Roles in Roleplaying Games

[D'karr]

A fitting example of methodology for character building approaches is the current DDI Character Builder.

You can choose to create an Essentials Character and when you choose that option, the builder asks what play style you prefer. It takes the time to explain the role in detail. Once you've selected your preferred style it shows the classes that fit that "role".

You can also you choose to build a Custom D&D Character. In this case the builder assumes that you are more experienced and puts you at the "advanced tab" for character creation. You can sort the classes by role, power source, primary ability or source. It follows a step by step methodology for character creation but it doesn't hand hold you. All of the "custom" options are available here (Hybrids, etc.).

The point is that for "beginners" it has a way of filtering from the start what you'd like to play, so that it doesn't put you in a label (class) that, though it might sound good, doesn't work with your playstyle.

 

[Imaro]

That's what I meant by affecting design.

But this is also a mechanical effect that has in-play consequences. The holy warrior archetype has traditionally been good against evil and undead... in 4e this is partly expressed through his use of radiant damage, a barbarian doesn't get these types of powers.

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.

Or. like I said we could not conflate an archetype like holy warrior... with how he chooses to fight in combat. And there are many games, including previous editions of D&D that allow exactly what you are claiming can't be done.

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.

Let me flip that, what about the holy warrior or paladin archetype makes him intrinsically fight in a defender role? Why is one even connected to the other? Isn't this just as arbitrary as my concept being a striker?

On another note why do I have to sacrifice the ability to have radiant damage powers in order to be a striker paladin?

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

One could also say the best defense is a good offense...

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

A warrior that fights like a priest and casts spells like a bard? A sub-optimal character? I don't know the answer to your riddle.

Hey, I like bards!

And you chose that class most likely because you wanted to fill that role.

And that's my point. If you pick fighter, you've selected it because you want to be a defender, not because you want to focus on martial weapons. I love martial characters but I tend to build them to suit my own designs, not to fit a predefined combat role.

I think this comes down to personal preference. I like my classes loosely defined so I can impose my character idea upon them. I dislike my classes strongly defined where I need to pick the class that best represents my character idea.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

And why did you choose that class if you don't like its function? It really would be like choosing Fighting Man in OD&D and then hanging back trying to cast spells.

You've hit the problem dead on.

Theives sneak around and use specialized skills to overcome problems. Clerics use divine gifts to overcome problems. Wizards use carefully researched spells to overcome problems. Fighters use force of arms to overcome problems.

DnD has stopped defining the characters by what tools they use to solve problems. Instead, the modern rules define characters by how they are suppose to behave in combat.

Edit: You've hit the nail on the head for me. I like class that are given a set of tools to solve problems, not a combat role. Just clarifying this is my opinion on the subject, not some general statement about the way the game MUST be played.

 

[Tayne]

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.

Yes, I knew you were talking about the system rules. No, there's nothing wrong with assuming anyone can homebrew, because literally anyone can, and in every system I've ever played they encouraged it in the source material.

Or so I thought, at least. I guess the reason I bring it up is because I have very little experience with 4.0 and I wanted to see if homebrewing was encouraged/doable in 4.0. I take it from your response that that's not the case?

 

[D'karr]

But this is also a mechanical effect that has in-play consequences. The holy warrior archetype has traditionally been good against evil and undead... in 4e this is partly expressed through his use of radiant damage, a barbarian doesn't get these types of powers.

Most classes that are not tied to a deity in some form don't have radiant damage

Or. like I said we could not conflate an archetype like holy warrior... with how he chooses to fight in combat. And there are many games, including previous editions of D&D that allow exactly what you are claiming can't be done.

What edition of D&D let's you take the Paladin class with no alterations and allows him to sneak as well as a rogue(thief), or give him backstab/sneak attack? None. Why is that?

What edition of D&D let's a rogue class with no alterations affect undead with "radiant" power? Once again none. Why is that?

In D&D Classes have always existed for a particular reason they are easy to use, the leveling mechanic makes it easy to adjust, and presents instant gratification every time you level. Each Class has a "role" to play in the interaction with combat and those roles are sometimes unique and sometimes they overlap. Everyone does damage in combat, but rogues get sneak attack, why doesn't the Paladin get sneak attack damage? Because it is not in his class. But Paladins get Radiant damage to undead, and lay on hands, etc.

Let me flip that, what about the holy warrior or paladin archetype makes him intrinsically fight in a defender role? Why is one even connected to the other? Isn't this just as arbitrary as my concept being a striker?

On another note why do I have to sacrifice the ability to have radiant damage powers in order to be a striker paladin?

Why does the Ranger Class in any edition of D&D not do "radiant" damage to Undead. Why does he have to "sacrifice" light armor, and two weapon attacks if he wants to wear Plate Armor and a Shield?

 

[Tayne]

A role is not a class feature, it's a job, or a purpose. A player should define his character's role in and out of combat. Whether or not the class he chose best suits that role is one thing, but dammit, if you want to try to be a cleric striker or a rogue defender it should be common sense telling you not to do that, not the source material.

ps look what I found, off topic -

http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971

a review for D&D 5.0

 

[D'karr]

DnD has stopped defining the characters by what tools they use to solve problems. Instead, the modern rules define characters by how they are suppose to behave in combat.

