Roles, Power Sources; unbalanced?

[Cadfan]

Jolt- you seem to be misunderstanding the concept here.

"Leader" doesn't mean being in charge of the team. Its a general term for a character who focuses, at least in significant part, on helping other characters excel.

A "rogue leader" is already impossible under 3.5, if you apply the 4e terminology to 3.5 classes. The only ways a rogue can buff or otherwise assist his allies are 1) by flanking a single enemy and making it easier for the ally to hit, 2) by using the "aid another" ability, and 3) by using Use Magic Device. That's highly limited, and not really sufficient to declare your character to be performing a "leader" role in the party.

A rogue certainly could be the in-character Leader of the party. The party could follow the rogue's orders, let him speak for the group, and give him a big hat with a sign on it that says "Leader!!!" That's all fine. Go ahead and do that. Its just that when it comes time to buff an ally, the rogue doesn't have class abilities to do that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"I want to play a Tank" is videogame thinking. "I want to play someone who protects his friends" is pen & paper thinking. And no, they aren't the same.

I think that might be one of the reasons that the role matching this closest is probably "Defender", not "Tank".

But aside from all this:
Roles have always existed in Role Playing Games. You need someone that can heal the characters wounds (Leader seems to be the D&D 4 term), you need someone that holds off the enemies (Defender), you need someone that controls the enemies movement or options (Controller) , and you need someone that finally "crushes" your enemies (Striker).

These roles always existed. The question is, how narrowly was your character defined for one role, and how well could you fill one of these roles?

From what I hope of D&D 4 (and I am fairly optimistic that this will work out) is that each character has a role that he definitely will be able to fill. No Bard, that can try a little bit of everything, but not actually be able to fully replace the "real deal" and thus never be a good option for a party that hasn't yet covered all its bases (roles).
All characters can fill a role. They might also be able to fulfill another role, though some roles will probably stay unavailable.
But the goal should be: Every class can fulfill one role. You don't have to try hard or tweak to fulfill its intended role. You have a choice - get even better at fulfilling this role, or tweak to add another role you can fulfill. You might have some more weak spots in that role, but you will be able to compensate with the "original" role you have in these cases, and thus will always be effective. (At least if you didn't screw up too much, because I assume there were still be some builds that won't work so well )

 

[GreatLemur]

City of Hereos(TM), for example, uses archetypes because it would be far too difficult to code in all the variations present in a comic book setting. So it's simplified to a level where the coding is manageable. There is absolutely no need to do this in a pen & paper rpg (not that you can't but there's no need for it). Dumbing down a system to fit unneeded "Roles", from a completely different gaming structure no less, just so mmorpg types who can't think beyond the most basic concepts will buy the ganme, is IMO moronically stupid. Even CoH(TM) wouldn't make these distinctions if the coding weren't an issue.

I don't think that's the case.

CoH's archetypes are very much artificial groupings of various character abilities. There are no technical limitations preventing them from eliminating archetypes and just letting each player choose level-appropriate powers from a huge, undivided list. I think the purpose of archetypes is to avoid what early MMORPG players called the "tank mage" syndrome (where players in a classless online RPG tend to end up playing generalist characters with no interesting variations in abilities) and to make it clear to the player--and that player's teammates--roughly what he or she is supposed to be doing in the middle of a fight.

Personally, I think it's a dumb idea which contributes to an annoying level of metagaming behavior, and I'd probably still be playing City of Heroes/Villains if they'd gone with a class-based system instead.

 

[Remathilis]

Did I miss something in 1e-3.5? We ALWAYS had roles. They just weren't called that. In 1e, they were called Sub-classes (as in paladin is a sub-class of fighter). So a paladin was as good at filling a fighter's role as a fighter. 2e gave them cute names (warrior, priest, wizard, rogue) but the same concept applied (warrior: fighter, ranger, paladin). 3e did away with the titles, but EVERYONE knew you needed a tank/warrior, a healer, a blaster/mage, and a trapfinder in most dungeons. Its been four roles since they added the "thief" class.

Calling them "defender" "leader" "striker" and "controller" is just the latest interation of the fighter/magic user/thief/cleric or warrior/rogue/wizard/priest or warrior/arcane/divine/expert dichotomy that has been time out of mind. Sure, some classes changed slots (ranger went from warrior to striker) but the concept has been there forever...

 

[jolt]

I think a large part of the point of this design is to turn the logic around. Rather than taking a class, and trying to bend it to a role, you choose the role, and find the class that fills it in an interesting way. You are not intended to bend the class into a different role - if you want the character to play a different role, you choose a different class.

Except that's not what's happening nor is it what they said. What really happens is: you choose your role and then, if you don't take one of two classes, you are teh-gimp-suxxor. And if what you said is true, then it certainly doesn;t fit into their "Any class, Any combo" theory.

...if you apply the 4e terminology to 3.5 classes.

Which I'm not. Nor is it inherently good to do so. That's the point I'm trying (and apparently failing) to make.

