Taunts & Marks vs. Challenges

[Fanaelialae]

You make it sound like we are emu's hiding our heads in the sand.

Your right. The fact that they aren't formal doesn't mean they don't exist. They do exist, by proxy they always have.

I just think of my oh-so-casual group. In the end did formalization of roles enhance the game for them? No, not really. Each of them chose class because of what they wanted them to be, then I informed them of how the class worked mechanically and how formal roles worked...best reaction I got? "Oh" (with shrugged shoulders).

My players didnt want to play a role, they wanted to play an image, a perception of an in world persona. Nothing more.

But this thread is about tanking mechanics. I ONLY point this out to say "Whichever mechanic proves the consensus, leave space for people who dont want to play fighters as tanks". Lets not fall back into fighter must be tank mentality, as there do exist people who just dont want it.

It probably wouldn't be that difficult to reduce the role of roles. One method would simply be to design classes with a given role in mind, then offer alternative features that allow them to either broaden their capabilities or specialize differently.

You could do it the opposite way (offer a menu of features and let players pick and choose) but that could be much more challenging for new players, who might not fully comprehend how certain elements will interact. I don't like the idea of "traps" in character creation such as a character who chooses such disparate elements that he broadens himself into ineffectiveness. Granted, I think it would be better if a broad character was overall as effective as a specialized character, but that might be asking too much. Synergy is bound to trump a lack of synergy.

 

[MichaelSomething]

But this thread is about tanking mechanics. I ONLY point this out to say "Whichever mechanic proves the consensus, leave space for people who dont want to play fighters as tanks". Lets not fall back into fighter must be tank mentality, as there do exist people who just dont want it.

Can and must are two different things, and it's important to understand that. "Clerics can heal" usually translates into "Clerics must heal" since there is no one else in the party who can generate healing effects as well as a Cleric can.

By discussing roles, we can understand them, and therefore figure out the effects of not having a role in a party, and how to play around that...

 

[mkill]

The only way to truly have "no roles at all" is solo adventures.

As soon as you work together in a party, you need to split jobs somehow. In that sense, roles are something that was in the game ever since Gary Gygax and friends hacked Chainmail to play with small groups of heroes.

Gary Gygax defined the Wizard as "the glass cannon that the party needs to protect" (need to look it up in the old "Ask Gary" threads on enworld). There is your striker / controller role right there.

The difference with 4E is that before, these roles were implicit in what you were expected to do as a class. 4E defined them in 4 categories, and then attached each class to one of these four categories.

Now, my impression of what ticked people off is that there was a mismatch between what the class meant before and the role they filled in 4E.

(NOTE: Everything below is strictly YMMV)

Fighter: 50/50 Split between players who think the fighter should be an easy-mode tough melee striker, and player who think he is frontline battlefield control and absolutely love the marks and other toys. 4E recognized this split with Essentials, but too late to appease fans of the first category.

Cleric: Probably the least controversial. Even though he is billed as a leader, he retains some very strong controller elements that he had before. (Which drew some criticism from 4E role purists)

Rogue: There are old-school purists who think the rogue should be a skill monkey / expert and step aside in combat, but uncontroversial otherwise

Wizard: There have always been several ways to play a Wizard. This is well-recognized by 3.5E splatbooks. The two main ones are artillery, concentrating on direct damage spells, and controller, i.e. using debuffs, save-or-dies and battlefield effects. 4E exclusively put him in the second box, to the dismay of players who liked the first one.

Ranger: Uncontroversial as Striker. Personally I'm not a fan of the Quarry mechanic though.

Druid: The 3E druid was a mixed back of melee striker (in wildshape), controller (entangle, summons and similar spells) and leader (healing + buff spells). 4E settled on controller, and removed most of the healing and buff abilities, and later delivered a leader variant. For me, this is the prime example where a class should have been designed to choose between different paths that fill different roles from the start.

Swordmage: While I really love this class, it really didn't work well if you wanted to play it as a 3E Duskblade/PF Magus-style striker who enchants his blade for extra damage. I think a number of players would have been happier with the class if the Aegis of Assault was a straightforward striker build, because that's how they expected it to work.

 

[Kynn]

The difference with 4E is that before, these roles were implicit in what you were expected to do as a class. 4E defined them in 4 categories, and then attached each class to one of these four categories.

Now, my impression of what ticked people off is that there was a mismatch between what the class meant before and the role they filled in 4E.

Agreed. Tying each class that strongly to a role was bad, but the idea of formal roles is itself not bad at all.

The original implementation in 4e of roles was flawed, but they were on their way to getting better. A true "4.5" would probably have solved these problems nicely.

 

[BobTheNob]

Agreed. Tying each class that strongly to a role was bad, but the idea of formal roles is itself not bad at all.

The original implementation in 4e of roles was flawed, but they were on their way to getting better. A true "4.5" would probably have solved these problems nicely.

I'm happy with these terms. Interestingly Mike Mearls recently said he was happier with the idea that classes are officially role-less, but that they come with advice on how they can be played in certain roles. I'm very happy with this approach, it both acknowledges the existence and purpose of roles, but at the same time does not railroad classes.

Perhaps a nice middle ground would be to offer classes appropriate role-specific mechanics, so if you are playing a fighter you can have the choice of either marking or extra damage (or other based on what you prefer). Like a 'high power' feat you only get to pick one of.

 

[mkill]

Perhaps a nice middle ground would be to offer classes appropriate role-specific mechanics, so if you are playing a fighter you can have the choice of either marking or extra damage (or other based on what you prefer). Like a 'high power' feat you only get to pick one of.

I fully agree with this. My preferred way would be to have the classic Fighter as the "Fighter" in 5E. It's the class for players who are perfectly happy with just whacking things effectively with the weapon of their choice. If you keep this class straightforward, you give these players the feeling that they know what they're doing.

The 4E Fighter with marking and fancy maneuvers is moved to a diffferent name, something like Guardian or Weaponmaster. (I don't like Knight because it is too specific as one image of a fighter). Both classes should be present in the PHB, with clear labels "pick me if you want X"

Note that the choice between Fighter and Weaponmaster is as much about combat role as it is about complexity and system mastery.

 

[Endur]

Fighter: 50/50 Split between players who think the fighter should be an easy-mode tough melee striker, and player who think he is frontline battlefield control and absolutely love the marks and other toys. 4E recognized this split with Essentials, but too late to appease fans of the first category.
.

I'm in the middle. I'd prefer "marks, etc." as feats or optional powers. The people who want them can take them. My tank would rather just do dps and ignore the control stuff.

I still want to wear heavy armor and use a shield with my melee weapon.

 

[GreyICE]

I completely agree. There's so many people who want a Slayer-fighter that I'm inclined to say to with kits:

Slayer kit - great damage with 2 handers
Tempest kit - two weapons
Archer kit - bow and arrows
Brawler kit - unarmed/improvised (i feel the brawler fighter was too cool to lose$
Guardian kit - marking sword and board defender

(spoiler - I've always loved kits)