Edit: You've hit the nail on the head for me. I like class that are given a set of tools to solve problems, not a combat role. Just clarifying this is my opinion on the subject, not some general statement about the way the game MUST be played.

What "modern rule or rules" in the game prevent or disallow thieves to sneak around, and use specialized skills to overcome problems, clerics to use divine gifts to overcome problems, wizards to use carefully researched spells to overcome problems, or fighters to use force of arms to overcome problems?

Thieves/Rogues still sneak, Clerics still get spells from Divine sources, Wizards are still the studious types, and fighters still bash things. So what is being prevented.

The roles in combat have nothing to do with how you overcome problems outside of combat and players are still encouraged to be as creative as they want to be in combat too.

If a cleric wants to backstab in combat that is something that has never been a "feature" of the base class. So in combat in D&D (all editions) Clerics don't backstab. So the rules in ALL editions prevent that option, but then there are multiclassing rules that allow just that type of customization.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I disagree. Back in the old days a party was just a collection of whatever characters the party wanted to play, and the DM tailored adventures (on the rare occasions it was necessary) so that it matched the party capabilities. It could still be a sandbox, while allowing for flexibility in how the game was played.

Itn that mode of play there was never a NEED to have specific party 'roles' covered - and was all the better for it.

You say this like it is some kind of absolute. Well it doesn't match my experience at all. My group has always made sure that the basics are covered. Back in the old days that meant having at least one cleric, one fighter-type, one wizard, and one thief before any other characters were added. Whereas now they don't always have each of the four roles covered when creating characters.

Both of these statements seem to be absolutely missing the point.

Umbran explained best why I think you're missing the point. In the 'old days' you didn't choose a Fighter if you wanted to cast spells. In 4E you choose Ranger, or Rogue, or Seeker, or Hunter, or Bard, or Warlord if you want to be the ranged weapon guy, not Fighter. The only difference is that previous systems used to let the Fighter fill this role. Things change, but the missile-weapon high-damage low-defense guy still exists, he just isn't called Fighter any more.

But this is also a mechanical effect that has in-play consequences. The holy warrior archetype has traditionally been good against evil and undead... in 4e this is partly expressed through his use of radiant damage, a barbarian doesn't get these types of powers.

If radiant damage is important to your concept, then you have to find another way to achieve your concept. But as you keep adding additional requirements to your desired concept you sound like someone wanting a Mary Sue character, IMO. Maybe someday they will develop a heavy armored radiant striker. But they'll hopefully put more thought of balance into it than just saying "take a barbarian and slap radiant on all his powers." You have the tools to make the character you want, yet you complain that you are asked to pay for those abilities or sacrifice something to achieve what you want. The balancing of a new divine striker/defender would build in those same costs or sacrifices.

Or. like I said we could not conflate an archetype like holy warrior... with how he chooses to fight in combat. And there are many games, including previous editions of D&D that allow exactly what you are claiming can't be done.

Maybe you could give me an example of one and I would better understand your argument. I feel like you and I have different defintions of Striker.

Let me flip that, what about the holy warrior or paladin archetype makes him intrinsically fight in a defender role? Why is one even connected to the other? Isn't this just as arbitrary as my concept being a striker?

Nope. I already told you it fits my understanding of the stereotypical paladin. If you want one that breaks those stereotypes then you either need to 1) use feats, multiclassing, or hybridization; 2) design it yourself; or 3) wait for someone else to design it. I understand the designers choice to stick with the most common stereotype of what a paladin is.

On another note why do I have to sacrifice the ability to have radiant damage powers in order to be a striker paladin?

You don't. You can be a hybrid and still have radiant powers. You could be an avenger and break the stereotype of holy warriors being buried under plate armor. There are alot of options open to you.

Yes, I knew you were talking about the system rules. No, there's nothing wrong with assuming anyone can homebrew, because literally anyone can, and in every system I've ever played they encouraged it in the source material.

Or so I thought, at least. I guess the reason I bring it up is because I have very little experience with 4.0 and I wanted to see if homebrewing was encouraged/doable in 4.0. I take it from your response that that's not the case?

Homebrewing is not as widespread as you think. Your personal experience has no bearing. Many DMs I've played with since the beginning of the game will not allow homebrewed material. That is why you can't assume. Even if they allow homebrewing, they may not like your current offering and reject it. That is why you cannot assume.

The one detriment to homebrewing in 4E is the Character Builder software. It currently does not allow outside material to be loaded. But if you are willing to make your character without technological help (like the good old days) then this impediment disappears.

 

[Tayne]

Homebrewing is not as widespread as you think. Your personal experience has no bearing. Many DMs I've played with since the beginning of the game will not allow homebrewed material. That is why you can't assume. Even if they allow homebrewing, they may not like your current offering and reject it. That is why you cannot assume.

The one detriment to homebrewing in 4E is the Character Builder software. It currently does not allow outside material to be loaded. But if you are willing to make your character without technological help (like the good old days) then this impediment disappears.

I refer you a few posts back where I included the caveat "subject to GM approval." I know there are GMs out there who won't allow it, that's not what i'm talking about. You CAN do it, even if you MAY not.

Off topic, but if you're not houseruling/homebrewing at all, you're doing it wrong, in my humble opinion.