What's this so-called MMO influence????

[Creamsteak]

Roles can be interesting, but I just hope they are not incredibly important. If I have a group of players that want to play x y and z, and those are all "strikers" I'm still going to let them play x, y, and z. If the game breaks down from that and they can't do what I want them to be able to do, I'm going to play a different game system where they can. I'm not going to try to force them into an archetype because the system can't handle the one they want.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I doubt it will be any different in-terms of game break-down then 3.5. In 3.5 if you wanted a "classic" campaign, you had to basically have a "classic" party. While different parties had differently styled campaigns.

For your example, I doubt you will have the kind of campaigns where they simple hold their ground and slog off mounds of combatants.

 

[Belphanior]

Roles can be interesting, but I just hope they are not incredibly important. If I have a group of players that want to play x y and z, and those are all "strikers" I'm still going to let them play x, y, and z. If the game breaks down from that and they can't do what I want them to be able to do, I'm going to play a different game system where they can. I'm not going to try to force them into an archetype because the system can't handle the one they want.

I think the devs said that having at least one of each role is optimal, but by no means mandatory. It's the same as healers in 3.x; yeah you can use a druid or bard with a wand, but if you want to run the game RAW you're almost forced to take a cleric on board. That never stopped anyone from running all-rogue urban adventures though, you just have to be a little more discriminating about what kind of challenges you throw at the PCs. It seems 4e will be just the same.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Roles can be interesting, but I just hope they are not incredibly important. If I have a group of players that want to play x y and z, and those are all "strikers" I'm still going to let them play x, y, and z. If the game breaks down from that and they can't do what I want them to be able to do, I'm going to play a different game system where they can. I'm not going to try to force them into an archetype because the system can't handle the one they want.

The game will work without covering all the roles, but not as easy as with covering them all. That's inevitable, and it's something is true for all combat-related interaction in all RPGs.
Roles are an emergent element of any game.
Imagine a modern game with fantasy elements. If no one is playing a character that can heal the others, the group will suffer. If there are 3 Striker equivalent (let's say a Sniper, and an acrobatic guy that wields two pistols, and a spellcaster-type that can only cast ranged, single target spells, because these happen to be the most effective or interesting spells for him). Who's ensuring that enemies don't get to the Sniper or the Spellcaster? If some kind of enemy can get them in melee, they're toast. Even if not, whose protecting them from the enemy snipers?

You always need a way to cover these roles. In some games, you might be able to cover two roles with one character (and that might be true even for 4E, since only the core abilities of a class focus on the role, and you can go beyond them. But you will never fail at being competent in your designated role), but the role is always there.

 

[HeinorNY]

You always need a way to cover these roles. In some games, you might be able to cover two roles with one character (and that might be true even for 4E, since only the core abilities of a class focus on the role, and you can go beyond them. But you will never fail at being competent in your designated role), but the role is always there.

You could also multiclass. IIRC Mike Mearls said multiclass always work, or something like that. So a fighter 2/rogue 2 is an effective defender AND an effective striker. Who knows?

 

[Imban]

You could also multiclass. IIRC Mike Mearls said multiclass always work, or something like that. So a fighter 2/rogue 2 is an effective defender AND an effective striker. Who knows?

There was a 60-page debate on this topic on RPG.net. To summarise, there is a contingent who believes that "fighter 2 / rogue 2" won't exist as such, and in 4e will be either a "fighter 4 with rogue multiclassing" or a "rogue 4 with fighter multiclassing", in the former case being a defender no matter what and in the latter case being a striker no matter what.

 

[HeinorNY]

in 4e will be either a "fighter 4 with rogue multiclassing" or a "rogue 4 with fighter multiclassing",

Do you mean a character with levels only in one class, with those class training feats that gives you other classes' powers?

 

[Fenes]

Imagine a modern game with fantasy elements. If no one is playing a character that can heal the others, the group will suffer. If there are 3 Striker equivalent (let's say a Sniper, and an acrobatic guy that wields two pistols, and a spellcaster-type that can only cast ranged, single target spells, because these happen to be the most effective or interesting spells for him). Who's ensuring that enemies don't get to the Sniper or the Spellcaster? If some kind of enemy can get them in melee, they're toast. Even if not, whose protecting them from the enemy snipers?

In modern games with fantasy I run, guns make sure that enemies don't get to the spellcaster or sniper. IMC, Melee pretty much is something for desperate people who have no guns - or for animals. Either way, melee has not much of a chance against any competent marksman.

The role of "tank" or "defender" is not very suited to games with modern firearms, at least in my opinion. Strikers should dominate those settings.

 

[Imban]

Do you mean a character with levels only in one class, with those class training feats that gives you other classes' powers?

Yes.

 

[PeterWeller]

I gotta disagree here. Hunter pets, in particular, are very important to the hunter's role (damage) as well as having other uses (such as being the hunter's "tank" while soloing). The Water Elemental (a pet only summoned by particular mages) is also a very important boost to the frost mage's damage. Pets and their uses are pretty clearly defined by the special abilities they get.

Oh yeah, you're totally right. I meant the pets aren't accounted for by the 4 roles in 4E D&D. They have their roles, and they help their owners fulfill their own roles, but they don't neatly fit into the 4 roles of D&D.