Rule of Three 14 NOV 2011...

[Doctor Proctor]

Their "mistake" was to separate damage from every role and make it seem like that was the "strikers" only province.

In a redesigned game I'd like to see the 4 roles still be as they are today, but the defender should be the heavy armor/high defense striker, and the striker should be the light armor/high defense striker. The leader should be the "inspiring" striker, and the controller should be the "controlling" striker.

Multi-ability dependent classes should be taken to the shed and.... Remove the dependency on multiple abilities from classes. Each class can have one or two abilities that are primary for it. Pick one and that is your primary ability. No muss, no fuss.

The heavy armor and light armor paths should be "features" of the martial classes. So you could select either, and still be well protected because of your choice. If there is a shield for the heavy armor defender then there should be a parrying blade for the light armor defender. Both grant a "shield" bonus that is non-stacking. Or you could make a "shielding/defending" style that covers both and you don't depend on equipment at all. If you pick up a shield you're protected, if you pickup a parrying blade, the same.

All classes should have some viable melee and long range combinations(builds), with specialist builds that are slightly better in either role (sniper, duelists, etc.)

Doing damage is what ALL classes should be able to do. This would start taking care or the perceived grind. If a wizard uses an area spell they should do average damage to multiple creatures, but if he uses a single creature spell is should do STRIKER damage to that creature. Both options should be viable. Some of the long range attacks from other classes should work like area attacks, doing average damage to multiple creatures.

There should be no class skills in the "restricted" sense. Every skill is available to every class, there are some classes that are simply better at certain skills. So a fighter that wants to spend some time studying arcana is fine. He's already limited in his skill points so if he wants to spend them in that fashion that is the player's prerogative. The wizard would still be better with inherent "class features" for Arcana.

The problem with this is that, honestly, it all sounds the same... Wizards can do single target striker damage, just like a Ranger. Rogues are going to have basically the same AC as a heavy armor Fighter or Paladin. Everyone has access to the same skills, which means we're going to see a lot of overlap. What's the point?

If every class has viable melee and ranged options, can do striker damage some of the time, and often times have AoE ranged attacks, equivalent armor and access to every skill (You are aware of backgrounds, right? That's how you get Arcana on a Fighter...) out of the gate, then where's the differentiation? When someone says "I want to play a lightly armor wearing guy with close and ranged attacks, capable of dishing out decent damage", what class do you suggest? All of them???

I think that, yes, they need to tighted up the system a bit in a future release, but that the role system overall is a good one. When someone plays a Wizard, they're typically not looking for a character who can get in close and survive in the thick of things. And if they are? Well, I would suggest a Sorcerer or a Warlock, since they can still be blasty or controllery, but have a better ability to survive in the thick of things.

Or if they wanted to play the Fighter that defends the whole party from their enemies, but also uses a bow to fight at range, then I would just direct them to a Heavy Blade/Bow wielding Fighter going STR/DEX. Yes, they can only use RBA's, but you can't be good at everything... The Fighter sacrifices some ranged power in that build for inceased ability to control monsters and act as a Defender. This differentiates him from a balanced Ranger that can operate at range or in melee. That guy will have superior ranged skills, but less capability to defend the party.

Tossing out the whole thing and making everyone very similar in feel just waters down the game. It becomes a game about of group of generalists, rather than a group of specialists...the latter of which is a lot more interesting when it clicks. When all of the roles come together in a well executed encounter, you can really see why there are all these little differences and how they impact each other. If everyone is the same though, it's just gonna be a slog fest to see who can roll the highest numbers on the die...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also agree, that the striker role is not needed! Saying this for quite a while now.

I like the scout role idea... maybe we could make it only 3 roles. A rogue and a monk could as well be called controlers...
but maybe light armored/mobile characters should be scouts...
and actually this is what the thief really used to be in most editions... someone who could decide when to strike, initiate an ambush, set up te combat in a favourable ground...

with this kind of thinking, maybe we will one again see battles that are won by good decision making BEFORE combat!

 

[wedgeski]

Their "mistake" was to separate damage from every role and make it seem like that was the "strikers" only province.

On the whole I honestly don't like the sound of the game you describe in your post. Roles are honest. They paint a very clear picture of what your PC should be trying to do in the game, and they provide the DM with a pretty accurate at-a-glance idea of where there might be trouble. They're without doubt one of the strongest features of the current edition.

 

[Droogie128]

Yep, not a fan of the overly popular striker concept. I think the other 3 roles should pretty much bash it over and take its stuff. Doesn't make much sense that a fighter isn't a 'striker' either. Am I to believe that the fighter dude brought up on martial warfare is less lethal than the sneaky rogue? The roles themselves need to go back to the drawing board.

Historically imo they've been:
- Tank, frontliners
- Scout, choose the battleground & ambush
- Healer, win the battle of attrition
- Caster, debilitate the monsters

Striking features in 3 of these 4 roles, and healers shouldn't miss out on too much of the action. WoTC have proven their ability to make 100 different strikers that maintain the math is different ways. Good, now apply that to the rest of the classes.

Oh yeah, and I miss fireball.

Role protection has been too strongly implemented in 4E. My Paladin's missile weapon is not a bow, or a spear, but a javelin. And none of my powers work with it. Even if it was a bow, his dex is too poor particularly from paragon+ You know it's these little things that make me wish I could have the best of 3E & 4E merged together - in 3 core books.

