Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5971061" data-attributes="member: 95493">I haven't demonstrated that roles are different from classes?4e Classes have roles.4e Monsters have roles.4e CHARACTERS (which is where I would draw the comparison to monsters) have roles and classes. Granted they have a role Because the class but they still have both.When the role is all that defines the character and their abilities then I think something is lacking.For example, I have been playing a lot of the old republic. In that game I have several characters, including a Jedi Knight, Republic Trooper and Sith Inquisitor.Now there are 3 main roles that the game allows - which are: damage, healing and tanking. The advanced Jedi Knight (called a guardian) is capable of tanking as one of his specialties. The Trooper (advanced to be a vanguard) can do the same thing. Both of these classes can also do decent amounts of damage. The Sith Inquisitor can (when advanced to a sorcerer) do damage or healing. The Trooper (as a commando) can do healing too. In various ways all three of these classes advance and perform one of the two roles available to them. The sorcerer is never going to be a tank and the guardian is never going to heal.I gave this example to illustrate that I UNDERSTAND where roles come into effect. Especially where they come into effect in relation to classes. With all that said I have two objections.First, is that these roles are too limiting, especially when used as their only defining characteristic. We get that all the time when people talk about how 4e fighters are defenders AND strikes. Or (in my old republic terms) when some says "are you a healer or damage". What is more, it fails to take into account sub-systems or sub-specialties that aren't defined by those three roles. Half the classes in (the old republic) seem to be able to stealth but that option isn't listed as frequently. I would only assume something similar to this happens in 4e as well. In fact if you want I'll go find examples of where this is true in this very thread.Second, we also have classes in the game. If we only had roles then that would vastly change interactions when looking for a group, or when chilling with my friends. It wouldn't tell people if I was melee or ranged, if I was a good guy or bad, if I could stealth, or heal or anything. It is only one aspect. It especially doesn't explain WHERE abilities come from. Saying "healer" doesn't touch on (in terms of my old republic game) the whole force aspect of my character. Similarly when using roles as classes you encounter the same problems.'Brute Academy' is what pemerton explained, but without levels in something that doesn't really satisfy me. A level 11 brute doesn't work the same as level 11 barbarian - because barbarian IS a class. Its role as brute comes after. If I take that barbarian and build him as something else then that brute title no longer works.I'm done with this as we are clearly missing eachother. You and I simply disagree on what BASE human actually is then. Yes he doesn't have any abilities without class levels. That is fine, that is what I look for in a RACE. If ogres looked like that I would be happy because then I can understand what happens when I tack on barbarian, or shaman or anything. The same isn't said for "lurker" ogres or "brute" ogres or "magic-y" ogres.Level adjustments are only part of it. I would be fine on at least part of my problems if the 4e had a Ogre : Level 4 Brute : Large natural humanoid : XP 18** instead of a Ogre Warhulk : Level 11 Elite Brute : Large natural humanoid : XP 1,200Maybe you can spot which parts I have a problem with. Especially since pemerton seems to think the warhulk is the typical ogre. I've looked and haven't found warhulk as a class anywhere. Perhaps I'm missing something.Again, I don't have a problem with the roles being on the sheet per se, roles help sometimes. I have a problem when they are the only thing or even the main thing that defines a monster.I would say role is a subset of class. You CAN go looking for classes with a role in mind. But more often than not I would think most people go looking for classes with classes in mind and then figure out what role they fit after.My statement wasn't that the "blackblade goblin" notation wasn't real. My statement was that I couldn't find a blackblade CLASS anywhere. Again, I'm not that hip with 4e so that could be a mistake. If you will direct me to the book with a page number or something then I'll look it up. If it only exists as a notation on the goblin then I take objection.As I can't find blackblade (but I can find rogue or fighter for example) then I can't tell where the blackblade abilities come from. For now I'll just guess that they are made up as the writer went along and then attached the blackblade title to the goblin when he was finished. That is great for him, but it doesn't help me when I'm looking for a basic goblin to make my own, unless I want to strip things out of the blackblade goblin and put new ones in. For an addendum to this: God help me if I cut a "goblin" out because I can't tell. My players would flip at that kind of inconsistency.Did I say giant class? If I did that's an error. I would have meant to say giant levels. Also, monster levels as opposed to a purely monster class. You understand 3e monster rules so you aren't confused on that mark.Hell, as far as that goes, CREATE a blackblade class.. oops sorry, not 'class'. Well yes 'class' because class is the best thing to denote what it is. At least when you create the blackblade class I can link the abilities of monsters with the blackblade notations to that class. I don't care if it is a monster only class or if PCs can take it too. Just like I never cared if I saw a ogre with barbarian levels. Perhaps you do and that is the issue here, who knows.Because BRUTE isn't a class. Classes have abilities. Roles are a definition on what those abilities represent. I'm not opposed to brute as a term to describe big lumbering idiotic monsters. I think it is kind of cool that they were able to boil down its essence that way. I DO care when brute is its only defining feature beyond the meaningless titles they put on the monster block. Brute doesn't just represent big, dumb, slow monsters with HP. It PRESCRIBES them. You won't find (except rarely) a big dumb lumbering monster with HIGH HP and high reflex and high damage. That would break the balance of 4e. I would have to call it a striker. But then again strikes are lean, nimble creatures with high AC and lower HP, they also have that high reflex and high damage thing. Renaming it to striker then muddies the definition, which I also take