"Leader" doesn't mean being in charge of the team. Its a general term for a character who focuses, at least in significant part, on helping other characters excel.

It's the other way around actually. Your first definition is what leader means in a general sense. Your second definition of leader never existed before mmorpg's. Heck, even the word "buff" doesn't mean what we use it for in computer gaming and now, unfortunately, in pen & paper rpg's too.

Mmorpg's are a completely different medium than pen & paper rpg's. Mmmorpg concepts should stay in mmorpg's. I find it disheartening that the designers looked at World of Warcraft(TM), saw a huge fan base and thought "Wow, that must be kewl. Let's put those things in our game so it can be kewl too." The idea of Roles was lifted straight from mmorpg's. Their own definition of the roles and the terminologies they use are straight from WoW, CoH and other such games.

Maybe when the books come out I'll look at them and say, "Wow! This is the best thing since sliced AND unsliced bread!" But that isn't what I'm seeing now. What I see now is a fantasy version of CoH trying to be shoehorned into a pen & paper format and called D&D. I see a lot of restrictions in a game that was supposed to be about options. I see supposedly kewl concepts being blatantly ripped off from mmorpg's and crammed into a game that exists in an entirely different medium with a different fan base. Sure, some people play both, I do. But I play them for what makes them unique and interesting, not for their similarities. They said they weren't trying to make D&D into a videogame but that's exactly what I see them doing (as much as is possible in a non-computer setting anyway). I see metagame ideas being turned into mechanical concepts. I see the mage being turned into the "I am a kewl Blaster!" and the Cleric being turned into "I am the l33t healr!" Maybe some people like that, but I don't.

jolt

 

[jolt]

Did I miss something in 1e-3.5? We ALWAYS had roles. They just weren't called that. In 1e, they were called Sub-classes (as in paladin is a sub-class of fighter). So a paladin was as good at filling a fighter's role as a fighter. 2e gave them cute names (warrior, priest, wizard, rogue) but the same concept applied (warrior: fighter, ranger, paladin). 3e did away with the titles, but EVERYONE knew you needed a tank/warrior, a healer, a blaster/mage, and a trapfinder in most dungeons. Its been four roles since they added the "thief" class.

Calling them "defender" "leader" "striker" and "controller" is just the latest interation of the fighter/magic user/thief/cleric or warrior/rogue/wizard/priest or warrior/arcane/divine/expert dichotomy that has been time out of mind. Sure, some classes changed slots (ranger went from warrior to striker) but the concept has been there forever...

But, according to the designers, roles and classes aren't the same thing; which is why, apparently, we're going to have both. And also, according to the designers, any class/any combo will work. Plus we still have mutliclassing which is, supposedly, even less restrictive than before. You can't have it both ways. You can't restrict or limit everything and then say the game is about having "more options".

jolt

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I find this notion hideous and it's pure videogame thinking. City of Hereos(TM), for example, uses archetypes because it would be far too difficult to code in all the variations present in a comic book setting. So it's simplified to a level where the coding is manageable.

Actually, having followed the development of COH, I can tell you that during beta testing of the game, it used a point buy system or at least you could choose your primary and secondary power lists out of all of them instead of being restricted by classes, since they wanted to have the most open experience possible.

They found out part way into testing that players almost ALL made what they called "tank mages". Essentially getting the damage output of the most powerful damage power combined with the defensive strength of the most powerful defensive power. They would naturally create a character whose role was "best at combat". No one chose the "weird" powers at all(or very few).

The same thing happens in other point based or open MMORPGS. People pick and choose the best power from every area(or class) and become an uber character. Almost all the characters in Ultima Online ended up looking exactly the same, since people found the "best" way to mix and match abilities.

The same idea applies to D&D just fine. Why play a fighter when all you can do is wear armor and wield a weapon when you could play a cleric with the right feats and have all the advantages of the cleric and all the advantages of the fighter in one.

There is absolutely no need to do this in a pen & paper rpg (not that you can't but there's no need for it). Dumbing down a system to fit unneeded "Roles", from a completely different gaming structure no less, just so mmorpg types who can't think beyond the most basic concepts will buy the ganme, is IMO moronically stupid. Even CoH(TM) wouldn't make these distinctions if the coding weren't an issue. Besides, I think most mmo'rs are perfectly capable of understanding the system without the need for "Roles". Character personalities should determine roles. "I want to play a Tank" is videogame thinking. "I want to play someone who protects his friends" is pen & paper thinking. And no, they aren't the same.

MMORPGS have been working on a solution to the "problem" created by D&D since they first came out. They wanted to be games a lot like D&D(which most of them are based on) but when they built a game a lot like D&D, it created huge balance problems and people on their message boards complaining about it.

