Should There Even Be Roles?

[nnms]

I'm another proponent of taking defined rolls and putting them up against the wall.

In previous editions, roles in combat was something that emerged during play and could be heavily, heavily influenced by player choices. In 4E, you either function as your role in combat, or you are being suboptimal and not contributing properly. The same way that if you try to blend one role into another in an MMO. 4E is not an MMO, but "roles" is something you find in both. People even talk about strikers in terms of DPS/DPR.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The simple fact is they (WotC) want to have a system that caters to as many playstyles as possible.

This signals to me that his opinion definitely is important to WotC. Saying, "your preferrence of game style is irrelevent to anyone but you" seems utterly false given that WotC wants to provide a game experience that he would enjoy.

IOW making a system where the rogue sits around and is nigh useless in combat doesn't fill the game need.

Many groups will want all rogues to shine outside of combat, and be passable in combat (though noticeably behind other classes). Others will want them to shine in combat just as much as other classes. If WotC is going to cater to all gaming styles, making them powerful "with the option of being played poorly" isn't a good solution. They need to make rogues that can be played either way, depending on build / options selected / whatever.

And, of course, rogues are just an example. If they do want to capture as many game styles as possible, they need to make the combat system potentially as tactically intensive as 4e (one option), as well as being quick and streamlined with no grid (a different option?).

I think, to this end, everyone expressing their views is rather helpful in this discussion, so WotC knows what they're getting into. "Your preferrence of game style is irrelevent to anyone but you" seems off, given that context. As always, play what you like

 

[DonTadow]

Personally I would be happy to see roles disappear. I think they were an experiment that turned out to be unhelpful.

Although I see them rationalised as "always being in d&d, I can't shake the feeling that they really came from the mmo world, which is where I first heard of those roles being regularly called out.

I remember that the original point of class roles was so that every class had a role that they would be ok at no matter what way you built the class after that. Many forum posters and even designers seemed to lose sight of that goal, and only considered the nominal role when talking about classes. Roles also led to the dreaded "fill in the grid" classes. Ok, weve got primal on one axis and defender on another. What can we call that class? A warden? What classic archetype is that then? oh, a primal defender...

As others have said, in previous editions everyone was effectively a striker, as caring about doing a lot of damage was vital. The Leader role was probably named to make it more attractive than the Nurse role . The wizard should never have been a controller box, it should have been far more utility.

In 5e I hope for nicely designed classes which are full of flavour and which all have options to make them good at single foes/ good at multiple foes / good at helping their mates / etc, allowing any class to contain generalists or specialists in any of those areas.

Cheers

I got 10It didnt exist. I actually have had the same conversation in MMO forums, about the holy trinity and how MMOs invented it, not tabletops.

I'd slap my mama if I ever heard tank, dps healer in a dungeons and dragons game, it doesnt happen. Charactersa re multifacited. Combat is a portion of the adventurers day. And when combat does happen, rarely will a party be able to plt and plan "roles" before a battle. Again, lets look to fantasy fiction for an example of a tank, healer, DPS .

IN order to include all styles, you can not limit any particular style, and that's what roles do. You can have roles without them being in the game. Decide with your party, I'm only playing my character this way in combat. But don't waste space attempting to explain to new gamers these "roles" and how that limits you.

Now what I would like is for templates to discuss how this character "normally" behaves in combat. Because you will have many new characters who need this initial training wheel.

I am

 

[Herschel]

In previous editions, roles in combat was something that emerged during play and could be heavily, heavily influenced by player choices. In 4E, you either function as your role in combat, or you are being suboptimal and not contributing properly.

How is this different than in any other edition? If the thief wasn't working his way around and backstabbing but just standing there like a fighter or sitting back and throwing daggers, he was "being suboptimal and not contributing properly" to the combat also.

People even talk about strikers in terms of DPS/DPR.

That's a certain group who talk in those terms and they've been around in every edition. Certain people always want to figure out how to "have the best character" regardless of edition/system. Why do you think there were things like CoDzilla in 3E or the Ranger using his weapon proficiency slots in order to wield wto Long Swords back in 1E?

