Roles in Roleplaying Games

[pemerton]

I don't mind combat roles, but you if you are going to Hard Code them into the system, I'd prefer you drop the Classes.

4E could have done the following - Pick a Power Source (Martial, Arcane, Divine, Psionic, Elemental, Shadow) and Pick a Combat Role (Striker, Healer (because that's what a Leader really is), Defender, or Controller).

<snip>

Now, you don't have to worry about the baggage of the name Paladin or Fighter or Bard. Your Wizard might be an Arcane Leader with a multi-class into Striker. Your Bard might be a Martial Leader with multi-class into Arcane for spells.

I quite like classes. Generally they are more than just power sources and roles. In combination with the defence bonuses, proficiencies and skill lists that they bring, they are story elements.

Now some 4e classes are more successful in this respect than others - contrast warlocks with wardens, for example - but I think this is a reason to favour a class approach over a more points-buy approach.

 

[Walking Dad]

I don't know what happened, but I never posted the quoted text in these posts that were attributed to me:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5732123-post31.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5732157-post35.html

If you try to follow the links, they take you even to an unrelated discussion...

 

[Imaro]

I don't know what happened, but I never posted the quoted text in these posts that were attributed to me:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5732123-post31.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5732157-post35.html

If you try to follow the links, they take you even to an unrelated discussion...

Sorry about that WD... should be taken care of now.

 

[Bluenose]

The bard is the traditional arcane healer.

I suppose if you jumped through all the hoops to create a bard in AD&D 1e, you would have a certain amount of healing magic in the form of druid spells - which doesn't scream arcane to me. They certainly weren't a healer in 2e, sharing the Mage spell list. So the tradition of arcane healer=bard is only really present in 3e.

I would argue that the bard isn't the traditional arcane archetype (that would be Wizard, and upon further thought the archetype is the wizard class.)... he's a totally different archetype since he's a little bit of everything not just arcane... in fact I would say the bard is more under the rogue archetype than that of the wizard.

Well, in AD&D 2nd edition the Bard was in the Rogue sub-group with the Thief. Although I'm not sure what the archetype would be - Jack of All Trades isn't a common theme, and even when it extends to magic as well, it's not often about being a performance artist.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I quite like classes. Generally they are more than just power sources and roles. In combination with the defence bonuses, proficiencies and skill lists that they bring, they are story elements.

Now some 4e classes are more successful in this respect than others - contrast warlocks with wardens, for example - but I think this is a reason to favour a class approach over a more points-buy approach.

I like classes too, they are a sacred cow of DnD. I dislike hardcoding a combat role into them however.

I agree that classes typically imply some sort of backstory with them. Ranger is a great example of this. Disassociate the combat role from the class. The outdoors fighter shouldn't be forced into a single role in every fight.

 

[steeldragons]

To my thinking on the OP...

Keep your Roles out of my Classes and I'll keep my Classes out of your Roles.

Deal?

The combat role of a PC is whatever the player (that'd be the seemingly forgotten "P" of "PC") wants their character to be/do during combat.

The "role" in role-playing game is not/should not be "what they do in combat." It is the role the player gives/creates for their character in the game...in whatever situation they find themselves...whatever the player wants it to be.

I am absolutely baffled by the very concept that it is (or was) either necessary or desired or even acceptable to players...For da rulz to tell them what their PC (specifically) or class (more generally) is. Not 'should be' or works best for mechanics or (another of my favorites) 'game balance'...but is. That, to me, ruffles all kinds of imaginative/creative feathers.

You want a rowdy thief from the tough streets that charges into battle (against everyone's better judgement)? Oh, nuh-no. You want a Fighter who's a big game/monster-hunter named "Crossbow Joe" who takes down his prey from a distance? Sorry. You don't seem to understand the "improvement" to the design of the rules.

Thank you, no. No Roles required nor desired.

Classes...for [arche]types of Player Characters, not "Rule-Design Stipulated Roles."

That's for me and my game(s).
Whatever you think about "Roles", have fun and happy gaming.
--SD

 

[Hussar]

Steeldragons - what baffles me is how you could play D&D for any length of time and not think that "da rulz" weren't telling you exactly what you were.

If you played a cleric, you were "the healer". Most of your spells revolved around healing/curing and certainly the expectation at any table I ever played at was that the cleric was going to be busting out the healing from time to time.

If you played the fighter, you were going to be the guy in the front taking the beats and laying the slippers to the baddies.

If you were the thief/rogue, you were going to be the guy who looked for traps and tried to remove them, BECAUSE YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD.

It utterly boggles my mind that people think that the codification of combat roles in 4e is something new. It's been around since the guy in the front was a Fighting Man. How's that for a role?

Where the problem, in my mind, comes is that people insist on applying the idea of combat role to the entirety of the character. That if I'm a "striker" then that must be the single, sole thing that my character is and I can never, ever do or be anything other than a "striker".

Sorry, that's utter and complete bollocks. My current Dark Sun character is a noble from Urik whose family has been wiped out by the Sorcerer King of Urik for an attempt on his life. I have a bounty on my head and a HUGE chip on my shoulder. The fact that I'm also a Faelock is simply not what this character is.

We have three strikers in the group and all three are entirely different, despite two of them being the same race (thri-kreen).

