Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller Dynamic

[Stalker0]

My major difference is the introduction of the defender class.

In 3e, I never saw the fighter as a guy who holds down the enemy and defends his buddies. I saw him as the guy that ripped monsters to pieces with a sword. It wasn't until the knight class was introduced that I actually thought of the archetype of a guy who actively guards his party.

 

[Regicide]

My major difference is the introduction of the defender class.

In 3e, I never saw the fighter as a guy who holds down the enemy and defends his buddies. I saw him as the guy that ripped monsters to pieces with a sword. It wasn't until the knight class was introduced that I actually thought of the archetype of a guy who actively guards his party.

It's pretty noticeable as a DM. The fighter/barbarian/whatever are the characters in the party that don't fall over dead from a full attack. Usually.

 

[Garthanos]

My major difference is the introduction of the defender class.

They were always at the lead of the group between my 2 hit point wizard and the monsters back in 2e... but then I found the first 5 or 6 levels boring because of that too... sure I became a wizard so I could lob darts and miss most of the time ... except for once a day when I got to do something interesting..
What the fighter got to do in the front row was say "I attack" and that was not really that interesting either so I wasn't all together as jealous as I could have been.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is this becoming part of the D&D culture for you or are you picking characters and fighting like before it was implimented?

Is it becoming part of how you think of D&D?

It's always been there. There were fighters and thier sub-classes the Paladin & Ranger, who formed a front line, Wizards who blasted away from behind it, Clerics who healed, and Thieves who climbed walls a lot and occassionally got to do some real damage when no one was looking.

3e got around to formally calling them 'roles,' but still stuck to an archetypal character class - Fighter, Cleric, Wizard (though, I'd say the Sorcerer was the better-done class in that role), and Rogue. The Rogue was, frankly, still a little ill-defined, his role decidedly non-combat and tied a little too firmly to trap-finding, still, in combat he could dish some impressive damage, at times, and had some mobility. The Cleric 'role' was still tied a little too firmly to healing - and when the Cleric wiggled free of healing responsiblity, he could be overpowered.

4e formalized roles as something classes were purpose-built to fill. Defender classes /all/ have the ability to soak up damage and keep enemies away from thier allies. Defenders /all/ have the ability to heal 2/encounter, and throw out some buffs and otherwise aid/enhance thier allies. Strikers /all/ have the capacity to some some extra single-target damage, and some good mobility. Controllers, well, were wizards, and the role has kinda been crafted to keep the popular wizard class in the game, in spite of it's long history of being over-powered in some ways... but it looks like it's shaken out to be area interdiction (area attacks, walls, zones) and bestowing status effects, plus a little versatility from Rituals and the like. No role is restricted primarily to non-combat contribution, and no class is signally lacking in non-combat abilities.

The roles have always been there. The difference is 4e has made a pretty solid attempt to make sure each class neatly fits a role. Whereas, in the past, each role defined by a class, and other classes with the same role deviated from it's ideal.

 

[DracoSuave]

Nothing's actually changed, just to put in two cents.

It's just now you have the role seperately from the power source. Martial classes aren't automagicly front line beef, Arcane classes aren't automagicly back end artillery, and Divine classes aren't automagicly healerbots.

The defining of roles has lead to one really bonus part of the game. There's no COAT characters; Craptastic of all Trades, Master of nine. Every class has their one role they do well, and are focused on, while dabbling in one or two other roles. Contrast with older editions, where either the dabblers do nothing BUT dabble (3e bard) or they get as good as other characters at all things (2e bard).

Each class then takes that role to make it their own thing. The roles are really there to guide -design- of the classes more than party makeup. You can find a way to make any combination work, but making a class design work takes a lot more than a concept and a patchwork of miscellaneous features.

 

[CapnZapp]

Is this becoming part of the D&D culture for you or are you picking characters and fighting like before it was implimented?

Is it becoming part of how you think of D&D?

It has always been a part of D&D culture. Only back then it was called "Thief, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard Dynamic".

Although before 4E the game supported the roles much worse - leading to games where first the striker, then the defender being completely sidelined by the controller, all while the leader was bored out of his skull because as soon as he tried to do something besides healing spells, his fellow players would start complaining.

However, I'm finding that 4E supports a game where not all of the roles are present much better than previous editions.

My current party is three Strikers and one Defender and they're doing fine.

So paradoxically 4E has managed to both have the cake and eat it too: roles are (much) better supported while being (much) less obligatory. This is very very good IMO.

 

[Thundershield]

It's pretty noticeable as a DM. The fighter/barbarian/whatever are the characters in the party that don't fall over dead from a full attack. Usually.

But that doesn't give them a party role per se. Stalker0 does have a point. In 3rd Edition (and before that) monsters could run past the Fighter/Barbarian/etc. with impunity and kill off the Wizard/Mage or Rogue/Thief quick unless that character took several steps to protect himself (hiding, mirror image, greater invisibility, stoneskin, and the like).

All the Fighter could to was run after the monsters and whack them with his sword or axe, hoping the DM decided to let one of the monsters hit back at him despite his superior AC.

