Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Jhaelen]

While I would like to play a paladin defender in 4e, I'd also like to play a paladin striker, paladin leader, or occasionally even a paladin controller.

I think there's two answers to this:

First, classes in 4e are a lot more abstract than they were in previous editions. If you want a Paladin striker why don't you just create a Lawful Avenger and play it as a Paladin? There's a lot less 'baggage' attached to a class's name.

Second, things have become more fluid over time. Classes introduced in PHB2 and PHB3 typically feature (and explicitly mention) secondary roles. Using multiclassing, hybrid rules or - my favorite - appropriate themes will allow you to lean towards roles that don't match your 'primary' role at all.

E.g. in our current Dark Sun campaign I'm playing a Dray (Dragonborn) Dragonmagic Sorcerer with the Templar theme.

Sorcerers are strikers first and controllers second while Templars are leaders. Being a Dragonborn and using the 'Dragonmagic' Build synergizes quite well with Melee classes like the Fighter.

So, depending on what aspect of my character I decide to emphasize when choosing a theme, feats and powers (and later paragon path) I can lean towards any role I prefer. The only thing I probably cannot do is not be a striker.

I generally don't like Essentials classes because they reversed this trend, cut down on customization options and imho focus quite strongly on a single role.

 

[Jhaelen]

Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker. Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.

Using a two-handed weapon doesn't automatically make you a striker. You can use two-handed weapons and still be a defender - or whatever else you want:

My secondary character in Dark Sun is an Ardent wielding a two-handed sword; and Staff-using wizards are still controllers.

It's not the tools that you use it's _how_ you use them that determines your role.

And of course novels don't require a strict categorization into combat roles. A lot of novel characters (or at least the protagonists) are basically 'Mary-Sues' - they can do everything the author wants them to do. There's no need to balance their abilities against anything.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think that hte principle benefit from having well defined roles is the discipline it enforces on designers rather than its effect on play.

 

[Walking Dad]

Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker. Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.

I was trying to show that you cant pigeon hole characters in novels to the base defender, striker, warlord roles. The scope of the characters are more than that.

Using a big weapon doesn't make you a striker. It is just lingo for specialized capabilities in combat.
And a character is always more that what he does during combat, regardless of the system.

And actually you can 'pigeon hole' the combat focus of most novel characters into roles. And all 4e classes have secondary combat role aspects. The paladin is a defender, but also has aid and healing abilities, making him a secondary leader. Many fighters are also capable of dealing much damage, making the class secondary strikers.

Further supplements have made this even more customizable.

Have you ever played 4e? besides maybe Encounters?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think there's two answers to this:

First, classes in 4e are a lot more abstract than they were in previous editions. If you want a Paladin striker why don't you just create a Lawful Avenger and play it as a Paladin? There's a lot less 'baggage' attached to a class's name.

I wouldn't mind this at all if there was no class abilities. I'd like to be able to pick up Lay on Hands, for instance.

Second, things have become more fluid over time. Classes introduced in PHB2 and PHB3 typically feature (and explicitly mention) secondary roles. Using multiclassing, hybrid rules or - my favorite - appropriate themes will allow you to lean towards roles that don't match your 'primary' role at all.

This would definitely help alleviate the problem, but it doesn't make up for the problem, in my mind. It's just a preference, though. I'm definitely not saying it's close to a universal problem, as it's pretty clearly not.

E.g. in our current Dark Sun campaign I'm playing a Dray (Dragonborn) Dragonmagic Sorcerer with the Templar theme.

Sorcerers are strikers first and controllers second while Templars are leaders. Being a Dragonborn and using the 'Dragonmagic' Build synergizes quite well with Melee classes like the Fighter.

So, depending on what aspect of my character I decide to emphasize when choosing a theme, feats and powers (and later paragon path) I can lean towards any role I prefer. The only thing I probably cannot do is not be a striker.

I generally don't like Essentials classes because they reversed this trend, cut down on customization options and imho focus quite strongly on a single role.

I can see why that doesn't appeal to you. I'm sure 4e is much more workable than I made it sound, and it's not like 3.X was much (if any) better a lot of the time. Then again, when I created my ideal RPG, it was classless, so that probably says a lot about how much I like versatility, variety, and using different combinations together. I definitely don't think my game would appeal to the masses (though my group loves it well enough). As always, play what you like

 

[braro]

Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker. Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.

I was trying to show that you cant pigeon hole characters in novels to the base defender, striker, warlord roles. The scope of the characters are more than that.

Just read someone up above who said something similar, so editing to note that.
----
Er, what?

There are plenty of two handed defenders.
Fighters, Paladins, Berserkers, Swordmages... I think the only one that doesn't have a decent two handed option is the Warden. I don't know about the Battlemind, but.

In fact, there is a small school of thought that it is better to use a two handed weapon, as you do more damage, thus get more attention, and invite more attacks.

I'm not going to touch the main debate, but the logic you just used there suggests that there is some kind of confusion.

 

[Umbran]

Combat is something that's fun, but it's more like an action scene in a swashbuckling adventure story than it is a serious tactical challenge.

Yes, but even Athos, Porthos, and Aramis had distinctive approaches and styles that led to them having somewhat different roles in combat, n'est pas?

 

[Hussar]

I wouldn't mind this at all if there was no class abilities. I'd like to be able to pick up Lay on Hands, for instance.

Just to pick up on this specific example, that's actually pretty easy. A single feat and you have a cleric's Healing Word power (Initiate of the Faith Multiclass feat). While I suppose it isn't specifically Lay on Hands, it's certainly close enough.

 

[Verdande]

How many people complained that the 3.5 Bard doesn't do anything?
How many people complained that the 4E Warlock isn't DPS enough?

I think that's more of a class design fault than a fault with the system itself.

 

[Umbran]

Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker.

As others have noted, using a two-handed weapon doesn't make one a striker. And I'm not convinced that Narsil/Andruil is a two-handed weapon - my recollection is that Aragorn wears it on his hip, and that means it's no two-handed sword.

And, to be more picky, if I recall correctly, in at least one of the battles referenced, Aragorn was not using a sword at all, but a torch - Narsil was still broken when they were on Weathertop.