exception to.My main issue with this by the way is that there is no reason one way or another for the ogre to have high reflex or low reflex. Except that it is a brute and it should because it is a brute. The strikers are different and to redefining an ogre as a striker is relatively minor in comparison.First, I recognize that the entire game is a mechanical construct. I don't like how the mechanics of that construct seem to get in the way.Second, I do want a vanilla ogre. Just as I want a vanilla fire elemental, or black dragon or anything.Third, my issue stems from the terms savage, thug and bludgeoneer meaning nothing beyond a fancy title on the ogre's nameplate. Did you ever see the PHB2 from 3.5? In it there was a chapter that had all kinds of backgrounds and roles and things that players could use to spice up their characters. I would never use the "streetrat" title to solely define the 12 level halfling rogue who has enough personal wealth to start a country. But 4e seems to revel in it. Doing so for practically every monster and every level in the entire MM.Why does one ogre have better reflexes than another? Because the MM says so. Because the MM says so I now have to come up with an explanation to use them when I never had to do that before. It could be that they are more nimble and then underwent extensive training in a hidden Tibetan monastery in order to hone their talents. Or whatever other backstory reason I so choose. But I don't appreciate when I have to come up with that reason JUST BECAUSE all of a sudden my players are encountering that one group of ogres who are able to successfully dodge the fireball when all the others simply took full damage. (I understand that example may not translate as well in 4e terms.) If there is no basic ogre for me to use then my PCs will never know what they are going to fight, even if they have dealt with ogres every level since leaving their farms. That is why I want a basic ogre. I want it so that I can level it up as needed and so that the players can encounter a higher level ogre which is vanilla and know it will probably be a bigger tougher version of the thing they fought a little while back.Instead I get an ogre who can suddenly avoid their attacks like never before. Which leads me into your next point.Unless rock throwing is something completely foreign or very difficult for all ogres to just pick up and do, I don't understand why there needs to be a new build (and new class?) to accomplish it. I especially don't understand why the rock throwing ogres are going to have such vastly different stats. If the rock throwing ogres, which are basically the same creatures as the non-rock throwing alternatives, have lower HP and stronger damage - because the math says so - and now I have to explain why. That is a problem for me.Also, I would never have an ogre with "hurricane" anything. Nor would I like my ogre to have "hurricane of stones AOE attack". But that is an objection on a completely different set of variables and has nothing to do with the conversation we've been having.(I had to cut it here to make sure you know what I mean.)THIS right here is what I have a problem with. There isn't a class to say this must be so for the sake of balance. I am just expected to understand the scales and adjust accordingly. I have to do so because the math says so. Okay, we'll go on.That is probably my objection and why I have such an issue if it continues for 5e design going forward.Are you not sure what rationale 3e serves? That sentence in () is a little tricky.That isn't actually what my point is either way. My point is that the brute/artillery/skirmisher divide is the one driving the truck. The math is what is important there instead of the build. That is the whole prescriptive/descriptive conversation we were having several pages back.The problem is (1) that brute can and should do more things. (2) That the brute title doesn't articulate the creature well enough when a single role is used. (3) That the role isn't a class and shouldn't be used as such. (4)And that I want a goshdarn vanilla ogre that I can use and say "An ogre pops out of the [type of cover] and attacks" without having to figure out if he is the minion, solo, elite, boss, artillery, gunnery, birdman, acrobat version. Brute is fine because it is descriptive but if ogre is done well I honestly don't need that title either.None of which are countered with the "if you don't like 4e style don't use it". Because 5e style is what I was talking about all along and if 5e follows 4e then I won't have many choices as far as not using it.But no.. I don't understand why there needs to be a new class for the rock throwing ogre or why the rock throwing ogre is suddenly overpowered and needs to be curbed.No, my argument isn't that they should be distinctive and they aren't. I think that 4e had things that were different. In a lot of ways my argument is that they are too different without any reason why. Except balance and this psudo explanation that roles are now classes.I don't think ogres are a particularly bad example. I would have similar concerns for any monsters which are a race. Go back and substitute ORC for ogre for everything I said above and I'll still have the same objections.I think that there is more to it though and that for THOSE examples ogres may not fit as well. I've tried using dragons and other monsters but ogre is the one that stuck so it's what I'm using.And I am speaking conceptually. The only downside that ogres have when compared to races as whole is that ogres are generally dumber than most races as whole, and then give me less reasons to think there should be the black magic ogre and the white magic ogre and the druidy ogre and so on. But the examples in the book (MM) don't really offer that much variation so that makes things easier too.Oh and that I think ogres generally make poor PCs even with level adjustments - I've had them I would know - unlike orcs.--Also don't go back and substitute any old kind of monster for 'ogre' in my posts. Orcs will work (most of the time) because I generally see them as dumb, slower, beefier monsters. But orcs are also a race. I don't see giant spiders as a race, nor rust monsters, or dragons, or elementals, or outsiders, or vampires, or oozes, or manticores, or pegasi, or animals, or vermin, or dinosaurs, or cloakers or chokers, or even most creatures in the MM. The arguments I was making by in large are about monster race type ogres vs unique monster monsters. Even I would have to go back and double check how my sentiments apply to other types of monsters.**I have no idea how many XP to give a level 4 non-roled brute.</blockquote>

Verification