster of magic that isn't a priest, not the class) can be filled pretty interchangeably by warlock or wizard. But, in combat, these two characters will play out very differently.

No what we want is for our combat role not to be dependant upon the archetype/class we choose. What I am saying is that I want the archetype of a monk as presented in the fiction and non-combat rules of the game and be able to pick the combat role I want for said archetype. There's no reason a monk should be a striker only... A monk could be a controller, a defender, or even a leader if combat role wasn't so explicitely tied to the monk archetype/class in 4e.

And, right there, you're tying archetype to role again, despite the fact that these two things are not connected in any way.

What are you talking about by role? If you mean combat role, then I will contend that I have never claimed combat role = archetype... So I would argue that you have been misreading the argument being placed forth from the beginning and that maybe you should re-read what has been posted so far to get a better grasp of what is being discussed.

[/quote]

Yeah, I gotta admit I'm pretty confused. Apparently role is quantum in that it can be both connected and not connected to archetype at the same time, and only becomes a problem when observed by certain observers.

Which is it? Is Role (the 4e defined term) a purely combat role, (again as the PHB distinctly defines the term) or has 4e indelibly linked combat Role to archetype?

 

[Hussar]

&TLDR

I think the basic problem we're having here is a miscommunication on the word "archetype". To me, an archetype is not "Sword and Board Fighter". That's an in game concept that really doesn't tell me anything very much about the character. To me, an archetype tells me what the character is, not particularly how he does things.

So, the fighter archetype could be, Mercenary, Man Without a Name, Defender of the Weak, Pit Fighter/Gladiator, Knight, etc. Now, Sword and Board Fighter could fit with any of those archetypes. All S&B Fighter tells me is what he does in combat. Replace S&B Fighter with Defender and it's the same thing.

Same with "Dude with Bow". That's not an archetype. That could encompass many, many different archetypes from Robin Hood to Iroquois Warrior. Are we actually going to say that Robin Hood and Iroquois Warrior are the same archetype? ((Note, bow user might not actually fit for Iroquios Warrior, it's just an example, run with it. Insert stone age warrior of choice if it makes you happier.))

People keep trying to tie combat role ((bow user, weapon dude)) to archetype and they just aren't the same thing. Granted, certain archetypes will likely have certain combat roles, Knight, for example, is likely heavy armored tank - probably a defender, but, that's just the knock on effect from the archetype.

Lots of archetypes have very little to do with what they do in combat. I'd argue that very few true archetypes have anything to do with combat. It's the conflation of the two that is causing the problem.

 

[JamesonCourage]

What's the problem, exactly, with divorcing combat role from being encoded into classes? Because I think that's a question some people are trying to ask.

When I play a Fighter, why is "Defender" already encoded? When I play a Wizard, why is "controller" already encoded?

Why shouldn't I be able to pick "Fighter" and then "Defender", just like I can pick "Fighter" and then "Sword and Board" as my primary style? Why can't I pick "Fighter" and then "Striker" and then "Bow and Arrow" as my primary style?

I mean, the PHB could have "Example Wizard: Controller" in the book. It could have "Example Fighter: Defender" in the book. It could say that the party functions best with one of each role present.

What I guess I'm missing is what exactly is objectionable about having pools of "Defender Powers" and "Controller Powers" separate to choose from. Just like pools of "Arcane Powers" and "Martial Exploits" or the like. You could have the Combat Role pools be inside the Power Source pools. That is, you'd have pools of Arcane Powers, with four sections: Striker, Defender, Controller, and Leader. So, as a Wizard (Arcane Power Source), you could choose your Combat Role, and then choose an appropriate power from the Arcane [Combat Role chosen] pool for your level. And you'd get to choose a power outside your Combat Role (if you want) once every four levels, or something, letting you dip into Striker or Leader or something.

Or, heck, don't even force someone to choose a Combat Role. If they want to pick all Striker powers, go for it. If they want to pick all Controller powers, awesome. If they want to mix and match, great. Maybe that's a complexity dial option right there: at base they're set, but if you want to mix and match (more complex, harder to balance), then go for it.

I just don't get the problem with it in a theoretical sense. You could then give classes certain base options to help define them: god-related, nature-related, martial-related, etc. Something to mirror the Power Sources, perhaps. Then, in expansions and splat books, give out actual classes. This wouldn't be new material (as in, you could always build them yourself), but it'd be work you wouldn't have to do as a GM or player, and you could modify it on the fly pretty easily (like a really easily house-ruled class or ability, as you know what "equivalents" are). I guess you could do the same in the core book: here's the "Cleric: he's a Divine Leader with the Cure Light Wounds power" or the like.