Fighters can very easily be comparable to strikers with 2h weapon talent. Also, there is a pure striker fighter... the Slayer

Roles are not straight jackets.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[D'karr]

On the whole I honestly don't like the sound of the game you describe in your post. Roles are honest. They paint a very clear picture of what your PC should be trying to do in the game, and they provide the DM with a pretty accurate at-a-glance idea of where there might be trouble. They're without doubt one of the strongest features of the current edition.

I agree. My point is that doing damage is not sufficient for an interesting role. Roles and the concept of roles are great. Strikers as damage dealers is a poorly thought out role. A defender does damage and defends, a controller does damage and controls, a leader does damage and leads, a striker does damage and what? Strikers should be more than simply "do a lot of damage."

If all classes did damage as a simple class feature, then a lot of the problems of grind go entirely away. Most of those problems are caused by poor damage output. If you have a party without a striker, or multiple strikers combats tend to drag. That is not a feature, that is a bug.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I think the biggest reason the martial practice system failed to see more use was that we set too high a cost on it. A single feat choice doesn't seem like much of an expense, but most characters are seriously feat-constrained for the first ten levels or so of their career. Practiced Study competes against things that add to your attack bonus, your damage, and your defenses.

Rich ever so gently nudges the real problem here, but doesn't quite make the connection.

The problem isn't that MPs are unpopular because a feat is too expensive. That's a symptom. The problem is that feats add to Attack, Damage, and Defenses. Get rid of those, and your "cost" problem makes a big shift towards going away. There are other problems with feats, but this is a big one.

To add a caveat though, I don't think feats shouldn't be applicable to combat. I think that feats should be less direct bonuses (ie, "feat tax") and more addressing corner cases and expanding the breadth of what you can do.

 

[keterys]

Part of the problem is the variance. I know level 8 defenders that do 10 damage and ones that do 25. Strikers that do 15 and ones that do 40. Some of that is base design, not just optimization.

Personally, I agree that damage numbers should be closer, but I disagree that striker shouldn't be a role. I'd actually go the other direction a little. Make role matter, but matter less strongly...

Defender: Has higher defenses and redirects attacks away from allies
Healer: Removes damage taken and brings allies back into the fray
Striker: Damages single enemies quickly
Blaster: Damages multiple enemies

And as long as your baseline were a lot closer than today, it'd work out... a group could look at their options and go "Well, a blaster would make us better against groups of enemies, a striker would give monsters less actions, the healer would give the other team mates more turns to act, and the defender would make the monsters less effective at taking away turns... let's say each of those was only like a 25% difference, though.

So your rogue might do 25 damage compared to the 20 damage from the cleric, and the wizard might have the option to do 20, but prefer to do 15 to 2 targets. Long as the defender and healer mechanics aren't overpowering compared to a 25% damage difference, you're in good shape.

And yeah, I removed controller. They never settled on a controller class feature and overboard control makes the game less fun (on either side). So don't make it the entire point of a class - let everyone have their forced movement, their dazes, etc, but don't make an area burst stun or sleep or whatever their primary contribution to the fight, swinging entire encounters based on that effectiveness.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not sure I agree that the "Striker" role is a false role.

But there is another point I found interesting: Maybe class and role don't need be strictly linked. To some extent, it may be required, but - what if it it was a separate choice.

I would distinguish Fighter from Rogue, but Fighter (Slayer) and Fighter (Weapon Master) and Warlord seem to be "Fighter" primarily. And I could also see a "Rogue" Leader and Defender (constantly provoking enemies and forcing them to "over-extend" can both lead to the Leader and Defender sticks).

Maybe the PHB builds were along the wrong lines - there shouldn't be a decision whether my Fighter defends with a two-handed weapon or with a weapon and shield. The decision should have been whether my Fighter is a Slayer and "strikes" or a Sword & Board and "defends" or a Warlord and lead. The two-weapon Fighter would have been a Ranger or a Rogue from the start.
Same thing for the Rogue - the Acrobatic Rogue could be a Defender or Leader, the Scoundrel be the Striker.
And we can continue with Cleric and Wizard...


Oh, and I agree - Martial Practice and feats like it could work if we didn't have those Elephant-in-The-Room-Feats.

 

[Nikosandros]

Interesting about Martial Practices - I agree with him that pretty much anything costing a Feat is now too high a cost, thanks to the 'feat tax' feats like Master of Arms. I'm thinking MPs might work well as boons/grandmaster training as per DMG2, though?

Yes. Actually, I think the mistake was putting under feats too many different things. Boosts to attack and damage, do not belong to the same "development space" as martial practices and linguist.

 

[wedgeski]

I agree. My point is that doing damage is not sufficient for an interesting role. Roles and the concept of roles are great. Strikers as damage dealers is a poorly thought out role. A defender does damage and defends, a controller does damage and controls, a leader does damage and leads, a striker does damage and what? Strikers should be more than simply "do a lot of damage."

Okay I'm understanding you now, and even agree a little bit.

Ultimately though, it seems to me that "do a lot of damage" is an eminently acceptable role for most D&D players, what with Strikers being by far the most popular type of PC out there (I can't cite that notion, but I'm positive it has been said by WotC).

To this add the fact that the Strikers I've played and/or DM'd, including Warlock, Rogue, Sorceror (Chaos Sorceror being my absolute favourite class in the game), and Assassin, seem to have such different flavour at the table... and I don't think this problem, as you see it, is worth changing the game over.