Roles in Roleplaying Games

[billd91]

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?

Same place they were in 3e - by focusing on his archery with choices in feats and gear, he's not focusing on his melee combat feats and gear. That's a trade off. The same would be true in 4e if the fighter had access to decent ranged powers as well as melee powers - by choosing a ranged power over a melee power, he's making a trade off. I don't see where the source of confusion on this is.

 

[Imaro]

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?

Oh... you mean like the avenger or the slayer? There are strikers with high hit points and a greater number of healing surges than the average striker... so I'm kind of lost on your overall point.

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

You said you were re-skinning the 3e Barbarian class.

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?

Lol... wow, so you made a noble-born, city dweller that isn't one...ok. I guess I can reskin my 3e fighter as a wizard too... he just has no spells and no magical knowledge whatsoever. I'm going to call bull on this and assume you know why.

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

Uhmm, no I'm going with the actual concept you presented. Now if you had said noble born, city dweller who eschewed all things most nobles and all things most city dwellers would know and learn (which kinda defeats the purpose of him being noble-born and a city dweller) then yeah I could see what you just presented... but that's not what you posted.

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.

And IMO, you didn't fulfill your original concept, you pulled a bait and switch which really is a disingenuous way of arguing... IMO this sums up what you just tried to pull...

Hey I'm can reskin a fighter as a wizard...

But he doesn't have magic, know spells or have any idea about arcane lore...

Your concept of a wizard is too narrow... he's a wizard that failed at magic because he was lifting weights, studied weapons and armor and forgot what little arcane lore he knew from his brief apprenticeship and became a master warrior...

So he's a fighter...

No he's a wizard...

Uhm, ok...

Plain and simple this argument is bull.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I guess my question to you is why have these names even been used and why do they have specific fiction attached to them in the game books if all they are suppose to be are packages of abilities? It seems if they are to be flavor neutral... you wouldn't attach specific narratives to the classes. As an example the narrative for a warlock is different from that of a wizard... so why do this if really all a warlock is suppose to be is a "striker" wizard? Why include the narrative of him having made a pact with some entity instead of learning from spellbooks... why include specifc beings that he can make pacts with... and so on if he's just a package of arcane striker abilities? Recent editions (at least from BECMI onward)the books have never supported the classes being just a grouping of abilities with no attached narrative or fiction.

I don't see why not... though I would still tell PC's that this is an order of paladins since that in and of itself sets up on a high level what this oprder is about. Or would you just present this name and not explain what type of class they are composed of?

The fiction is attached to give a feel for a typical member of that class. Someone above noted that maybe we should have class names like "Ranged Striker." I think this would be a mistake, as much of the feel of the game would be lost. I also agree with you over the point of a group of NPCs being an order of Avengers vs. an order of Paladins as I think some transparency on the part of the DM is necessary so the players have a common base of what to expect. But I diverge from your opinion when it comes to player characters. As DM, I want you to be able to play the concept you want. To achieve that I'm willing to reskin any class you need to make your concept work. In the example of the order of paladins, if your concept fit avenger better and fit the order of paladins, I would not force you to be a paladin. Why do PCs get special treatment? Because they are just that...special. Your character may be the one lone example of a member of the order that chooses a different approach to doing the works of the order. In game we'll figure out how those choices affect the story.

In 3.5 there was a swashbuckler class...

There was also a samurai class.

Are you advocating a multitude of classes?

 

[billd91]

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.

None of this has anything to do with being perfect little students. What is has to do with is a dissonance between the roles the class plays for the character that 4e has exacerbated. Since class determines access to initial skills (every other skill coming at the cost of a feat later on) AND combat role, you get elements that don't match when you try to simply look at class as nothing but a way to pick your combat role. You want to play a noble who goes berserk? Fine, but where is there any indication in your barbarian class skills that you've got the skills a noble most likely would have had access to since birth? Gotta pay for those with feats. You're stuck with something that's not as good a fit as it could have been had the combat roles been a looser fit to begin with.