Just my thoughts on it. I think that's an easier setup for the Powers approach, personally. I don't get the objection to separating combat role from class, but maybe I'm missing something obvious. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Because, JamesonCourage, the second you do that, you've just exploded the number of elements you need for each class.

For example, take something as simple as hit dice. Now, if you make your figher a controller, then he has low hit points and poor armor. Is he still a "fighter"? What is a "fighter"?

Or, flip it around and make the wizard a defender. Now your wizard has high hit points, wears heavy armor and uses the best weapons. How is he a wizard?

Class and role are indelibly linked. Fighters are mostly defenders with a heavy dose of striker thrown in. Is that really all that different from how fighters have always been presented?

If you divorce class from role, then what's left of class? After all, all the mechanical aspects, which generally revolve around combat, are linked to combat role.

Or, putting it another way, once you strip away hit dice, armor and weapons from a fighter class, what's left?

But this is all considerably orthagonal to the link that people are making between role and archetype. Combat roles and archetypes are only tenuously linked, typically through the medium of class. My fighter is a noble knight out to right wrongs (archetype) and does so using defender powers in combat (combat role).

Although, thinking about it, I suppose it's six of one, half dozen of the other. Do you switch out role or class name? Does it matter at the end of the day? Archer Dude works best as a ranger, which is a striker. Now, striker and Archer Dude fit pretty well together - fast, lightly armored, doing lots of damage to one (or a small number of) target.

I'd argue that it's a lot easier to switch out the name fighter for ranger than it is to switch out the roles. Because, as I said, once you strip out all combat mechanics from a class, what's left? And, again, that's not edition specific. You strip out the combat mechanics of a fighter in any edition and there isn't much left. At best you've got a couple of non-weapon proficiencies and possibly followers at high level, or a very small selection of skills.

Neither of those things scream fighter to me.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Because, JamesonCourage, the second you do that, you've just exploded the number of elements you need for each class.

For example, take something as simple as hit dice. Now, if you make your figher a controller, then he has low hit points and poor armor. Is he still a "fighter"? What is a "fighter"?

I feel I addressed this:

I mean, the PHB could have "Example Wizard: Controller" in the book. It could have "Example Fighter: Defender" in the book.

You wouldn't necessarily even have to associate armor type with Combat Role. I don't know why you would. Just give powers that reflect that combat role when using, you know, a power from that combat role.

Or, flip it around and make the wizard a defender. Now your wizard has high hit points, wears heavy armor and uses the best weapons. How is he a wizard?

Don't give him the best armor and best weapons? Give him no armor, make him good at dodging, and let him kick ass with a staff or spells. As far as HP goes, in 4e, HP represents a lot more than physical toughness, so flavor-wise he's extra loaded on things like quick defensive wards, luck, skill, and the like.

Class and role are indelibly linked. Fighters are mostly defenders with a heavy dose of striker thrown in. Is that really all that different from how fighters have always been presented?

To my mind, yes. I've made AC/meatshield style Fighters before. I've made heavy-damage style Fighters before (not Char OP level, or close, but good enough for my games). I've made controller-style fighters before (like pemerton's player, with the reach weapon). I got to choose my focus, and I liked the option, but what a potential 5e could do by opening having pools of powers would blow all past editions away in terms of options. I'd much prefer that than 4e's or 3.X's way of handling it. After all, my RPG is point-buy.

If you divorce class from role, then what's left of class? After all, all the mechanical aspects, which generally revolve around combat, are linked to combat role.

Or, putting it another way, once you strip away hit dice, armor and weapons from a fighter class, what's left?

It's a new edition, and if 4e was any indication, feel free to go wild and throw conventions out the window. Throw in some new features. Focus on non-combat stuff. Don't have a "Fighter" except as something other than an extended example? Instead, have a "choose your Power Source, Combat Role, and Theme" style of game? As far as I can tell from pemerton, Rangers aren't even nature-themed so much anymore. I mean, their powers might be (I assume they're Primal?), but their class features don't sound like they're tracking-based, or nature-based, or the like. Focus on that?

