Roles, Power Sources; unbalanced?

[Exen Trik]

My basic idea is that classes would have built in variants, centered on what kind of role of the character has. The differences between them would be slight, in that it would be passive and not open up entirely different abilities, but still significant to the characters basic function. For example a classes taken by a striker character would have increased movement and stealth skills, martial classes are naturally better at quickly attacking its targets but lower defenses, and those that use magic would have enhanced single target spells but reduced area effects. Or you could not have a specialized role at all, and have more well rounded abilities.

I think the point is that those classes in Role X do it better. Here, let me give you an example from one of the playtests.

The character with the ability in question is playing a Warlord/Wizard, by the way, and I fully suspect that the Warlord gets the ability to give everyone +2 saves. I'm willing to bet that the Wizard COULD do this but he'd have to be higher level, or spend a much more significant resource to do so.

Except that there will be multiple classes per role. See: Paladin vs Fighter, see Warlord vs Cleric.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that each class has only one role - not the reverse. What I'm talking about is having multiple roles per class. And sure, a given class would be naturally better at the role as given now: a cleric has heals and buffs, and wizard has spells to control the battlefield. But a wizard also haves buffs, and a Leader wizard would have stronger buffs that affect more alies. His overall role as leader might not be up to par with the warlord, and may not have most of his tricks available, but he could fill the role of leader just fine and would be no less effective for doing so.

Except the impression I got is that this is not the case. In 3e, a wizard/fighter is a subpar wizard and a subpar fighter. In 4e it has been said that a multiclassed character will be effective for their level, they will merely have fewer options. As it was said in the podcast "Any class, any combo will work."

Which is all well and good, as far as overall power is concerned yes I believe they have it balanced. But I'm not talking about the power of such a character, just the role. In this case, we know basically what it means to have fighter does as a defender, and a wizard as a controller, and in 4e this character could be either fairly well at any given time. He can hold his own.

But what if the party has a dedicated defender or two, and a leader and a controller? Why can't that character be built to be an effective striker? He gets better movement, flanking bonuses, and more effective single target spells, at the cost of some of the fighters higher hit points and the wizards spell effect area. The classes he chooses still defines his abilities, but his role is an integral part of his character.

Did you watch the roles video with Wyatt at GenCon? The notion of roles is basically this: If you have no cleric in the party, just a druid, well he Can be a healer but he's not very good at it, and he's spending a lot more of his resources - what he could use to Have Fun - on healing spells. The monk can't front-line like the fighter/barb/paladin, and (at least in my experience) he can't effect one target very well unless he's grappling - what is his place in a 4 man party?

Absolutely right. That's because that druids role is not leader, but probably controller. If however that druid were created with the intent of being a leader, his healing would be up to par, he wouldn't be spending so much of his resources, and he could still do his fun stuff. He would have a different kind of fun stuff as a controller, but he would be having more fun than the druid of another role.

So ultimately: You possibly could fill any role with any class. Just that the classes associated with that role are going to be better at doing what their role is.

And when they are not in their classes designated role, that characters potential is limited. More resources are used, options are more limited, and less fun is had. If role were something independent of class the character could be set as any role he chose, and would be less effective and consume more resources filling any other.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

I'll try to dig up the post, but I believe Gary Gygax has posted to these very boards saying that fighters, wizards, thieves, and clerics are directly inspired from infantry, artillery, special ops, and combat medics. D&D has a long history of partioning character classes by general function. WoW and its ilk owe virtually everything to that aspect of D&D.

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.

I think you're really overreacting, but that's just me. I'm really astounded people never heard of the "core 4" classes before - from everything I've read, 4e roles are simply a more explicit discussion of that. I guess I don't really know that for sure, but a Fighter has never been able to cast spells, a Wizard has never been able to take hits, a Cleric has never done easy damage (although in 3e it is essentially the most powerful class), and Rogues/Theives have never been able to heal (worth a damn, at least). The classes have always had pretty clearly defined roles in combat to me.

 

[Rechan]

Absolutely right. That's because that druids role is not leader, but probably controller. If however that druid were created with the intent of being a leader, his healing would be up to par, he wouldn't be spending so much of his resources, and he could still do his fun stuff. He would have a different kind of fun stuff as a controller, but he would be having more fun than the druid of another role.

Except that if you look at the Druid class, the druid can front-line fight with Wildshape/Companion, can buff like the dickens, and can throw around area effect spells. The druid can fill any role effectively, but he's just Not As Good as the classes purely focused to that job.

And when they are not in their classes designated role, that characters potential is limited. More resources are used, options are more limited, and less fun is had. If role were something independent of class the character could be set as any role he chose, and would be less effective and consume more resources filling any other.

Then he's better off playing a different class.

Why use a wizard to play striker or leader when he could use an Arcane striker or Arcane leader? Why do yoU WANT to force a round peg into a square hole?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Class system by definition equals restriction.

If multiclassing is as good as they claim its going to be this should mitigate this fact a great deal.

I think 4e will have less class role restriction via talent trees then any other game with the D&D label prior to it (assuming they do talents in place of most class features like in saga edition star wars).

 

[gothmaugCC]

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)


While I would greatly prefer if every class could be made to fill every role with talents and feats, I understand the need for defined roles.

But for flavor reasons and flexablity I wish we could get one of each role per source or at least not have all of the classes from one power source being the same role. There's hardely even a point in having multiple classes in that case.

Of course I could be wrong about all this information. We don't really know about the classes just guessing. But regardless I think one of each role per power source would be a good idea.

