Support for roles

What exists that support each role?

In 4e defenders had a marking mechanic, a means of backing up that mark, survivability (Armor/HP/Surges) and powers that helped them get allies out of a bind or attracted monsters to them.
In Next, I see the survivability of the fighter, and some resources (feats, combat dice to spend on maneuvers).  However I don't see enough building blocks to make a defender that can accomplish the job of getting baddies off the squishies.  Am I missing something?

Leaders had healing words, buff/debuff, targeting, and enabling (staples of most leaders in any game).   The healing has been relegated to a healer's kit (YAY!). Buffing has been seriously nerfed due to a focused starvation of bonuses to hit, favoring bonuses to damage, the latter I don't see from the cleric. Targeting seems lacking, if I'm not mistaken. I just don't know.  Can the cleric be built to be a decent leader, or have they just tried covering the "legacy" feel and haven't sat down and carved out his space yet?

Strikers have Damage, mobility to get to your target, and more damage. The rogue has done an OK job at this. the 4e rogue had that"+1 with daggers" thing going for it, and it remained a significant class feature for 80% of the life of 4e, getting overshadowed by the charging thief.  Even the thief had class features that served as the core for different ways you could take the thief.  The Next rogue does a pretty good job at being that versatile.  Sneak Attack in the form of doubling the combat dice provided you sacrafice the accuracy you would have gotten with Advantage is a great stabalizer. The DPR kings past level 0 almost always had ways of guaranteeing Combat Advantage. Advantage being so much more powerful here, this will either make or break (as in crappify) the rogue.

The Controller has always been an odd-man-out.  Battlefield Control has a good seed, but still feels lacking. 
DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
It's because each class isn't stuck in one role now. The Cleric can literally fill the shoes of any other class with its diverse range of abilities (Wizard's not bad at this either), and the Fighter doesn't have to be a defender, the Rogue doesn't have to be sneaky.
Or in other words: Everyone is a striker so we can finnish this borring thing called combat with 2-3 die rolls each. Then we dont have to think either just use all our MDD on damage or cast magic missile
Who playes DnD for bashing monsters anyway? 
Me.

Well, that's not entirely true, but that is the majority of what I find to be fun.
Or in other words: Everyone is a striker so we can finnish this borring thing called combat with 2-3 die rolls each. Then we dont have to think either just use all our MDD on damage or cast magic missile
Who playes DnD for bashing monsters anyway? 


I would greatly prefer your hyperbolic assessment of the situation over going back to everything being compartmentalized and homogenized and overly balanced to the point where every combat takes an hour or three just to make sure each identical special snowflake gets to shine, prove he is a worthy member of the party, and never die.

The role you play should be decided by you. Some classes will be better at others, but there's no reason to arbitrarily enforce that by throwing on an added layer of mandatory mechanics.  
Or in other words: Everyone is a striker so we can finnish this borring thing called combat with 2-3 die rolls each. Then we dont have to think either just use all our MDD on damage or cast magic missile
Who playes DnD for bashing monsters anyway? 


I would greatly prefer your hyperbolic assessment of the situation over going back to everything being compartmentalized and homogenized and overly balanced to the point where every combat takes an hour or three just to make sure each identical special snowflake gets to shine, prove he is a worthy member of the party, and never die.

The role you play should be decided by you. Some classes will be better at others, but there's no reason to arbitrarily enforce that by throwing on an added layer of mandatory mechanics.  



so you think a rogue should be able to heal as well as they can kill things? that a wizard should have the same healing abilitys as the cleric?

each class should have ways to do 2 roles, it is a rare case where 3 or 4 are justified, I can see a fighter being a defender and a striker but not a controler or a leader. just as I can see a wizard as a controler/striker but not as a leader or a defender.

not haveing roles means not having balance because you don't have any standard, that means the whole combat system is worthless. the ONLY reason to pay top dollar for 5e is because of the combat system, I don't need rules to RP, and they have yet to show they are going to make a even half-way good skill system.


Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )


so you think a rogue should be able to heal as well as they can kill things? that a wizard should have the same healing abilitys as the cleric?

each class should have ways to do 2 roles, it is a rare case where 3 or 4 are justified, I can see a fighter being a defender and a striker but not a controler or a leader. just as I can see a wizard as a controler/striker but not as a leader or a defender.

not haveing roles means not having balance because you don't have any standard, that means the whole combat system is worthless. the ONLY reason to pay top dollar for 5e is because of the combat system, I don't need rules to RP, and they have yet to show they are going to make a even half-way good skill system.


What? The whole system is worthless unless everyone has to pick one of four predefined roles and have everyone do the same thing every combat because their predefined roles give them no choice but to play the game in a precisely expected fashion? But you're right; having roles certainly does set a standard. It is, however, a very boring and predictable standard. Not just in the boring, repetitive combat, but in the boring and expected party composition necessary to play.

I guess I just don't understand this obsessive balance addiction a lot of people have. Balance is fine, but too much of it makes for a boring game. The more you balance two classes, the more they end up being the same class. And when you go as far as 4E did with balance, you end up with a bunch of near-identical classes using near-identical powers against monsters that are perfectly balanced with the exact HP, AC and attack/damage bonuses to make sure the party will lose an approximate number of surges and HP so they will have to rest after the same number of encounters every day, and never die.

To me, that is boring. It's why I quit playing 4e and went back to 1e/2e. And everyone in my group has been having a lot more fun ever since with our worthless, unbalanced combat system that has no standards.
I'm a little confused. In 4E, yes there were a few built-in mechanics to the classes that leaned them towards certain roles, but the majority of your abilities come from what customization options you chose. You can make leaders that do as much damage as a striker, and strikers that heal as much as a leader. If you are stuck with the first book and level one characters, yes you are fairly limited. Once you reach level 6 and if you have several years worth of materials to reference, there is a large amount of flexibility.

The key is having customization options that let you play how you want to play. I personally think that role-playing is the best way to decide your characters "role" in combat rather than your class. Right now if you wanted to make a "defender" you could choose the cleric that has channel shelter, you can choose the "protect" fighter maneuver or the "shield bash" feat, or you could just make a barbarian who uses reckless attacks to draw fire. 