But this is all considerably orthagonal to the link that people are making between role and archetype. Combat roles and archetypes are only tenuously linked, typically through the medium of class. My fighter is a noble knight out to right wrongs (archetype) and does so using defender powers in combat (combat role).

I really don't feel like I was talking about this.

Although, thinking about it, I suppose it's six of one, half dozen of the other. Do you switch out role or class name? Does it matter at the end of the day? Archer Dude works best as a ranger, which is a striker. Now, striker and Archer Dude fit pretty well together - fast, lightly armored, doing lots of damage to one (or a small number of) target.

I'd argue that it's a lot easier to switch out the name fighter for ranger than it is to switch out the roles. Because, as I said, once you strip out all combat mechanics from a class, what's left? And, again, that's not edition specific. You strip out the combat mechanics of a fighter in any edition and there isn't much left. At best you've got a couple of non-weapon proficiencies and possibly followers at high level, or a very small selection of skills.

Neither of those things scream fighter to me.

Yes, but you're choosing the most combat-oriented class in the game. Literally, the guy labeled Fighter. Take away all the combat abilities from my Bard and I'm feeling okay. Same for my Rogue. Or Ranger. Or Wizard. The Fighter is the most extreme example you can really name, and while the extreme ends should be considered, I really don't think they should be used as the primary example that exemplifies what I'm proposing.

Especially since I proposed something along the lines of "why not use classes as examples?" I mean, then just build the Fighter as a heavily armored, high HP Martial Defender. Just use the same building blocks that everyone else gets. It saves people work and makes for convenient traditional classes, shows how the game is supposed to work, and lets people swap out powers at their whim. Right?

As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Take out all combat related elements of any class, and there really isn't a whole lot left.

Strip out all the combat stuff from the description of rogue and what's left? Skill points. That's it. Big bag of skill points. Sure, it's fun to have lots of skill points, but, at the end of the day, that's not exactly much to hang a character on.

Even 3e bard has most of his abilities tied to combat. Sure, there's the Lore ability, but, a number of the singing abilities are combat related. And the spell list is still 2/3rds combat related as well. Strip out the combat stuff and you have a guy that plays an instrument and knows things about old stuff. A bit more there, and certainly more than the fighter, but, again, not a heck of a lot.

All the classes are like this. It makes sense, D&D devotes most of its mechanics to combat so the classes reflect this. If you strip out all the combat elements of a class, I'd argue that most classes just fall apart. The only reason the casters might not is because the spell system is probably the second most mechanically supported system in the game, behind combat.

But any of the non casters? Strip out all the combat stuff from a ranger and you got a guy with a dog. Paladin? You've got an annoying guy with a horse.

But, in any case, I'd much rather leave combat role tied to class and then simply pick the class that best fits the character I have in mind. But, that's just me. I've always played like that. I've never made a class first and then tried to shoehorn it into an archetype.

To each his own I guess.

 

[Guest 85555]

I would argue that bards and rogues in previous editions were defined more by their non-combat abilities than combat abilities (and rogues being skill monkeys were precisely why I played them a good deal of the time). These were both classes that shined outside of combat.

 

[Imaro]

If combat role, as you claim, is hard wired to an archetype, then how can an archetype not include a combat role?

Because archetypes exist outside of 4e (previous editions, literature, media,etc.) or are you now claiming 4e created the archetypes it draws on for it's classes as well?

My argument is, combat role has nothing whatsoever to do with archetype.

And my argument is that in 4e they are very much linked since a combat role is hardcoded into the classes which in turn represent archetypes.

A warlock could include fifteen different kinds of archetypes - lone wolf, scholar, mad scientist, member of a coven, etc. How he operates best in combat has nothing to do with that archetype.

The "concepts" you present aren't fantasy archetypes as I understand them, if anything I would consider these closer to the builds in 4e.

Archetypes are suppose to be more overarching concepts that exist universally across many cultures, IMO "mad scientists" and "lone wolf" don't fall into this category...

Let's spin it around then. How does dealing lots of damage (plus status effects since we're talking about a warlock) have anything to do with the fact that I'm a dabbler in mystic arts, making pacts with out planar beings?

In 4e if you want to be a dabbler in mystic arts that makes pacts with planar beings... your combat role will be striker. How do you not see this connection? It's attaching, what should be, an unrelated game construct to archetype and people in this thread are saying the game would be better served if they were kept seperate.