 

[billd91]

Then why are you trying to play a group game?

fyi: Pippin was taken along because he was going to follow Frodo and Co. regardless and all available roles were already filled so that analogy falls very flat.

Except there really wasn't an idea of roles being filled in forming the Fellowship in anything approaching 4e terms. They were picked as representatives of the free peoples of Middle Earth (the stakeholders in the project to destroy the ring) and approved volunteers.

 

[Pickles JG]

Roles are to help the designers. In 3e & others some classes could do everything - low level fighters/barbarians were tougher & more killy than anything; high level clerics were too. Roles let the designers give every character an area to shine in.

4e roles are quite broad compared to MMO ones. Everyone does decent damage & is fairly robust. Most classes have a secondary role to either support/heal allies or provide control (movement/action degredation/action gain).

I want roles to remain so that classes remain distinctive & balanced. They need not be done in the same way or be the same roles but they should be there.

edit: yes this is all about combat & yes I want a balanced game

 

[nnms]

How is this different than in any other edition? If the thief wasn't working his way around and backstabbing but just standing there like a fighter or sitting back and throwing daggers, he was "being suboptimal and not contributing properly" to the combat also.

In many of the editions, back stab or sneak attack was something you had to do from a position of complete surprise. It wasn't applicable in most combats except perhaps as an opening.

In the majority of D&D versions, a thief wasn't there to get flanking and do extra damage in combat again and again.

 

[Herschel]

This signals to me that his opinion definitely is important to WotC. Saying, "your preferrence of game style is irrelevent to anyone but you" seems utterly false given that WotC wants to provide a game experience that he would enjoy.

Actually it's true, but I should qualify. An individual's game style is only worth noting/taking in to account so long as it coincides with and does not negate other playstyles. Individual preferrences are noted but only important in how they fit with the whole.

Many groups will want all rogues to shine outside of combat, and be passable in combat (though noticeably behind other classes). Others will want them to shine in combat just as much as other classes. If WotC is going to cater to all gaming styles, making them powerful "with the option of being played poorly" isn't a good solution. They need to make rogues that can be played either way, depending on build / options selected / whatever.

Making a rogue that's bad in combat is poor design. Making them good with the option of not using all of their options is the only way to make the character work for all playstyles. This means the different areas of the game probably have to be compartmentalized between combat, social and puzzles. It's about being able to have a character that can play in any style of game and not just sit around twiddling your thumbbs for most of it while waiting for your 5 minutes to shine out of the six-hour session.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Many groups will want all rogues to shine outside of combat, and be passable in combat (though noticeably behind other classes). Others will want them to shine in combat just as much as other classes. If WotC is going to cater to all gaming styles, making them powerful "with the option of being played poorly" isn't a good solution. They need to make rogues that can be played either way, depending on build / options selected / whatever.

That's fine, as long as everyone remembers it cuts both ways. So if you need some form of "role" -- however termed and improved -- to help the people that want everyone to shine in combat, then it isn't helpful to say, "Just get rid of them so that I can do anything I want with my character." That's what I've seen a lot of comments edging towards. "Replace them with something more flexible so that I can get what I want," is a lot more reasonable. And likewise, they should not be so embedded into the design that people that want to ignore them can't mostly do so.

Ideally, of course, instead of some squishy middle ground that satisfies no one, "roles" would be set up flexible enough that everyone at least got a little benefit out of them, even if some used them fairly strictly and others very lax.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Making a rogue that's bad in combat is poor design. Making them good with the option of not using all of their options is the only way to make the character work for all playstyles. This means the different areas of the game probably have to be compartmentalized between combat, social and puzzles. It's about being able to have a character that can play in any style of game and not just sit around twiddling your thumbbs for most of it while waiting for your 5 minutes to shine out of the six-hour session.

I suspect you and Jameson may be talking somewhat at cross purposes as to what "option' means in this case. I'm reading you as, "Options available as build choices that you can ignore if you don't want to be good at combat, " whereas I'm reading him as, "(Combat) options that every rogue gets a chunk of whether they want them or not, and you can ignore them the same way a 3E warrior can use cloth armor and a dagger, if he wants."