As long as they have enough interesting choices to customize your character, I don't think it will be a problem.
What exists that support each role?



There are no roles in this edition. Good riddance!
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />so you think a rogue should be able to heal as well as they can kill things? that a wizard should have the same healing abilitys as the cleric?

each class should have ways to do 2 roles, it is a rare case where 3 or 4 are justified, I can see a fighter being a defender and a striker but not a controler or a leader. just as I can see a wizard as a controler/striker but not as a leader or a defender.

not haveing roles means not having balance because you don't have any standard, that means the whole combat system is worthless. the ONLY reason to pay top dollar for 5e is because of the combat system, I don't need rules to RP, and they have yet to show they are going to make a even half-way good skill system.



You can't see a Fighter being the leader? I was on a great 3.5 campaign once with a Dwarf Fighter leading the way for a large band of adventurers of all shapes and sizes, kept us all in line and coordinated us in battle. Can't see it as a controller? Tell that to my Pathfinder Fighter specialized in exotic weapons, with whirlwind attack, who can control a battlefield as well as any Wizard. And a Wizard can't be a defender? Ever heard of the school of Abjuration?

Admittedly some classes are much more specialized. Hard to think of a Barbarian as anything but straight offense. But something like a Cleric can play the leader, striker, healer, defender, controller, whatever else you can imagine. Same with a Wizard, except they have no healing capability.
I feel describing individual powers (spells, maneuvers, etcetera) by their roles can be useful and good.

Spells like Invisibility and Fly are good for Mobility.
Spells like Fireball are good for Blast (multi-target distant damage).
Spells like Lightning are good for Shoot (single-target distant damage).
Maneuvers like Cleave and Two-Weapon are good for Aura (multi-target melee damage).
And so on.

Icons can be helpful for finding the themes that you want for your character concept.



But defining entire classes by their roles is constraining and bad.
What exists that support each role?



There are no roles in this edition. Good riddance!



there are always roles, 4e just admitied it and work with them. unless you are saying every class should/can grant bonues, heal, control, do damage, and defend equaly. in the simplest terms all admiting roles do is 1) every class will be good for something (have at least one role) 2) every class will not be good at too much ( covering so many roles at once they negate the need for other classes)




You can't see a Fighter being the leader? I was on a great 3.5 campaign once with a Dwarf Fighter leading the way for a large band of adventurers of all shapes and sizes, kept us all in line and coordinated us in battle. Can't see it as a controller? Tell that to my Pathfinder Fighter specialized in exotic weapons, with whirlwind attack, who can control a battlefield as well as any Wizard. And a Wizard can't be a defender? Ever heard of the school of Abjuration?

Admittedly some classes are much more specialized. Hard to think of a Barbarian as anything but straight offense. But something like a Cleric can play the leader, striker, healer, defender, controller, whatever else you can imagine. Same with a Wizard, except they have no healing capability.



a fighter who is a leader (as in heals, grants bonuses ect) is a warlord.

(in 4e) a cleric who is a controler is a invoker, a cleric who is a defender is a palidan.

class names are just that name, they dont mean more then you want them to mean. rather then make one over-arcing class called "cleric" and let him to everything you can think of any holy man doing why not divide it up into different balanced classes. then if a player wants to play a divine character who heals they play a cleric. if they want to play one who does damage they play a "averger" ect. you can call yourself whatever you want of course

there should be some flexibity but once you add a third role things start to get messed up (patiuarly if they do all three at the same time) like a wizard who can control, damage and heal has no need for anyone else really.



But defining entire classes by their roles is constraining and bad.



the ONLY alternitive to this is to have classes do so much they are god, others who do nothing. this is becuase you have no frame of reference.

and to a extent every edition does this, how many games have you played where a fighter could heal just as easily as a cleric (who spend the same reasources to be a good healer)
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )


There are no roles in this edition. Good riddance!



there are always roles, 4e just admitied it and work with them. unless you are saying every class should/can grant bonues, heal, control, do damage, and defend equaly. in the simplest terms all admiting roles do is 1) every class will be good for something (have at least one role) 2) every class will not be good at too much ( covering so many roles at once they negate the need for other classes).



No, I'm saying there are no set roles for your class, such as defender, leader, etc. That doesn't mean any class can heal or tank. But now you're not told "oh you're a fighter, that means you have to be a defender, the book says so!" Fighters can be "strikers" now, for example, without having to worry about being inferior to other classes with that role because they get extra striker stuff to ensure that they do more damage. The whole 4e role thing was contrived and only served to shoehorn characters.


There are no roles in this edition. Good riddance!



there are always roles, 4e just admitied it and work with them. unless you are saying every class should/can grant bonues, heal, control, do damage, and defend equaly. in the simplest terms all admiting roles do is 1) every class will be good for something (have at least one role) 2) every class will not be good at too much ( covering so many roles at once they negate the need for other classes).



No, I'm saying there are no set roles for your class, such as defender, leader, etc. That doesn't mean any class can heal or tank. But now you're not told "oh you're a fighter, that means you have to be a defender, the book says so!" Fighters can be "strikers" now, for example, without having to worry about being inferior to other classes with that role because they get extra striker stuff to ensure that they do more damage. The whole 4e role thing was contrived and only served to shoehorn characters.



a game that had no roles (not just a game that did not admit they exist) would by definition have everyone be able to do everything. if you have a cleric and a fighter, and only the cleric can heal then he has a role that the fighter lacks.

I did say that each class should have 2 roles, so a fighter would be a defener/striker, a wizard a striker/controler ect.

without the dev working with the knowlage that roles exist and making the game around them you will have classes that can do too much because it sounded cool at the time, and others who can't do anything because no though was put into how to make them line up well against others who do the same things they can do.
it also means some roles will be hard to do well because no though will be put into helping classes do them. like defending, simply being tough and melee does NOT make a defender work.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />(in 4e) a cleric who is a controler is a invoker, a cleric who is a defender is a palidan.

class names are just that name, they dont mean more then you want them to mean. rather then make one over-arcing class called "cleric" and let him to everything you can think of any holy man doing why not divide it up into different balanced classes. then if a player wants to play a divine character who heals they play a cleric. if they want to play one who does damage they play a "averger" ect. you can call yourself whatever you want of course

there should be some flexibity but once you add a third role things start to get messed up (patiuarly if they do all three at the same time) like a wizard who can control, damage and heal has no need for anyone else really.