Simply being able to sponge the damage isn't the same as protecting the party from a mechanical standpoint. There's no incentive for the monsters to attack the Fighter in 3E - rather the opposite. The Fighter is harder to hit, takes longer to kill, and deals less damage than a Sneak Attacking Rogue or a Disintegrating Wizard. Just disengage the Fighter (and take that attack of opportunity) and run the Wizard or Rogue over.

In 4E the monsters can't do that anymore. Now Defenders are actually sticky and have abilities that allow them to protect their party members in one way or another. The Marked condition is the very essence of this, allowing the Defender to make the rest of the party harder to hit, thus discouraging the monster from attacking them.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Roles are not new to 4th edition. What is new to 4th edition and is, unfortunately, infecting the minds of a lot of players is the idea that roles define what classes are and, by definition, make a balanced party.

To illustrate the first point, just take a brief glimpse at the warhorn website and see how characters signed up for games in the 3rd edition days. Most players would not only say what level their character is but would also choose a role description like "heavy infantry, light infantry, artillery, divine caster, generalist, etc." The party of all light infantry and generalists was as much a problem as the party of five ranged strikers in 4th edition.

Putting a little finer point on it, consider my second party from my age of worms campaign:
Favored soul
Fighter/Scout
Fighter/Ranger (archer)
Wizard/Mage of the Arcane Order
Knight/Fighter/Dwarven Defender

Every character in that party pretty much conformed exactly to one of the 4e archetypes--the favored soul was a leader who provided healing and bonuses. The fighter/scout and fighter/ranger were strikers who respectively put out massive amounts of damage in melee and at range. The wizard/mage of the arcane order was a controller who brought the area damage pain, inflicted status effects on the enemy, and broke up the battlefield with his spells. The knight/fighter/dwarven defender was a defender who encouraged the enemies to focus fire on him--the character with a ridiculous AC and tons of hit points.

On the other hand, there are more considerations than party roles. Synergy and the presence or absence of a front line are both keys to an effective party but are not accounted for in the roles. Additionally, most of the classes WotC has released are able to fill more than one role depending upon their construction and none of them (except maybe the fighter and the warlord) bring everything that goes into their "role" to the table. So it is quite possible to have a party that contains every WotC approved role but is horrible and unbalanced. It is also quite possible to have a balanced and effective party that is missing one or two of WotC's roles.

If the party is going to be: defender-ensnaring swordmage, striker-fey pact warlock, leader-laser cleric, controller-orb wizard, striker-infernal pact warlock, I anticipate a lot of trouble ahead.
On the other hand, if the party is: inspiring warlord, barbarian, archer ranger, star or fey-pact warlock, two blade ranger, sorcerer, I don't anticipate major problems despite the fact that the party is four strikers and a single leader.

 

[Regicide]

But that doesn't give them a party role per se. Stalker0 does have a point. In 3rd Edition (and before that) monsters could run past the Fighter/Barbarian/etc. with impunity and kill off the Wizard/Mage or Rogue/Thief quick unless that character took several steps to protect himself (hiding, mirror image, greater invisibility, stoneskin, and the like).

This is no different in 4E. Monsters can just as easily run/fly/teleport past a defender as they could in 3E, and at high levels it's even easier since you won't have an enlarged spiked-chain-wielding fighter who owns a 40x40 foot chunk of the battlefield.

All the Fighter could to was run after the monsters and whack them with his sword or axe, hoping the DM decided to let one of the monsters hit back at him despite his superior AC.

If the monster is running around, it's making one attack instead of maybe 6 or more. It's a very stupid thing for the monster to do as wizards can walk around and still cast spells, fighters can use bows, leap attack, slashing flurry, spring attack etc.

Simply being able to sponge the damage isn't the same as protecting the party from a mechanical standpoint. There's no incentive for the monsters to attack the Fighter in 3E - rather the opposite. The Fighter is harder to hit, takes longer to kill, and deals less damage than a Sneak Attacking Rogue or a Disintegrating Wizard. Just disengage the Fighter (and take that attack of opportunity) and run the Wizard or Rogue over.

Disengaging the fighter means the monster gets tripped and a free attack. Disintegrating wizards need to get past spell resistance and the monster needs to roll a 1 on it's fort save and if the planets align the wizard will do the same damage as the fighter.

In 4E the monsters can't do that anymore. Now Defenders are actually sticky and have abilities that allow them to protect their party members in one way or another. The Marked condition is the very essence of this, allowing the Defender to make the rest of the party harder to hit, thus discouraging the monster from attacking them.

4E defenders are less sticky than decent 3E meleers who actually bothered to try to be sticky. And yes, marks are nice, marking the BBEG then running and hiding behind the wizard who has a higher AC so the game becomes a ring-around-the-rosey can be quite amusing, but mechanically, nah. Trips, grapples and 3 or more attacks of opportunity as the monster tries to leave your zone... THAT is protecting your party and being mechanically sticky.

 

[Garthanos]

infecting the minds of a lot of players is the idea that roles define what classes are and, by definition, make a balanced party.

"Infecting minds", I think that calls for a melodrama award ka-ching! of course it won't match the shelf loads that regicide commands (hats off) for persistent version wining.

Ok, Sorry yeah somebody might not realize it is more complicated... and that you might also need range versatility or that there are details to tactics beyond those core elements, so what! For every player that misses now dont you think there were just as many that missed previously? or worse couldnt have cared less and in this version might have started thinking about it, sheesh.