Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller Dynamic

[hong]

Because tactical battles dont suit everyone. Some people just fighte everyone for himself as soon as combat breaks out.

Especially in RPGA and other convention events where the characters are basically randomly thrown into a party with other characters they did not know before (and sometimes don't like at all), there is no reason why they would function like a good team. Depending on the antipathy within these patchwork parties the fighter might deliberately try to put as much of the battlefield between him an this warlord-a##h##e and don't give a damn about him shouting silly orders

And it doesn't matter because convention DMs will also have seen the module for maybe 1-2 hours before running the game, and have no idea how to use their monsters optimally. So stupid cancels out stupid on both sides, and balance is restored to the world.

 

[hong]

And ffs ppl, one of the advantages of p&p gaming over electronic gaming is that you have a DM who can adjust the parameters of the campaign to suit the group's tastes. If you have a group that likes to be chaotic, then plan for it. Conversely, if you want to be chaotic in a con pickup game, then don't complain if that advantage isn't seen to best effect.

 

[keterys]

While the 'leader' and 'controller' actually work pretty much the same way they have for a bit, I think the 'defender' and 'striker' are far more pronounced in their effectiveness than they used to be.

I think this will make a big difference in how parties build themselves and work.

 

[Rex Blunder]

Back when I was playing 1e, there was a fighter, a thief, a cleric and a magic-user in the party, but nobody complained that AD&D was becoming too much like Ultima.

4e is U4!

8 character classes... cloth armor... reagents...... ettins... uhhh... hot air balloons?

 

[MichaelSomething]

The game is designed around the idea that you have one of each of the four roles in a party. It's not a new concept to people.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

roles in my own games

warrior, healer, blaster, and skill user (aka trapfinder). It has always been this way, and I can't see this changing any time soon. I see no need for specialized crowd control or striking, all characters should be working on that.

Cheers,

 

[kennew142]

The game is designed around the idea that you have one of each of the four roles in a party. It's not a new concept to people.

QFT.

It's true now, and it was true in the good old days as well. No one says you can't play with an unbalanced party or a party that doesn't work together well; you could in earlier editions and you should be able to do so in 4e. But that doesn't mean that a balanced party that works together won't be more effective in a tactical sense. An unbalanced but smart party can overcome their role-based tactical weakness by cleverness and thinking outside the box.

4e doesn't seem to use roles as a straightjacket. Characters have lots of advantages if they play within their roles, but that doesn't mean that you can't play outside that box. The fighter will always be more tactically effective if he uses big weapons with stopping power and has a high AC so that he can soak damage. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's played D&D at all. In earlier editions, the fighter with a sword and heavy armor had a tactical advantage over the fighter who specialized in throwing darts and wore leather armor. That doesn't make Throwey McDartmaster an unplayable or unfun character, but he is less effective in combat.

If that's important to you, you won't build such a character. If it isn't, you'll say screw the rules, build the character you want to play and have fun. 4e seems to reward characters who play within their role. Not provided rewards for playing outside your role is not the same thing as preventing you from doing so, and the disincentives aren't any greater than they've ever been.

 

[Vhalidictes]

I think you have it exactly backwards...

Why on earth would anybody NOT play into DnD:s strengths and NOT play a tactical game? If you want your game to center around characters according to some story/roleplaying concept then there are a large amount of roleplaying systems that cater to your tastes. DnD is about tactical roles and boardgamefun, if you scrap that you just threw 98% of the gametext and rules away.

I make sure to play and run games this way.

I prefer 3rd edition for a lot of reasons, but any kind of D&D is good for RP-heavy games. Because they don't tell you how to RP, only how to fight.

If I have a big fight break out, everyone has the rules up and ready to go. If not, the game system stays out of everyone's hair.

Similarly, if I want a dungeon crawl, I'll play White Wolf system. It has a good world (and good playable races) for some knock-down, drag-out combat.

That's a good thing, since I'll be concentrating on combat. Any game that has the stones to tell me how to RP my character (You are this clan? You think this and wear that) is better when role-playing is de-emphasized.

Playing against a game system's strengths is generally a good thing.

 

[Regicide]

The game is designed around the idea that you have one of each of the four roles in a party. It's not a new concept to people.

Less so than any previous edition. Now that they've taken the MMO convention of naming types of classes the distinctions are less than ever. Everyone can heal (themselves), healing potions are minor actions (lmao), everyone can raise, everyone can have every skill. You don't NEED a cleric and a wizard in the party. A bunch of strikers with nothing else is just fine.

So no, I pretty much ignore the roles and the naming of the support classes as "leader" is as moronic as the name "warlord."

 

[Saeviomagy]

Less so than any previous edition. Now that they've taken the MMO convention of naming types of classes the distinctions are less than ever. Everyone can heal (themselves), healing potions are minor actions (lmao), everyone can raise, everyone can have every skill. You don't NEED a cleric and a wizard in the party. A bunch of strikers with nothing else is just fine.

So no, I pretty much ignore the roles and the naming of the support classes as "leader" is as moronic as the name "warlord."

I'm experiencing a disconnect with the idea that D&D categorises it's classes like an MMO and everyone being able to do everything. MMOs pretty much rely on everyone not being able to do anything...

And filling all the party roles was pretty much never necessary with the exception of every party needing a cleric. Early on, when dungeons didn't react dynamically to intrusions, and it was perfectly ok to spend 2 weeks resting between every room of the dungeon, even that wasn't necessary.