Why do people think that calling attention to the roles means that people have to lobotomize themselves and remove all their creativity?

 

[I'm A Banana]

You want a rowdy thief from the tough streets that charges into battle (against everyone's better judgement)? Oh, nuh-no. You want a Fighter who's a big game/monster-hunter named "Crossbow Joe" who takes down his prey from a distance? Sorry. You don't seem to understand the "improvement" to the design of the rules.

I think, because class is archetype, people imagine their characters, in part, in terms of class, like the example above.

If you just made your "thief" a barbarian, and your "fighter" a ranger, there wouldn't be as much of a problem.

But because class is archetype, you think of the thief first as a thief, and the fighter first as a fighter, and then find that the system doesn't support your customization options. Which suuuucks.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Of course I could have. I can build anything I want, if the DM allows it.

Options in a good role playing game aren't near infinite, they are infinite.*

Again, is there anything wrong with this? I don't see the logic in this line of reasoning at all. Isn't homebrewing still encouraged? Aren't all RPG systems brewed in someone's home, after all?

Is 4E so restrictive that people, in it's defense, argue FOR pigeonholing and stereotyping AGAINST plurality of options and diversity? Or is that just kind of a misguided way to stick up for it?

No, it is not that restrictive and if you've read any of my replies to Imaro you wold see that I'm in favor of taking stuff from the game and making it work for one's concept.

Delving into "just homebrew it" as your answer is disingenuous. You *know* that's not what I'm talking about. You *could* have built your phalanx soldier in 2003 *IF* your DM agreed to your homebrew creations. Same can be said for any concept in any game, but in common discussion one cannot assume that homebrewing is an option in another person's game. I'm pretty sure you knew my question was "Could you make a phalanx soldier the same way you do now with published rules" before you answered.

No, that's not exactly true... power source does tend to correlate with the type of damage your powers do. Like alot of divine powers doing radiant damage and it being more effective against undead.

That's what I meant by affecting design.

Great if you happen to worship a war god or something along those lines, but still limiting for other types of gods.

No. You just need to decide how it works out in fluff. If you want to make a Striker that works for the goddess of cute kittens and puppies, then you have to fill the gap between "Guy Who Does Lots of Damage" and "Defender of Fuzzy Baby Animals." No game is going to hand that to you on a silver platter.

I think there's a big middle between god of violence and god of peace that you are overlooking. I don't see a correlation between the god/ideal and role. Otherwise why isn't my paladin of a war god a striker?

I know there's a middle ground and I'm not overlooking it. Why is your worshipper of the God of War a Paladin if your only concept for a worshipper of the God of War as a Striker? Why wouldn't you play a Barbarian and refluff the background to Champion of the War God? Even without Tayne's homebrewing there is alot of space to make the concept you want. You're the one stuck on the Paladin class and not allowing for any thoughts outside that box.

Sigh, I don't think power source has anything to do with it, that's something WotC extrapolated from archetypes... but true archetypes transcend that. When I say archetype, I am speaking of archetypical classes, and power source can be a part of them, but it doesn't define archetypes.

Well, I've always known the paladin as the Shining Protector, one maight even say Defender of the Meek.

You want a rowdy thief from the tough streets that charges into battle (against everyone's better judgement)? Oh, nuh-no.

Oh, yeah, uh-huh! Thug build of Rogue. No multiclassing, hybridization or feat taxes required.

You want a Fighter who's a big game/monster-hunter named "Crossbow Joe" who takes down his prey from a distance? Sorry. You don't seem to understand the "improvement" to the design of the rules.

No. I don't think you do understand. If you want a fighter (intentional small 'f') who is highly skilled with the crossbow there are better martial class choices than Fighter for your concept. You are the one choosing to tie yourself to a class.

Even in third edition I encountered this baffling mindset. I made a multiclass barbarian/sorcerer. People tried to pigeonhole my character as a brute from the fringe of society. Nope, he was a minor noble's son from a large city. People tried to pigeonhole him as a spellslinger. Nope, the concept was a young man from a noble bloodline tainted (or blessed) with dragon blood. He could call upon the strength of his dragon heritage for short bursts of time. The spells I chose for him supported the concept and weren't of the flashy type but represented this inner strength he pulled from. But too many people saw Brb/Sor and demanded that I was some wild hedge wizard instead of my true character concept.

 

[D'karr]

But too many people saw Brb/Sor and demanded that I was some wild hedge wizard instead of my true character concept.

BINGO. That is exactly the issue. A player should start the "build" of his character with a concept, not a class. Then he can choose mechanical add-ons that support that concept. These mechanical add-ons can be themes, class, race, etc.

When the player starts with the idea I want to be a fighter, the DM should explore what the player actually expects this "fighter" to do, so he can recommend a mechanical fit that will fulfill that concept.

If as a player I came to the game and said, I want to play a fighter. I want to be able to kick creature ass, with a hammer, smash them to the ground with my god's righteousness and charge into combat with abandon. The DM needs to look at the concept and see if FIGHTER, the class, is the right fit, or whether PALADIN, the class, is a better one.

Trying to take a class and apply a concept it does not support is just going to lead to frustration. If a player wants to play a fighter that cast spells there are multiple ways of supporting that concept, but a hybrid rogue/barbarian is not a recommended build for that concept. That is not a problem with the classes, its a problem with unrealistic expectations.