D&D has, more traditionally, provided a looser fit for the combat role allowing the player to decide whether they're geared up to be a tank, an artillerist, a healer, a skirmisher, or a neutralizer. Most classes could pick from more than one of those roles even if they didn't really have access to them all. Some could remake that choice on a daily basis.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The question is... from the description of a warlock or wizard, why should one be confined to the striker role and the other be confined to the controller role?

The answer is... they're not. The warlock has many options within the class that makes him a decent controller. The wizard has many options within the class that make him a decent striker. Other choices through hybridization can offer defender warlocks and leader warlocks. And new options come out regularly. Is the issue really that they didn't cater specifically to your tastes? Or do you have a concrete solution that would have allowed choice of combat role?

I do believe that these roles have always existed in the game. It was just that there wasn't much mechanical support allowing characters to fulfill some of these roles well. I think the codified roles helped the developers enter this new territory and define what goals they should have. Has there been a learning curve? Of course, but I think they are doing a great job of expanding into new design territory.

 

[Imaro]

The answer is... they're not. The warlock has many options within the class that makes him a decent controller. The wizard has many options within the class that make him a decent striker. Other choices through hybridization can offer defender warlocks and leader warlocks. And new options come out regularly. Is the issue really that they didn't cater specifically to your tastes? Or do you have a concrete solution that would have allowed choice of combat role?

Contrary to your belief... Yeah, for the most part they are. I mean if I want to be a sub-par controller then yeah I can play a warlock and try to do controllery things... or if I want a sub-par striker I can play a wizard and do strikery things... but then a sub-optimal choice isn't really a choice is it? At least that was the philosophy behind 4e in the beginning.

Hybrids bring in a whole host of other issues I don't even want to go into and can royally screw you if you don't know what you are doing when building them. Furthermore even a well built hybrid can have gameplay issues that the designers/developers are aware of and discuss in PHB 3. Along with again, the problem of having to dillute or change one's concept in order to get out of a specific combat role.

My suggestion awhile back was to have different combat roles based upon build and power selection. Something 4e is just now starting to do, cotrary to the cries of that doing exactly this will ruin the game. My only problem with some of these builds is that they are so narrow, yet the only way to break out of the over-arching class combat role. In other words don't make the only striker paladin a blackguard (which has a ton of specific story fluff, conotations and flavored mechanics to go along with it.).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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...

What you call 'archetype' I call 'build.' Sword-and-board is a build option by my definition. You don't read stories about King Arthur and think 'sword-and-board,' you think 'shining knight.' You don't read stories about Conan and think 'two-handed weapon fighter,' you thnk 'lone wolf' or some other appropriate descriptive term.

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?

Because I have no problem saying that the concept for my Wizard, Swordmage, or Bard is that they gained access to the knowledge they wield by making a pact with planar beings if that is the character concept I wish to play.

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.

Patently untrue. Make a wizard, write your backstory with a pact. Now you have the same fluff as a warlock. There's probably even mechanical support in the form of Backgrounds and Themes available if you wish to take it further.

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.

These are mechanical trade-offs, not impossible barriers to achieving the archetype you wish.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Same place they were in 3e - by focusing on his archery with choices in feats and gear, he's not focusing on his melee combat feats and gear. That's a trade off. The same would be true in 4e if the fighter had access to decent ranged powers as well as melee powers - by choosing a ranged power over a melee power, he's making a trade off. I don't see where the source of confusion on this is.

Caveat: We have to come from the common ground of using default point-buy for stats in both systems or it's apples and oranges.

A 3E Fighter that focused on ranged combat needed to boost his Dex to be effective. If he did not, then the trade-off is that he is less effective as a ranged attacker.

A 3E Fighter that focused on ranged combat would then need to sacrifice either Str or Con. The trade-off for sacrificing Str is that he is much worse in melee. The trade-off for sacrificing Con is lower hit points.