We don't need eight different classes for the Cleric when we can have one with a variety of Deities that grant different abilities like we have now. That's what makes the classes interesting. If we split them all up into different classes we'd just have the same chart printed eight times with different weapon proficiencies above them.

Yeah, the whole party could be Clerics and get along just fine, but good luck finding four players who all want to be Clerics.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />(in 4e) a cleric who is a controler is a invoker, a cleric who is a defender is a palidan.

class names are just that name, they dont mean more then you want them to mean. rather then make one over-arcing class called "cleric" and let him to everything you can think of any holy man doing why not divide it up into different balanced classes. then if a player wants to play a divine character who heals they play a cleric. if they want to play one who does damage they play a "averger" ect. you can call yourself whatever you want of course

there should be some flexibity but once you add a third role things start to get messed up (patiuarly if they do all three at the same time) like a wizard who can control, damage and heal has no need for anyone else really.



We don't need eight different classes for the Cleric when we can have one with a variety of Deities that grant different abilities like we have now. That's what makes the classes interesting. If we split them all up into different classes we'd just have the same chart printed eight times with different weapon proficiencies above them.

Yeah, the whole party could be Clerics and get along just fine, but good luck finding four players who all want to be Clerics.




my point was that as long as character A can do something character B can't there will be roles. a roleless game would not have classes, or rather it would have one class.

so you want to tie what god I worship with what I RP as? what if I want to be a healer of the god of war? am I not allowed to because the god of war only has defender powers in his domain?

things like that are things that the game should not be doing, tieing mechaics to RP. the only things my chosen god should effect are RP things I allow it to effect. if I want to play a odd concept that is between you and the DM not you and the Devs
---

if you will look at the various divine classes in 4e you will see that not only do the class features differ, the kinds of powers they can get differ.

a divine defender should have different mechaics, featuers and powers then a divine healer, if they were one class this would be all but imposible.

you can fudge it with two roles that overlap (like striker and controler, or leader and controler) but when you add more then two you get problems, it becomes to easy to be able to do everything.

and roles also give a benchmark for making classes. for example let us say that a wizard who is full on control does damage X dmg, and a wizard who is full on damage does Y dmg. if they make a new class or change a old one and when it is full on striker its damage is less then X then you know something is wrong and can fix it.
it also forces you to give a class roles, rather then just being moble or something. so if you add the monk for example and realise that he does none of the roles you can fix him, and make him usefull.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
The biggest problem with 4e roles is, they are poorly defined. Eventually the roles became a mess. The Storm Sorcerer was a Striker but seemed indistinguishable from a Wizard who was a Controller. Indeed, according to the “monster roles”, the Wizard isnt a Controller but actually is an Artillery. And so on, with Paladin as a Defender healer, Barbarian as a high hit point Striker, and so on.

Before any “role” ever touched D&D, it needed a better and clearer conceptual foundation, to define exactly what a role can do and what it cant do.

Also, the monster roles that added roles, such as Brute, Skirmisher, and Artillery, were more useful and more accurate.

If roles show up as a descriptor in 5e, it should evolve from the monster roles, not the four player roles.
Defacto roles involve permutations of the following possible elements:

Attack type (or rather the targeting method):
• Blaster (distant multitarget attack, area)
• Artillery (distant singletarget attack, archer, shooter, sniper, ranged striker)
• Sprayer (melee multitarget attack, close)
• Infantry (melee singletarget attack, striker)

Power type (really target type):
• Attack (harm enemies)
• Utility (help allies, including self)

Effect type:
• hit points
• defenses
• mobility and stealth
• attack accuracy and extra attack



For example:
• Brute (grant high hit points to help allies), Striker (single-target melee attack)
• Skirmisher (grant high mobility to help allies), Striker (single-target melee attack)
• Defender (inflict low accuracy and reduced number of attacks to harm enemies), Sprayer (multi-target melee attack)
• Controller (inflict low defenses to harm enemies), Blaster (multi-target distant attack)

And so on, with any combination possible.



You can see my sig for an analysis of 4e roles. It has been a while since I did the analysis. Today I would probably combine mobility and stealth into the same functional role, because being invisible allows an ally to move around, and detecting invisibility prevents an enemy from moving around. I would reorganize the permutation of elements closer to the above list of examples to make it seem friendlier, but the elements that are permuting remain discrete and accurate.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />my point was that as long as character A can do something character B can't there will be roles. a roleless game would not have classes, or rather it would have one class.

so you want to tie what god I worship with what I RP as? what if I want to be a healer of the god of war? am I not allowed to because the god of war only has defender powers in his domain?

things like that are things that the game should not be doing, tieing mechaics to RP. the only things my chosen god should effect are RP things I allow it to effect. if I want to play a odd concept that is between you and the DM not you and the Devs



Aren't you arguing against your own point here?

My point is we have classes, we don't need to further split them into roles, because players can do that themselves without a mechanic for it.

Of course you can be a healer of the war god, that only means you won't have healing domain spells, you still have your regular spells to heal with. In fact you have the advantage of being heavily armored and able to get up to the front lines to heal allies, and using words of power you can heal and smash a nearby enemy on the same turn. So that could be a great build, even though healing isn't its predesignated role.

Building a defender as a fighter is pretty easy. Moving away from someone without provoking an AoO requires an action. A monster cannot do that and attack in the same round. So, fighters can stand next to monsters, and they have the survivability to do so. Moreover, fighters can take the protect maneuver. If a monster attacks one of your allies, you can use your reaction to soak up damage equal to your MDD. There are also the shield line feats, which can be very useful. So, fighters as defenders is alive and well.

