Roles, Power Sources; unbalanced?

[Branduil]

What I'd really like to see (but I highly doubt it would happen) is role and class being separate. From 1st to 30th, you have that Role, and it effects abilities that scale as you advance regardless of class. Some combinations are more obvious or have better synergy than others, but you could be go any combination and still be effective.

For example, the fighter who is normally fills the defender role could instead be the following:
Leader: Gives attack/defense benefits to nearby allies, like a passive 'aid another'
Striker: Extra damage bonus when flanking, charging, or other tactical actions
Controller: Has AoO abilites that prevent enemy actions or movement and has bonuses to grapple/disarm/bull rush type attacks

I think it would go a long way to giving a variety of styles to a character, outside of talent trees and without resorting to multiclassing. I'd like to play a Striker style fighter without taking levels in rogue or ranger. And if I did multiclass in those classes or with others, I would still be a Striker character.


...Of course, I don't really know what the roles even mean in terms of the rules, so technically I don't know what I'm talking about.

I think it's quite possible you will be able to play a Fighter Striker, if you wish. I think the roles are more guidelines than rigid restrictions.

They've already confirmed the Ranger is a striker.

 

[breschau]

I think it's quite possible you will be able to play a Fighter Striker, if you wish. I think the roles are more guidelines than rigid restrictions.

Except that in the original source (the roles video) and many other sources (check the faqs page in my sig), that each class will be designed to specifically fill one role. No more, no less, and no cross-over.

 

[Vlos]

What do we think we know about classes?

Leader:
Cleric (Divine), Warlord (Martial)

Striker
Ranger (Martial), Rogue (Martial)

Defender
Fighter (Martial), Paladin (Divine)

Controller
Wizard (Arcane), Warlock (Arcane)

See, this kills me about 4ed. I've never played a Cleric as a leader... Why now are my clerics classified as a Leader type? Nor has my Wizards/mages ever been a Controller? Trouble maker, yes, but they couldn't control their own tempers let alone someone else half the time.

Why do we now have to have these strict molds FORCED upon us?

 

[Rechan]

See, this kills me about 4ed. I've never played a Cleric as a leader... Why now are my clerics classified as a Leader type? Nor has my Wizards/mages ever been a Controller? Trouble maker, yes, but they couldn't control their own tempers let alone someone else half the time.

Why do we now have to have these strict molds FORCED upon us?

Leader=fancy word for support. A Leader role does not mean "I tell everyone what to do". It means "I heal/buff people" but classifying it as "support" will leave a bitter taste in players mouths.

Controller doesn't mean "I cast Dominate on that guy". It means "I Control the battlefield with Area of Effect powers". The wizard class seems to be built around area affect powers; cones, bursts, and battlefield control (Walls, grease, etc).

 

[Vlos]

Still...

Today I could design a Mage to be a Striker type, no?

Or even Leader?

A Rogue could have leadership quality, abilties.

Again they should be separate from Class...

They are forcing specific molds onto characters, thus limiting play.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

See, this kills me about 4ed. I've never played a Cleric as a leader... Why now are my clerics classified as a Leader type? Nor has my Wizards/mages ever been a Controller? Trouble maker, yes, but they couldn't control their own tempers let alone someone else half the time.

You don't have a problem with the roles. You have a problem with your own definition of the words.

Why do we now have to have these strict molds FORCED upon us?

*rolls-eyes* (forced, uh huh)

 

[Rechan]

Or even Leader?

Your mages can heal?

A Rogue could have leadership quality, abilties.

How? By picking up a Wand of cure light wounds and have a hefty UMD? All of the Rogue's abilities are keyed towards being a Striker, in combat.

They will have an Arcane striker class; the warlock may very well be that. They will have an Arcane defender class (Specifically a mage that casts magic on himself so he can fight better). I expect them to basically fill the Power Source/Role grid with classes as books come out.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I really wouldn't get too bent out of shape about these role names. One's cleric may be a Leader, but that doesn't necessarily make him a leader, nor does it constrain him to that role. It's a moniker that, as of right now, means almost nothing to those of us outside of the 4e design circle. To put it simply, it's rules jargon and nothing else.

 

[jolt]

Except that in the original source (the roles video) and many other sources (check the faqs page in my sig), that each class will be designed to specifically fill one role. No more, no less, and no cross-over.

*rolls-eyes* (forced, uh huh)

This sure sounds like forced to me.

A thief Leader. My god man, the world would come to an end. Such an idea is "stupid-t3h gimp-suxxor" Just stick with your Blaster and RU a healr and you'll be fine. Remember, 4E is all about streamlining and options. They're not trying to make it into a videogame or anything. They have specifically said they aren't. They would know...wouldn't they?

jolt

 

[jolt]

...Of course, I don't really know what the roles even mean in terms of the rules, so technically I don't know what I'm talking about.

None of us do. But if we didn't argue, what would keep the Internet going?

jolt