Endless threads were created on the Everquest 1 message boards and the Ultima Online message boards about class balance. UO went with the open method and there were complaints about how all characters ended up the same and how no one felt useful in a group since everyone was the same. The thought was "Why should I be in a group with other people when I can heal myself, cast defensive spells, wear the best armor in the game, use the best weapon in the game, and cast area of effect damage spells as well as buffing myself?" People have a desire to be NEEDED. Everquest was the first to "fix" this by creating a bunch of classes each of which had a completely different feeling(essentially going BACK to the D&D method). But some of them stepped on each other's toes by being too close to each other(since that was already a problem with the D&D classes). That's why they made less classes in EQ2 and WoW.

The goal is to make each player(and each character) feel like they are an important part of the group dynamic. If the opinion of the group is "Why would you make up a Bard when you could just play another Cleric?" then the Bard is not an important part of the group dynamic and needs to be made not only better, but more unique.

I know that as a fighter in most groups I haven't felt needed at all. The opinion of the group was "If we didn't have a fighter, then the cleric would simply have to cast divine power first round or maybe cast an extra healing spell each combat, no big deal."

There seems to be an extraordinary amount of effort being made so that "newbies" will understand the game better. To me, not only is it a bad marketing strategy for a game that's been around for 30+ years and is culturally known by even those who don't play it, but I fail to see how suddenly calling a class a "Leader" will make the game more understandable to anyone or cause hordes of people to become enlightened to the wonders of D&D and start playing where they never had before.

It isn't entirely about making newbies understand the game better. It's about EVERYONE understanding the game better. It's about the game flowing smoother: "Alright, I'm a defender, I'll use my ability to protect the mage", "Alright, I'm the striker, I'll take out that big guy" instead of "I'm a rogue...I am not good at fighting so what is it I do during combat? Do I hide and wait for it to end? Do I use aid another to make the fighter able to hit better? Do I throw tanglefoot bags and hope the enemies fail their saves? Maybe I should have been a 1 Rogue/13 Wizard like my friend who seems to have better rogue skills than me and can cast fireballs."

It ALSO helps newbies understand easier, which gets more people playing. It isn't about calling a class a "Leader" it's about designing the class from the ground up knowing what it should do in a combat situation. If you do that, you know what type of abilities it should have and you can make thost abilities more interesting and more useful.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

I fully expect that a class of a given Role will be able to duplicate the function of another Role. However, it will require some resources (actions, mostly) or restrictions. For example, in 3e when a Paladin uses Smite Evil, he's doing a lot of damage to a single source, thus acting as a Striker. Of course, the Paladin has a limited number of Smites per day, and he can only use them on "evil" things, but for a moment at least the Pally is a Striker. Another example would be a Fighter using Power Attack - he has to sacrifice a resource (his attack bonus) but can do lots of damage and essentially be a Striker for a moment.

I believe classes will be have abilities that allow them to act in accordance with their Role for "free." For example, we have heard that 4e Clerics will have an ability that lets them heal on a crit. No special effort was required on the part of the Cleric to do this - while he did have to fulfill a certain initial condition, he was allowed to act within his Role while simultaneously contributing to combat. Similarly, in 3e, when a Rogue gets into flanking position, his damage output increases dramatically. While he did have to manuever into position, once there he can slash his opponent to bits.

So with 3e I believe we've already gotten a taste of how classes can fulfill certain Roles for a limited time (or, at least, on a conditional basis). 4e will simply make that more explicit and be designed with that more explicitly in mind.

 

[Counterspin]

The roles come from D&D. There's no way to get around that fact. They don't come from a video game. They don't come from WOW. Parties have always run best with the big 4. Role crossover has generally been rare, and mostly been along the tank/DPS axis. Full BAB classes can generally do both, based on build, but if you don't have healing spells you can't really be a healer, and if you're not an arcane caster you don't have access to the big effects that were their stock and trade. If you really want to stray from your role, you'll have to multiclass, but that's always been true. Again, none of these things are recent developments.

Additionally, use of misspelling when you put words in your opponents mouthes is needlessly inflammatory. Saying that something is based in videogames while cramming leet speak into people's mouthes is not a convincing argument.

 

[Zaruthustran]

There seems to be an extraordinary amount of effort being made so that "newbies" will understand the game better. To me, not only is it a bad marketing strategy for a game that's been around for 30+ years and is culturally known by even those who don't play it, but I fail to see how suddenly calling a class a "Leader" will make the game more understandable to anyone or cause hordes of people to become enlightened to the wonders of D&D and start playing where they never had before.

jolt

There's a reason that companies and militaries group responsibilities into roles. Roles are efficient. They're effective. They help the whole team understand their own individual responsibilities. Otherwise, you'd have engineers wasting time coming up with marketing strategies, or accountants submitting engineering concepts.

Same thing for D&D. A role gives the player an idea of how to use his abilities, and the abilities of his teammates. The striker deals damage. The controller denies the enemy. The leader buffs. The defender keeps the monsters off the others. Obviously there will be plenty of crossover; for example the fighter class is a defender but that big greatsword will be dealing out plenty of damage. But by finally identifying and playing up to the roles that have always existed in role playing games, 4E makes it easier for new and experienced gamers to do their jobs in combat.