Yet, my warlock can have arcana trained as well. And, pouring over grimoires is hardly solely a wizard archetype. After all, warlocks are "armed with esoteric secrets and dangerous lore". So, I can make a warlock the fits pretty much any wizard archetype you want to name.

Your warlock can, but doesn't have to. The fact of the matter is that the warlock archetype throughout literature has encompased the unlearned and unintiated as well as those who are learned in occult knowledge. The thing is the wizard archetype isn't generally known for being bound to a pact... Merlin, Gandalf, Milamber, Harry Potter,etc. aren't beholden to some extra planar being for knowledge or power. So no, I would argue that the warlock doesn't fit many/most/almost all of the well known wizards in literature and media by dint that he is beholden to (as opposed to commanding) a powerful entity for his power.

And vice versa. Why can't a wizard fit any warlock archetype? After all, both are "wizards" in the traditional sense of the word - users of magic. Any wizard archetype you want to come up with can be done with a warlock.

See my answer above and reverse it. The wizard in 4e doesn't have a pact and isn't bound to a being for his knowledge or power. He has books and tomes and his own intelligence. He can't be the unlearned or uninitiated whose made a deal with the devil since contrary to what you posted below... all wizards have arcana trained... unless we're back to houseruling.

I would point out that Arcana is an option for a wizard as well. He doesn't gain it as a bonus feat. In fact, you don't even need arcana to be a wizard. You get Ritual Casting as a bonus feat, but, rituals don't need Arcana to be used.

Again, we see how misreading the rules actually leads to false premises.

Wait a minute... I'm misreading the rules? Really?? First, Arcana is a skill not a feat, secondly...

PHB 1 (pg. 156) Arcana is automatically trained for wizards... HotFL (pg. 193) again Arcana is automatically trained for mages... is there some eratta I'm missing or are you just totally misreading the rules here and it's leading to a false premise?

Skill wise, there is some variation, and there should be, these are different classes after all. But, it would be pretty easy to make a warlock or a wizard with the same skill set.

Uhm... what?

Wizard skills...Arcana(trained), Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, History, Insight, Nature, Religion

Warlock Skills...Arcana, Bluff, History, Insight, Intimidate, Religion, Streetwise, Thievery

So they have 3 skills that overlap. It is much easier to make a learned scholarly type (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History,Nature, Religion) with the wizard and much easier to make an unlearned, unintiated type (Bluff, Insight, Intimidate, Streetwise, Thievery) with the warlock skill list.

Weapon and armor differences? Hrm, warlocks can use leather and wizards get orbs. Yeah, seeing that huge gulf of difference there.

So you don't see the fact that Warlocks actually have the time to learn to use armor, and a wider range of weapons as a difference ( in game terms that's at least two feats for a wizard right there). Really? I think you are purposefully downplaying the differences... especially when you add them all up.

My point is, any "wizard archetype" (by this I mean caster of magic that isn't a priest, not the class) can be filled pretty interchangeably by warlock or wizard. But, in combat, these two characters will play out very differently.

And I just showed they can't, at least not without houseruling, or expending unnecessary resources.... the classes have non-combat features (the very things that tie the classes to the archetypes they are based on) that allow for very different play outside of combat.

Now if you're defining the wizard archetype as "any caster of magic that isnt a priest" then I think you've went so wide and so broad as to make the archetype meaningless (even though I've shown above that mechanically there is a difference in the archetypes these classes represent).

It's like saying user of divine power... well that's the paladin, avenger, invoker and cleric and they're all the same because they all use divine energy. Or all primal power wielders... and so on.

And, right there, you're tying archetype to role again, despite the fact that these two things are not connected in any way.

In 4e they are very much connected. The archetype I choose to play dictates the combat role I will be taking (which most are arguinng it shouldn't). I've shown above how the warlock and wizard archetypes are different, and there's no questioning the fact that the one I pick will determine my combat role... what's left to prove?

Yeah, I gotta admit I'm pretty confused. Apparently role is quantum in that it can be both connected and not connected to archetype at the same time, and only becomes a problem when observed by certain observers.

Are you being purposefully obtuse, and I'm seriously asking this because if so I'll quit wasting my time responding to you. Archetypes weren't created in D&D 4e... however in 4e they have tied combat role to archetypes... it's really pretty simple.

Which is it? Is Role (the 4e defined term) a purely combat role, (again as the PHB distinctly defines the term) or has 4e indelibly linked combat Role to archetype?