If these are the final classes, it DOES seem a bit unlikely that they would have 2 meele strikers and 2 arcane controlers. I could see the warlock becoming a striker, and they will probably suprise us all and make some unexpected class a controler (like ranger).

Case in point. In World of warcraft the Ranger (hunter) is a controller type class, with traps, animal companions and specialized shots designed to slow down or intercept the opponent. WoTC may take a simmilar route. *shrug*

Also, I know they have created these new catergories of Defender, striker, etc, But looking at the proposed class breakdown its still the classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard with 4 alternate classes to take thier place. *shrug* we shall see.

 

[Exen Trik]

Except that if you look at the Druid class, the druid can front-line fight with Wildshape/Companion, can buff like the dickens, and can throw around area effect spells. The druid can fill any role effectively, but he's just Not As Good as the classes purely focused to that job.

In third edition, yes. But druids were overpowered, being a jack of many trades and pretty good at all of them. You really think it will be that way this time around? Or that it even should?

Then he's better off playing a different class.

Why use a wizard to play striker or leader when he could use an Arcane striker or Arcane leader? Why do yoU WANT to force a round peg into a square hole?

Because sometimes I want to play an archetype, and sometimes I want to subvert it. Because saying what role a class is or isn't meant to fill is like telling me what classes a race can or cannot be. Because the game should be about options, not restrictions.

 

[Rechan]

In third edition, yes. But druids were overpowered, being a jack of many trades and pretty good at all of them. You really think it will be that way this time around? Or that it even should?

Sigh. No, I don't think it should be that way at all. It sounds like you want it that way.

Because sometimes I want to play an archetype, and sometimes I want to subvert it. Because saying what role a class is or isn't meant to fill is like telling me what classes a race can or cannot be. Because the game should be about options, not restrictions.

Well you're restricted. Your wizard has a d4, so he makes an awful Defender, and your Defender can't really cast spells.

There are systems that are more open ended. See: HERO.

 

[Exen Trik]

Sigh. No, I don't think it should be that way at all. It sounds like you want it that way.

Then you're hearing me wrong. I'm saying that they, and every other class should be good in different roles, not every role at once. Any class should be capable in any role, in their own unique ways. For example, a leader druid would be better at healing and buffing, and less capable of throwing around nukes.

I also think shape shifting would do better as a separate, melee, nature-powered class, but that's another issue entirely.

Well you're restricted. Your wizard has a d4, so he makes an awful Defender, and your Defender can't really cast spells.

And of course, I'm sure that there is NO magic available that could grant higher defenses, temporary hit points, or effect targets at short range? And some kind of feat to cast safely spells in combat? Ridiculous!

But really, a Defender wizard wouldn't be the same as a fighter at all; he's no meat shield. But he could hold the line with his own bag of tricks. And we don't even know what options wizards may have in 4e, the defender role for a wizard may be no further stretch than a healing druid.

There are systems that are more open ended. See: HERO.

Ouch. I think I'll just decline to comment on that one.

 

[Rechan]

Then you're hearing me wrong. I'm saying that they, and every other class should be good in different roles, not every role at once. Any class should be capable in any role, in their own unique ways. For example, a leader druid would be better at healing and buffing, and less capable of throwing around nukes.

I also think shape shifting would do better as a separate, melee, nature-powered class, but that's another issue entirely.

And I'd much prefer they just offer more classes that fit their role (With lots of options on how) than just a few classes that can fit any role.

I've all ready discussed How I'd prefer they handle the Druid.

And of course, I'm sure that there is NO magic available that could grant higher defenses, temporary hit points, or effect targets at short range? And some kind of feat to cast safely spells in combat?

And how long does it take to cast all those spells just so you can run out on the field to do the thing that the Fighter could do on round one? The mage spending 3+ pumping up just to defend is a real, real bad idea.

Ouch. I think I'll just decline to comment on that one.

No, I actually liked HERO a lot. Particularly how you could cobble powers together to form a theme, and every ability Could fit a theme. If it wasn't for the intensive math involved with any sort of character creation or combat, I'd rather play that. I also loved Exalted, but then my GM was an amazing guy who could make a great story.

 

[Exen Trik]

And how long does it take to cast all those spells just so you can run out on the field to do the thing that the Fighter could do on round one? The mage spending 3+ pumping up just to defend is a real, real bad idea.

I don't think it would end up that way though. Clerics have been mentioned as able to act as healers even when taking other kinds of actions, presumably through swift actions. I imagine other classes have similar powers. If there were a way to change roles around, switching those powers would be a big part of it. For a defending wizard (or any other kind caster) I'd expect swift action self buffs and other defensive magic would come into play.

No, I actually liked HERO a lot. Particularly how you could cobble powers together to form a theme, and every ability Could fit a theme. If it wasn't for the intensive math involved with any sort of character creation or combat, I'd rather play that. I also loved Exalted, but then my GM was an amazing guy who could make a great story.

Eh, I have nothing against it, I read up on it and just didn't feel it was my cup of tea. It's the whole matter of "why don't you play some other game" that I don't like to touch with a 10ft pole. Tis a slippery slope, that. Playing with a good GM can make any game system worthwhile though, so I hear you there.


Anyways what I'm trying to get at is the idea of assumed class roles, even if it is just a slight leaning towards a given behavior, bugs me because its applying direction not just to a class but to a character. I'd rather the "roles" not be assumed, but to be filled on your own terms though chosen spells, feats, talent trees or what have you. I can see some value of the role concept for enemies, but if you apply it to characters I don't think it's best to have it set in stone.

I don't know, maybe it won't be like that at all, but what else is this place for than loudly voicing concerns and arguing over rampant speculation and sketchy information?