Besides all that, check out the Fighter (Slayer) for the ranged option Fighter that you are calling for. The game is meant to expand from its base. The designers decided that Ranger filled the need for the archer in the original books and didn't include the build you call for until later in the game. Much like the designers of 3E included the sorcerer in the original book, but didn't include warlocks until later. You may disagree with when they decided to include it, but I'm sure others would have been equally dissatisfied if the classes they enjoy had been pushed out of the original books.

 

[Imaro]

What you call 'archetype' I call 'build.' Sword-and-board is a build option by my definition. You don't read stories about King Arthur and think 'sword-and-board,' you think 'shining knight.' You don't read stories about Conan and think 'two-handed weapon fighter,' you thnk 'lone wolf' or some other appropriate descriptive term.

What class is called sword and board??? There is however a class called knight.

Because I have no problem saying that the concept for my Wizard, Swordmage, or Bard is that they gained access to the knowledge they wield by making a pact with planar beings if that is the character concept I wish to play.

Yet in those classes there are no mechanics to back your characters pact claim up. However the Warlock class (because it is based on this very archetype) does have the mechanics that fit my concept to a tee... so why should the concept of pact-bound arcane wielder be tied up with striker thus forcing me (if I want mechanical weight to the fluff composing my concept) to play a striker? You see you and many others keep dancing aound this question... don't tell me to squint really hard, ignore the fact that I have no mechanical weight to my concept, and many of my abilities and skills won't fit it... tell me why the concept of the wielder of magic gained through a pact with an other-worldly being should be tied to the striker combat role??

Patently untrue. Make a wizard, write your backstory with a pact. Now you have the same fluff as a warlock. There's probably even mechanical support in the form of Backgrounds and Themes available if you wish to take it further.

Again mechanical weight matters and you keep ignoring that fact. That's why your 3e barbarian not-city dwelling (but city dwelling), not-noble born (but noble born) character is a mess. Because the classes are based on fantasy archetypes and those archetypes set up what are and aren't class abilities, skills, etc. for particular classes.

These are mechanical trade-offs, not impossible barriers to achieving the archetype you wish.

No one said it was impossible... you're character will just be less and less effective, compared to others in the party. You loose gameplay power for story power which kinda sucks when it would be a simple matter not to tie class to combat role..

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Oh... you mean like the avenger or the slayer? There are strikers with high hit points and a greater number of healing surges than the average striker... so I'm kind of lost on your overall point.

Those classes have other trade-offs compared to the average striker.

You said you were re-skinning the 3e Barbarian class.

No. I presented the idea originally way back in the thread as a Barbarian/Sorecer. My point was that people got stuck upon the name Barbarian and tried to pigeon-hole my concept, much like you are doing now.

Lol... wow, so you made a noble-born, city dweller that isn't one...ok. I guess I can reskin my 3e fighter as a wizard too... he just has no spells and no magical knowledge whatsoever. I'm going to call bull on this and assume you know why.

He was born in and grew up in a city. City-dweller? Check.
His father is a minor noble. Noble-born? Check.

With some effort I could reskin a 3E fighter as a wizard. Picture a "90-pound weakling" that somehow hefts that sword and shield as if he were a massive brute. And when people mock the puny man in the tin can, he displays a battle cunning that no one expected. See, he focused his studies on the martial aspects of magic because he was sick and tired of being picked on. His "spells" allow him to pull off amazing feats that no ordinary man could. Think "Chuck" meets the middle ages. Instead of a technological Intersect, he employs a magical version.

Uhmm, no I'm going with the actual concept you presented. Now if you had said noble born, city dweller who eschewed all things most nobles and all things most city dwellers would know and learn (which kinda defeats the purpose of him being noble-born and a city dweller) then yeah I could see what you just presented... but that's not what you posted.

That's why I used the word stereotype. You have a predjudiced pigeon-holed view of what someone who lives in a city, born to a noble is.

And IMO, you didn't fulfill your original concept, you pulled a bait and switch which really is a disingenuous way of arguing... IMO this sums up what you just tried to pull...

You based your side of the argument on assumptions. You know what happens when you assume.

So he's a fighter...

No he's a wizard...

Uhm, ok...

Plain and simple this argument is bull.

You are continuing to conflate concept with class.