I never argued it wasn't a combat role... I have, and still do, argue that combat role is linked to the archetypes used in the game. You realize both of these things can be true and is exactly what many people are saying they don't like. There's some kind of disconnect here and I'm not really sure how to explain it so that you get it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Take out all combat related elements of any class, and there really isn't a whole lot left.

Strip out all the combat stuff from the description of rogue and what's left? Skill points. That's it. Big bag of skill points. Sure, it's fun to have lots of skill points, but, at the end of the day, that's not exactly much to hang a character on.

To sum up my thoughts: our mileage has varied so drastically I'm not sure where to begin. Maybe that says it all.

Even 3e bard has most of his abilities tied to combat. Sure, there's the Lore ability, but, a number of the singing abilities are combat related. And the spell list is still 2/3rds combat related as well. Strip out the combat stuff and you have a guy that plays an instrument and knows things about old stuff. A bit more there, and certainly more than the fighter, but, again, not a heck of a lot.

And I'm advocating letting classes have this. Maybe even in spades. Give people options based on Themes and Classes to build their class abilities. Or two distinct trees: Theme abilities, and then Class abilities. I don't care how you divide it. The 3e monk is filled with stuff that is useful outside of combat, and if these are options (not set in stone) for a class, and they don't get rid of combat abilities, it seems like a great addition to me. Same goes for the first few levels of druid, for example. Grab these types of abilities and throw them in as options, just like powers.

But, in any case, I'd much rather leave combat role tied to class and then simply pick the class that best fits the character I have in mind. But, that's just me. I've always played like that. I've never made a class first and then tried to shoehorn it into an archetype.

To each his own I guess.

Hey, more power to your play style being supported. I'm all for people having their preferences, and getting to play a game that helps support it. As always, play what you like

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

See this is where I'm getting a little confused...

Imagining your "character" as a nordic barbarian vs. making a ranger when what you want is a character with the hit points, healing surges and skills of a fighter isn't just a matter of reskinning, it has real mechanical effects outside of your combat role. Again there is a lot tied up in class and by attaching combat role to it in 4e they just added one more thing your class dictates... which means less flexibility and less customization.

As to the rest of this paragraph... we are very much talking houseruling because reskinning different classes doesn't give you other things tied up in them. If I'm looking to make a fighter class archer then I am very much looking to create an archer that has greater durability, wider range of armor, no woodland skills or associations, fighter skills, etc.

And this is where I'm confused. You've said repeatedly that you aren't looking for your concept without trade-offs. Yet now you're asking for a ranged striker with high hit points and healing surges? Where's the trade-off?

So wait, your "noble-born", "city-dweller" has the following as class skills...
Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).

Yep. You'd also have to look to the Sorcerer class skill list if you recall my sharing of the full concept upthread.

I guess you could squint really hard and come up with some reason he's missing alot of the skills most people would consider trademarks of being born in the city or as a noble... though it's definitely not the skill set I would have pictured for him... Diplomacy, Knowledge(anything), Sense Motive, Speak Language, Profession. Of course since 3.x is a little more flexible picking a different class to represent him won't necessarily dictate your combat role as well. Which is the point that seems to be getting lost in the archer vs. melee fighter debate. It's not about weapon, but about combat role.

Wow, you really stereotype your characters then, huh? Every noble should be skilled in Diplomacy? Really? Even a hot-tempered, dragon-blooded young minor noble's son? One who left the security of his family to become an adventurer of all things? None of your nobles have ever eschewed their studies? All of them are perfect little students? None of them are "jocks" that explored their advanced physical nature by taking up rock-climbing, swimming, etc? None of them participated in the "sport" of hunting and learned a thing or two about being out in the wild?

This is why I feel that you are pigeon-holing concepts by class name and are unwilling to picture something outside the stereotypical box.

Because what you consider "plausible" isn't to some people... why is that so hard to understand. Your Barbarian above is not, IMO, a plausible solution for creating a city-dweller, noble-born, character... no matter how much you "reskin" the Barbarian. The ranger, IMO, is not a plausible hard-as-nails, mercenary archer who grew up in the tent towns of a major city. No matter how much you reskin him. They have actual mechanics that work against the concept.

IMO, you have too narrow an idea of what a noble-born city-dweller can be. Maybe in Clicheland I would feel restrcited to fit your concept, but the class combination fit my character concept quite well, as does the 4E Ranger as the Archer Fighter.