Rogues and fighters can both do a decent job of being strikers. 

Clerics can still heal and buff, so the leader is alive and well.

Wizards are best at AoE damage and imposing status effects. So, again, the controller is alive and well.

What is the problem exactly? 

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />my point was that as long as character A can do something character B can't there will be roles. a roleless game would not have classes, or rather it would have one class.

so you want to tie what god I worship with what I RP as? what if I want to be a healer of the god of war? am I not allowed to because the god of war only has defender powers in his domain?

things like that are things that the game should not be doing, tieing mechaics to RP. the only things my chosen god should effect are RP things I allow it to effect. if I want to play a odd concept that is between you and the DM not you and the Devs



Aren't you arguing against your own point here?

My point is we have classes, we don't need to further split them into roles, because players can do that themselves without a mechanic for it.

Of course you can be a healer of the war god, that only means you won't have healing domain spells, you still have your regular spells to heal with. In fact you have the advantage of being heavily armored and able to get up to the front lines to heal allies, and using words of power you can heal and smash a nearby enemy on the same turn. So that could be a great build, even though healing isn't its predesignated role.



so you are saying you dont need mechanics to be a healer? what about some ways of healing? if you want to defend you need mechaics to let you do it. supporting roles makes sure that classes have these mechaics

again what spells I take should be my choice and not hinging on what some dev though my god should give out. there should be no mechanical effect from my deity whatsoever, diety is a RP choice and should remain that.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Defacto roles involve permutations of the following possible elements:

Attack type (or rather the targeting method):
• Blaster (distant multitarget attack, area)
• Artillery (distant singletarget attack, archer, shooter, sniper, ranged striker)
• Sprayer (melee multitarget attack, close)
• Infantry (melee singletarget attack, striker)

Power type (really target type):
• Attack (harm enemies)
• Utility (help allies, including self)

Effect type:
• hit points
• defenses
• mobility and stealth
• attack accuracy and extra attack




I like this breakdown.  

We are still early in the development of 5e. I hope that developers focus character options on building on the above classifications.

I realize that devs could overbalance in the wrong direction by segregating options from classes in favor of resources to purchase those options that other classes can buy into.  First a class feature, then a class option, then a power/maneuver/spell/skill trick avaliable to that class, then an buy-in option avaliable to a large subset of classes, then a general feat.  More customization then comes in the form of more resources. This trends towards blandness. Option trees curtail blandness.

Regarding cleric diety choice, RP, and such: The preface in the cleric class summarizes their design goal well.  I'll summarize what they said.

A diety embodies different aspects. Which aspect you most revere is represented by your choice of cleric path. Two clerics serving Pelor might make different choices for the purpose of this class feature. One character might choose the Lightbringer option and another could chose the Protector option.

Thus the god you serve and the RP that results is nicely segregated from the balanced mechanical benefits the designers can control.  Personally I would like more emphasis on the special class features granted so one cleric feels more different from another. Most of the Armored + martial weapons options seem to blend together. These choices need to be as different as the rogue's Sneak Attack is to the executioner. Both fill in the "extra damage" need, but go about it in different ways. Assassin trades more damage for requiring the hidden condition, requiring focusing your resources. SA can get tacked on to almost any kind of rogue and get used to good effect.
DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?

Building a defender as a fighter is pretty easy. Moving away from someone without provoking an AoO requires an action. A monster cannot do that and attack in the same round. So, fighters can stand next to monsters, and they have the survivability to do so. Moreover, fighters can take the protect maneuver. If a monster attacks one of your allies, you can use your reaction to soak up damage equal to your MDD. There are also the shield line feats, which can be very useful. So, fighters as defenders is alive and well.

Rogues and fighters can both do a decent job of being strikers. 

Clerics can still heal and buff, so the leader is alive and well.

Wizards are best at AoE damage and imposing status effects. So, again, the controller is alive and well.

What is the problem exactly? 



This is exactly what I was looking for.  I didn't realize that shifting as a move wasn't possible. It was just yesterday that I read that the "cure X" spells were effectivly minor actions for the cleric, supporting "cleric as best healer." I hope they have a warlord in the works that is as good at enabling as the cleric is at healing.

I agree with rogues and mostly with fighters.
Wizards I disagree with.  They've neutered him too much.  Too often the miss effects of spells focus on damage instead of lesser conditions, thus missing the mark.  To make a better wizard I'd like to see more class features that let him move people around and apply conditions on a miss.

DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
We don't need roles to be spelled out in each individual class. That's one of the things that turned me off of 4th ed. I never decide my role first and sometimes I never fully define it. I choose my class and race and then I decide what type character in a class I want to be by choosing my abilities. I let my abilities define my role based on my choices. I hate pre-defined roles because it makes everything less interesting.
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
We don't need roles to be spelled out in each individual class. That's one of the things that turned me off of 4th ed. I never decide my role first and sometimes I never fully define it. I choose my class and race and then I decide what type character in a class I want to be by choosing my abilities. I let my abilities define my role based on my choices. I hate pre-defined roles because it makes everything less interesting.



without some idea as to role you cant pick your class. if your a rogue you are not a healer for example. so when you choise the rogue class you are chosen your role to a exstent.

not to mention that your way of picking out your character seams both uncommon and not rational. 4e is desgined for you to first pick a concept, like say a moble guy who uses daggers then decide on class and feats and whatnot after that. rather then picking out a class and trying to figure out what he does afterward. the class name is just that, a name it means nothing more then you let it mean. so when you pick out the class you are not really picking out anything

again unless you suport every class being able to heal/support, defend, control, and do damage equal well you want roles. if you make then exsplicit you make sure classes can do them well.

and on the bottom line without roles you will have no balance at all (probably as bad a 3.x was with god-casters) and everyone who liked 4e, or who likes modern RPGs will not buy the game. and the 4e crowd must be won over for the game to succeed the way they want.


Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
We don't need roles to be spelled out in each individual class. That's one of the things that turned me off of 4th ed. I never decide my role first and sometimes I never fully define it. I choose my class and race and then I decide what type character in a class I want to be by choosing my abilities. I let my abilities define my role based on my choices. I hate pre-defined roles because it makes everything less interesting.



without some idea as to role you cant pick your class. if your a rogue you are not a healer for example. so when you choise the rogue class you are chosen your role to a exstent.

not to mention that your way of picking out your character seams both uncommon and not rational. 4e is desgined for you to first pick a concept, like say a moble guy who uses daggers then decide on class and feats and whatnot after that. rather then picking out a class and trying to figure out what he does afterward. the class name is just that, a name it means nothing more then you let it mean. so when you pick out the class you are not really picking out anything

again unless you suport every class being able to heal/support, defend, control, and do damage equal well you want roles. if you make then exsplicit you make sure classes can do them well.

and on the bottom line without roles you will have no balance at all (probably as bad a 3.x was with god-casters) and everyone who liked 4e, or who likes modern RPGs will not buy the game. and the 4e crowd must be won over for the game to succeed the way they want.



That's why I do not play 4e. I do not want to choose a role from the get-go. I choose what I want based on perhaps I what I already played before. I generally choose a class and then a concept. I do not want to be forced to think of a role first and then having to choose 'powers' based on that role.

No, what you are saying is untrue. You can choose whatever you want as a rogue. As a rogue you can easily be a striker or a thug. Not all clerics heal such as evil aligned clerics. I do not want pre-defined roles. If such a thing exists in 5th ed then I most likely will not play the game. Its stupid to lock players in like that. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
There are required jobs that need to get done with regards to combat: Patching people up and Taking down baddies.
To stop combat from taking forever you need to either completely shut down all options for baddies (something the god-wizard could do), or eliminate them (something that focused strikers can do).  All 5e classes are capable of doing sufficent damage to have combat end in a reasonable time, but the striker should shine at making it take 2-3 rounds less.
Every class is capable of patching up people with a healers kit and a healer-less party survives encounters within expectations, but a cleric will make the party spend fewer hit dice.
A defender-less party will still be able to handle a brute, but a Protecting Fighter will reduce total incomming damage significantly.

I take it as the design goal to have an unfocused party (PCs created by xladyfayre for example), and encounters still take 4-5 rounds to complete, 3-4 encounters per day before you run out of hit dice.
When you have more focused builds you simply rise from being on-par.  

4e was designed to have a focused PC filling each role to be on-par.  If you took a stock striker in the latter end of 4e it felt lack-luster compared with other more focused builds.
DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
There are required jobs that need to get done with regards to combat: Patching people up and Taking down baddies.
To stop combat from taking forever you need to either completely shut down all options for baddies (something the god-wizard could do), or eliminate them (something that focused strikers can do).  All 5e classes are capable of doing sufficent damage to have combat end in a reasonable time, but the striker should shine at making it take 2-3 rounds less.
Every class is capable of patching up people with a healers kit and a healer-less party survives encounters within expectations, but a cleric will make the party spend fewer hit dice.
A defender-less party will still be able to handle a brute, but a Protecting Fighter will reduce total incomming damage significantly.

I take it as the design goal to have an unfocused party (PCs created by xladyfayre for example), and encounters still take 4-5 rounds to complete, 3-4 encounters per day before you run out of hit dice.
When you have more focused builds you simply rise from being on-par.  

4e was designed to have a focused PC filling each role to be on-par.  If you took a stock striker in the latter end of 4e it felt lack-luster compared with other more focused builds.


That's one reason why I think 5e looks a lot better than 4e so far. 
Its not that we never have an unfocused party but our group talks about what each person wants to play and we tend to choose our class before our role. If we need someone to strike then one person may choose that but its not what we think about first. Like when we played 4e the several sessions we did we had to choose based on roles. I honestly had no idea 'roles' existed before that. It felt uncreative and like I was looking at a video game screen.  
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
We don't need roles to be spelled out in each individual class. That's one of the things that turned me off of 4th ed. I never decide my role first and sometimes I never fully define it. I choose my class and race and then I decide what type character in a class I want to be by choosing my abilities. I let my abilities define my role based on my choices. I hate pre-defined roles because it makes everything less interesting.



without some idea as to role you cant pick your class. if your a rogue you are not a healer for example. so when you choise the rogue class you are chosen your role to a exstent.

not to mention that your way of picking out your character seams both uncommon and not rational. 4e is desgined for you to first pick a concept, like say a moble guy who uses daggers then decide on class and feats and whatnot after that. rather then picking out a class and trying to figure out what he does afterward. the class name is just that, a name it means nothing more then you let it mean. so when you pick out the class you are not really picking out anything

again unless you suport every class being able to heal/support, defend, control, and do damage equal well you want roles. if you make then exsplicit you make sure classes can do them well.

and on the bottom line without roles you will have no balance at all (probably as bad a 3.x was with god-casters) and everyone who liked 4e, or who likes modern RPGs will not buy the game. and the 4e crowd must be won over for the game to succeed the way they want.



That's why I do not play 4e. I do not want to choose a role from the get-go. I choose what I want based on perhaps I what I already played before. I generally choose a class and then a concept. I do not want to be forced to think of a role first and then having to choose 'powers' based on that role.

No, what you are saying is untrue. You can choose whatever you want as a rogue. As a rogue you can easily be a striker or a thug. Not all clerics heal such as evil aligned clerics. I do not want pre-defined roles. If such a thing exists in 5th ed then I most likely will not play the game. Its stupid to lock players in like that. 



classes are and are only sets of mechaics, they are not archatypes, they are not anything else just sets of mechanics.

your acting like you cant be certain archatypes without being certain classes, like you cant be sneaky unless your a rogue, or a dumb brute unless your a fighter. therefor if you want to be a striker dumb brute you must be a fighter who is a striker.

this is just not true, you can be a rogue who is a dumb brute, or a steathy fighter. you should pick what you want your chacter to be then pick your class becaue classes exist to help you play a concept. if you want to be a archer who was in the military then you should probably pick ranger, you can call yourself a fighter if you want of course

by your reasoning I should be able to play a rogue as a healer as easy as a striker and be as good a healer as a cleric can be. after all I picked "rogue" when I started the game but then decided to be a healer, I should not let my class get in the way of what I can do

P.S. your ignorance of roles does not mean they do not exist or never did exist.


Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
We don't need roles to be spelled out in each individual class. That's one of the things that turned me off of 4th ed. I never decide my role first and sometimes I never fully define it. I choose my class and race and then I decide what type character in a class I want to be by choosing my abilities. I let my abilities define my role based on my choices. I hate pre-defined roles because it makes everything less interesting.



without some idea as to role you cant pick your class. if your a rogue you are not a healer for example. so when you choise the rogue class you are chosen your role to a exstent.

not to mention that your way of picking out your character seams both uncommon and not rational. 4e is desgined for you to first pick a concept, like say a moble guy who uses daggers then decide on class and feats and whatnot after that. rather then picking out a class and trying to figure out what he does afterward. the class name is just that, a name it means nothing more then you let it mean. so when you pick out the class you are not really picking out anything

again unless you suport every class being able to heal/support, defend, control, and do damage equal well you want roles. if you make then exsplicit you make sure classes can do them well.

and on the bottom line without roles you will have no balance at all (probably as bad a 3.x was with god-casters) and everyone who liked 4e, or who likes modern RPGs will not buy the game. and the 4e crowd must be won over for the game to succeed the way they want.



That's why I do not play 4e. I do not want to choose a role from the get-go. I choose what I want based on perhaps I what I already played before. I generally choose a class and then a concept. I do not want to be forced to think of a role first and then having to choose 'powers' based on that role.

No, what you are saying is untrue. You can choose whatever you want as a rogue. As a rogue you can easily be a striker or a thug. Not all clerics heal such as evil aligned clerics. I do not want pre-defined roles. If such a thing exists in 5th ed then I most likely will not play the game. Its stupid to lock players in like that. 



classes are and are only sets of mechaics, they are not archatypes, they are not anything else just sets of mechanics.

your acting like you cant be certain archatypes without being certain classes, like you cant be sneaky unless your a rogue, or a dumb brute unless your a fighter. therefor if you want to be a striker dumb brute you must be a fighter who is a striker.

this is just not true, you can be a rogue who is a dumb brute, or a steathy fighter. you should pick what you want your chacter to be then pick your class becaue classes exist to help you play a concept. if you want to be a archer who was in the military then you should probably pick ranger, you can call yourself a fighter if you want of course

by your reasoning I should be able to play a rogue as a healer as easy as a striker and be as good a healer as a cleric can be. after all I picked "rogue" when I started the game but then decided to be a healer, I should not let my class get in the way of what I can do

P.S. your ignorance of roles does not mean they do not exist or never did exist.




Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I think, "oh, there's this new class i want to try that!". Other times I think of wanting to play a magical fighter so I decided on Magus in Pathfinder. I don't even know how I would do that in DnD, lol with the sorceror's base attack being so low. 

Simply put some people play the game much differently than others. I do not want to play a game in which my role is defined by my class. I want to define it myself based on the abilities I want to choose. If I want to be a fighter with a bow then I can be a striker if I choose but maybe I do not want my fighter to strike. I should be able to choose that. Maybe I don't want to be a ranger. Maybe I do not like the abilities that a ranger gets. Maybe I want to be rogueish but not be a rogue. I should be able to choose that.

No, I am not saying that each class should do all the same things and have the same abilities. Of course not. I think that some roles can easily be created by multiple classes by the weapons and abilities chosen. In 5e so far you can choose to play a cleric that strikes by using Lance of Faith. You can choose to play a defender rogue. I don't think all roles can be filled by all classes. I just think they don't need to be pre-determined by the design.
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
We don't need roles to be spelled out in each individual class. That's one of the things that turned me off of 4th ed. I never decide my role first and sometimes I never fully define it. I choose my class and race and then I decide what type character in a class I want to be by choosing my abilities. I let my abilities define my role based on my choices. I hate pre-defined roles because it makes everything less interesting.



without some idea as to role you cant pick your class. if your a rogue you are not a healer for example. so when you choise the rogue class you are chosen your role to a exstent.

not to mention that your way of picking out your character seams both uncommon and not rational. 4e is desgined for you to first pick a concept, like say a moble guy who uses daggers then decide on class and feats and whatnot after that. rather then picking out a class and trying to figure out what he does afterward. the class name is just that, a name it means nothing more then you let it mean. so when you pick out the class you are not really picking out anything

again unless you suport every class being able to heal/support, defend, control, and do damage equal well you want roles. if you make then exsplicit you make sure classes can do them well.

and on the bottom line without roles you will have no balance at all (probably as bad a 3.x was with god-casters) and everyone who liked 4e, or who likes modern RPGs will not buy the game. and the 4e crowd must be won over for the game to succeed the way they want.



That's why I do not play 4e. I do not want to choose a role from the get-go. I choose what I want based on perhaps I what I already played before. I generally choose a class and then a concept. I do not want to be forced to think of a role first and then having to choose 'powers' based on that role.

No, what you are saying is untrue. You can choose whatever you want as a rogue. As a rogue you can easily be a striker or a thug. Not all clerics heal such as evil aligned clerics. I do not want pre-defined roles. If such a thing exists in 5th ed then I most likely will not play the game. Its stupid to lock players in like that. 



classes are and are only sets of mechaics, they are not archatypes, they are not anything else just sets of mechanics.

your acting like you cant be certain archatypes without being certain classes, like you cant be sneaky unless your a rogue, or a dumb brute unless your a fighter. therefor if you want to be a striker dumb brute you must be a fighter who is a striker.

this is just not true, you can be a rogue who is a dumb brute, or a steathy fighter. you should pick what you want your chacter to be then pick your class becaue classes exist to help you play a concept. if you want to be a archer who was in the military then you should probably pick ranger, you can call yourself a fighter if you want of course

by your reasoning I should be able to play a rogue as a healer as easy as a striker and be as good a healer as a cleric can be. after all I picked "rogue" when I started the game but then decided to be a healer, I should not let my class get in the way of what I can do

P.S. your ignorance of roles does not mean they do not exist or never did exist.




Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I think, "oh, there's this new class i want to try that!". Other times I think of wanting to play a magical fighter so I decided on Magus in Pathfinder. I don't even know how I would do that in DnD, lol with the sorceror's base attack being so low. 

Simply put some people play the game much differently than others. I do not want to play a game in which my role is defined by my class. I want to define it myself based on the abilities I want to choose. If I want to be a fighter with a bow then I can be a striker if I choose but maybe I do not want my fighter to strike. I should be able to choose that. Maybe I don't want to be a ranger. Maybe I do not like the abilities that a ranger gets. Maybe I want to be rogueish but not be a rogue. I should be able to choose that.

No, I am not saying that each class should do all the same things and have the same abilities. Of course not. I think that some roles can easily be created by multiple classes by the weapons and abilities chosen. In 5e so far you can choose to play a cleric that strikes by using Lance of Faith. You can choose to play a defender rogue. I don't think all roles can be filled by all classes. I just think they don't need to be pre-determined by the design.



so your saying not every class should be able to do every role, but that the designers should not have this in mind when they make classes. you want the rogue to be a striker but you dont want them designed to be one?

what is wrong with saying that class X has roles A and B, and you can decide what comination of A and B you want. you even said you dont want every class to be able to do every role, what is wrong with saying that the rogue cant heal, then making sure if he wants to do damage he can do enough to matter? or if he wants to control he has the tools to do it?


Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
We don't need roles to be spelled out in each individual class. That's one of the things that turned me off of 4th ed. I never decide my role first and sometimes I never fully define it. I choose my class and race and then I decide what type character in a class I want to be by choosing my abilities. I let my abilities define my role based on my choices. I hate pre-defined roles because it makes everything less interesting.



without some idea as to role you cant pick your class. if your a rogue you are not a healer for example. so when you choise the rogue class you are chosen your role to a exstent.

not to mention that your way of picking out your character seams both uncommon and not rational. 4e is desgined for you to first pick a concept, like say a moble guy who uses daggers then decide on class and feats and whatnot after that. rather then picking out a class and trying to figure out what he does afterward. the class name is just that, a name it means nothing more then you let it mean. so when you pick out the class you are not really picking out anything

again unless you suport every class being able to heal/support, defend, control, and do damage equal well you want roles. if you make then exsplicit you make sure classes can do them well.

and on the bottom line without roles you will have no balance at all (probably as bad a 3.x was with god-casters) and everyone who liked 4e, or who likes modern RPGs will not buy the game. and the 4e crowd must be won over for the game to succeed the way they want.



That's why I do not play 4e. I do not want to choose a role from the get-go. I choose what I want based on perhaps I what I already played before. I generally choose a class and then a concept. I do not want to be forced to think of a role first and then having to choose 'powers' based on that role.

No, what you are saying is untrue. You can choose whatever you want as a rogue. As a rogue you can easily be a striker or a thug. Not all clerics heal such as evil aligned clerics. I do not want pre-defined roles. If such a thing exists in 5th ed then I most likely will not play the game. Its stupid to lock players in like that. 



classes are and are only sets of mechaics, they are not archatypes, they are not anything else just sets of mechanics.

your acting like you cant be certain archatypes without being certain classes, like you cant be sneaky unless your a rogue, or a dumb brute unless your a fighter. therefor if you want to be a striker dumb brute you must be a fighter who is a striker.

this is just not true, you can be a rogue who is a dumb brute, or a steathy fighter. you should pick what you want your chacter to be then pick your class becaue classes exist to help you play a concept. if you want to be a archer who was in the military then you should probably pick ranger, you can call yourself a fighter if you want of course

by your reasoning I should be able to play a rogue as a healer as easy as a striker and be as good a healer as a cleric can be. after all I picked "rogue" when I started the game but then decided to be a healer, I should not let my class get in the way of what I can do

P.S. your ignorance of roles does not mean they do not exist or never did exist.




Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I think, "oh, there's this new class i want to try that!". Other times I think of wanting to play a magical fighter so I decided on Magus in Pathfinder. I don't even know how I would do that in DnD, lol with the sorceror's base attack being so low. 

Simply put some people play the game much differently than others. I do not want to play a game in which my role is defined by my class. I want to define it myself based on the abilities I want to choose. If I want to be a fighter with a bow then I can be a striker if I choose but maybe I do not want my fighter to strike. I should be able to choose that. Maybe I don't want to be a ranger. Maybe I do not like the abilities that a ranger gets. Maybe I want to be rogueish but not be a rogue. I should be able to choose that.

No, I am not saying that each class should do all the same things and have the same abilities. Of course not. I think that some roles can easily be created by multiple classes by the weapons and abilities chosen. In 5e so far you can choose to play a cleric that strikes by using Lance of Faith. You can choose to play a defender rogue. I don't think all roles can be filled by all classes. I just think they don't need to be pre-determined by the design.



so your saying not every class should be able to do every role, but that the designers should not have this in mind when they make classes. you want the rogue to be a striker but you dont want them designed to be one?

what is wrong with saying that class X has roles A and B, and you can decide what comination of A and B you want. you even said you dont want every class to be able to do every role, what is wrong with saying that the rogue cant heal, then making sure if he wants to do damage he can do enough to matter? or if he wants to control he has the tools to do it?


What I'm saying is that it is perfectly fine for some overlap because of the way some may create their characters such as a ranged cleric which is possible in 5e. I don't think that only ONE role is a one size fits all- and it shouldn't be. I'd be fine if they listed possible roles as opposed to saying this class is a striker, that class is a defender and this one is the controller. It would be fine for those who pay attention to that. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
Guys, Guys! Let's refocus the discussion.
Let's discuss what options and elements help craft a PC to fulfill the common roles.  What options, divine spells or otherwise, that help support a healer role.  What options a fighter, for example, could take to be an enabler.

Let's go from the base that Haldrik gave us, focusing mostly on the Utility roles.  Those are the least quantifiable and deserve the most focus to get right the first time.
 
DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
Or in other words: Everyone is a striker so we can finnish this borring thing called combat with 2-3 die rolls each. Then we dont have to think either just use all our MDD on damage or cast magic missile
Who playes DnD for bashing monsters anyway? 



Bump.

A role is completely abstract.  It means nothing in the Kingdom of Whatevershire.  Be whoever and whatever you want to be.  A healing rogue you say?  Take the healing initiate or herbalism feat.  Maybe you're a pious thief faithful to one of fiction's many Thieves' Gods or a hedge mage.  Or with herbalism you could be a mob doctor.  I would call a Maester in Game of Thrones "healing rogues."

Vampire Class/Feat in 2013!

I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."

Or in other words: Everyone is a striker so we can finnish this borring thing called combat with 2-3 die rolls each. Then we dont have to think either just use all our MDD on damage or cast magic missile
Who playes DnD for bashing monsters anyway? 



Bump.

A role is completely abstract.  It means nothing in the Kingdom of Whatevershire.  Be whoever and whatever you want to be.  A healing rogue you say?  Take the healing initiate or herbalism feat.  Maybe you're a pious thief faithful to one of fiction's many Thieves' Gods or a hedge mage.  Or with herbalism you could be a mob doctor.  I would call a Maester in Game of Thrones "healing rogues."



a CLASS is abstract and is nothing more then a name, a role is what you do in combat and is far from abstract. are you a healer? do you take hits so others dont have to? do you kill things?

combat is by far the most important part of the system for two reason 1) a large number of people like it more then anything else, and would not play a game with boring combat 2) you cant ad lib combat, you NEED rules to see what happens. you dont need this for RP, and you only need a few simple rules for exporation. combat is why a great many people would buy the game, because that is what they cant make and what they exspent to be tested and to work out of the box.

you can play a warlord (marshal leader) and call yourself a healing rogue. that way you can keep things balanced for the large number of people who want to buy a game worth more then the paper it is printed on.

I dont know so many people cant seam to be creative enough to unlock class from architype, you can RP any class however you want you dont need it to say "Rogue" on the tin to play a rogue. learn to RP a character not to just play the class that is writen on the character sheet
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Or in other words: Everyone is a striker so we can finnish this borring thing called combat with 2-3 die rolls each. Then we dont have to think either just use all our MDD on damage or cast magic missile
Who playes DnD for bashing monsters anyway? 



Bump.

A role is completely abstract.  It means nothing in the Kingdom of Whatevershire.  Be whoever and whatever you want to be.  A healing rogue you say?  Take the healing initiate or herbalism feat.  Maybe you're a pious thief faithful to one of fiction's many Thieves' Gods or a hedge mage.  Or with herbalism you could be a mob doctor.  I would call a Maester in Game of Thrones "healing rogues."



a CLASS is abstract and is nothing more then a name, a role is what you do in combat and is far from abstract. are you a healer? do you take hits so others dont have to? do you kill things?

combat is by far the most important part of the system for two reason 1) a large number of people like it more then anything else, and would not play a game with boring combat 2) you cant ad lib combat, you NEED rules to see what happens. you dont need this for RP, and you only need a few simple rules for exporation. combat is why a great many people would buy the game, because that is what they cant make and what they exspent to be tested and to work out of the box.

you can play a warlord (marshal leader) and call yourself a healing rogue. that way you can keep things balanced for the large number of people who want to buy a game worth more then the paper it is printed on.

I dont know so many people cant seam to be creative enough to unlock class from architype, you can RP any class however you want you dont need it to say "Rogue" on the tin to play a rogue. learn to RP a character not to just play the class that is writen on the character sheet


I don't think a class is just a name. A class has fluff and mechanics that define it like a story about that class in of itself. I think of a role as simply something that 4e implemented that gets in the way of what I want to play. I don't need a predetermined role to know that I want to cast spells, be sneaky, hit stuff, or heal the party. All that is determined by what you choose to do with your class, feats, traits, and skills. Pre-defined roles are unneccesary and lock a player into it as opposed to allowing them to build whatever role they want within the class they are playing. I understand that not every class can fill multiple roles on its own. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
I dont know so many people cant seem to be creative enough to unlock class from archetype, you can RP any class however you want you dont need it to say "Rogue" on the tin to play a rogue. learn to RP a character not to just play the class that is writen on the character sheet

A class is exactly two things: it is a fluffy conceptual archetype, and it is the set of game mechanics for expressing what that type of character does. The crunch follows directly from the fluff.

That's not saying you can't change things. It is good and expected that you should change things to fit your character. That's a two-way street, though. Many DMs seems to be fine with letting you change the fluff, because they know it's unlikely to affect game balance, but draw the line at letting you adjust the mechanics. That kind of thinking damages the integrity of the system, because those mechanics aren't derived directly from this new fluff you made up; they're derived from that other fluff, that you disregarded so casually.

And to some people, damaging the integrity of the game - the world in which the story takes place - is much worse than possibly hurting balance a tiny bit.

The metagame is not the game.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />so you are saying you dont need mechanics to be a healer? what about some ways of healing? if you want to defend you need mechaics to let you do it. supporting roles makes sure that classes have these mechaics

again what spells I take should be my choice and not hinging on what some dev though my god should give out. there should be no mechanical effect from my deity whatsoever, diety is a RP choice and should remain that.



I really don't understand your point. You seem to be saying both that we need more concrete mechanics for classes and that we also don't.

And the current deity system is really not as constraining as you say it is. For example you could worship Athena as a goddess of war, or of wisdom, or defense, or art. The domain spells and abilities just provide the mechanics for you to worship whatever deity you want. And there have to be some constraints or you could worship Gruumsh as the Lifegiver or St Cuthbert as the Trickster. It does mean something in mechanics. If I'm going up against a pack of wolves I can make a Knowledge (Nature) check to learn about wolves. If I'm going to be fighting a Cleric of Corellon Larethian I should be able to make a Knowledge (Religion) check to see what kinds of spells he might have.