|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 1:09AM
#21
|
|
|
Ok I know a lot of people object to codified roles for classes, because .... well I haven't heard any good reasons but it seems to be a thing anyway.
Do people really have a problem with the labels? It's not like classes with roles is something new...
I'm not a huge fan of pigeon-holing classes into a single role though. I'd like to be able to play a wizard defender or a fighter controller. I'd also like to be able to decide my percentage of each role too.
What if each class had specific features for a role and when you take the class you choose which role features it progresses.
I'd love to see something like this. The good news is that I might get what I want! We already have combat styles, cleric domains, wizard traditions, warlock pacts, rogue schemes, sorcerer origines. I won't be able to adjust the percentage of each role with these but being able to select one would be good enough.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 1:51AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Preferrably I would like to se Mark as a general combat action that anyone can take. Fighters could get a CS ability that lets them do it without using any action if they spend a dice
Huh. I actually like that quite a bit. Though isn't that just a flavor of "aid another"? (Wait, does 5e have an Aid Another action or equivalent?)
Yes, if mark is just that -2 to hit someone else.
If mark is what it is for defenders in 4e: if you attack someone but me I get to hit you (maybe with advantage), or something like that, it becomes more interesting and tactical.
There is a Help action, but I don't think it applies to attacks or defenses.
In an earlier version, Help action specifically worked on attacks.
It no longer says that it does - but it is still listed under "Actions in Combat".
On the other hand - it refers to "checks" rather than "attacks" - and, although an argument for an attack being a check can be made - in most cases they are not treated as such.
It did apply to attacks in an earlier iteration of the rules - so they took it out for the current version; no idea whether that was a permanent change or will be reversed. Personally - since it fits the general approach of "pay an action to gain advantage" - even if one person pays the action to give someone else advantage - I'd have allowed it. Time will tell.
Carl
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 7:40AM
#23
|
|
|
Clarification, I mean, classes and characters should not be locked into a role, especially not balance wise like in 4E.
People keep saying that... and I don't see where 4E characters or classes are locked into roles.
Yeah, I know that PHB1 lists only one role per class... by the time they did PHB2, they knew better. Every class has a role it's best suited for, but pretty much every class that can do *that* role adequately can also do at least one other role adequately, and most can do two other roles.
(Vampire and a few others can't do anything adequately.)
On the other hand, even greater flexibility would be nice. I'd like every class to be able to be at its best in the player's choice of at least two and preferably three roles. (Not many pure classes could handle all four of the 4E-defined roles. But then I want more roles defined, primarily by subdividing those four, and to expect every character to actually be good at more than one. And then I want to give exploration and non-combat interaction the same treatment.)
If a fighter chooses to use a shield and platemail he becomes more of a defender and less than a striker than a figher in medium armor and a two handed sword, but the rules don't force them into those categories.
Hm, that matches 4E quite well. So maybe I misread what you were saying.
Stripped of its features, but not the core of their powers all classes are quite similar.
A typical striker, leader, defender or striker deals the same damage on a typical at will (1[W] + mods) and the same on encounter abilities of the same level.
In 4E, the balance of roles are then constructed using class features and additons to this base.
- All strikers gain a class feature that allows them to do a similar amount of extra damage on top of the normal damage. The feature varies in exact composition but the damage is at least intended to be equal.
- All defenders gain a marking abillity and something to do when a mark is violated, or in later defenders, an aura that worked like a mark.
- All leaders gain a two-piece use a surge and get extra HP on a minor. In additon they get some trigger buffs on their attacks.
- Controllers are a bit more diverse, which makes it the easiest role to replace.
No class, except the berserker in HoF and maybe some in Essentials if you mess with them, provides the role-power of more than one role. Thus a character is locked to a role by lacking the role-defining powers of the other roles. Sure, they can pretend to fill the role without those, but a 2h-fighter will never deal damage on par with a striker, a leader will never be a defender regardless of platemail and shield, etc.
Hybrid classes allowed construction of dual role characters, but most often at either a high price that made your character useless, or by exploiting loopholes that made it feel like cheating instead.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:10AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
It seems this edition is leaving the Controller, Leader, Striker, Defender roles. But your point still stands.
I disagree.
This edition is not leaving those roles, it's hiding them.
We've had roles at least since 1E, but they weren't called that. In 4E they were called that, and mishandled a bit to create the false impression that each class was locked into a role (which impression should die if you've read PHB2, Martial Power, or the Wizard spell list in PHB1), and that mishandling was one of several factors that cause some people to reject anything that looks even vaguely like 4E even if it happens to be a dramatic improvement in game design over prior editions. So now they are forced to go back to not having identified roles, and must also avoid those specific role-names even though the characters still have to perform the same functions.
Pretending you are not doing what you are definitely are doing, does not generally contribute to good design. And if what sort of things a class (or power, or etc.) might need to be good for is not defined, you start getting classes (etc) that aren't good for much of anything.
I was never satisfied with the division into four roles anyway. Here's the current version of my list of combat roles:
Melee striker
Ranged striker
Area striker
Melee defender
Ranged defender
Buffer
Debuffer
Healer
Enabler
Ranged controller
Area controller
Melee controller
Battlefield arrangement
Not only would I not lock a class into one of them, I generally would make only a small number of negative recommendations ("this class is usually not good at X or Y"). I'd prefer each individual character to be good at not less than three roles. ANY three (or more) that can be made to work.
I was considering making a post about that very thing... what are the real roles! (and ignore the negative crap of people pretending roles dont exist) The simplistic broad roles described initially in 4e were for newbies to get them in to game the classes where nowhere near just one role and the roles themselves are more elaborate... I have heard of a variant of the defender called the martyr... The Vampyre class was described as such to me.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:28AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
I guess I'm in the camp that is against codified roles hardwired into the system. I think that most players adopt a role depending on what abilities their characters choose, so in essence, it is the specialty or feat choice that helps mold PC roles.
In addition, depending on the situation in combat or in non-combat situation, often players may want to try out different roles, or they may be forced into different roles. If they have some ability that can be used for striking, leading, defending, controlling, in the right situation, they should step up and switch roles.
I also like the idea that players have to communicate with each other and coordinate their tactics (or learn to play with each other) rather than having pre-scribed roles. To me, the every man for himself feeling immerses me into the game world more completely than "I am the controller" does.
That being said, maybe WoTc, should write a section into the Character section of the rules that explains typical roles and lists some of the abilities or feats that help PCs perform those roles.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 9:31AM
#26
|
|
|
Codification is there for new players, it really helps them get up to speed of the concepts of the game. Calling a mark a mark and a defender a defender, helps them learn to play the game. This is no different than calling dice dice and tokens tokens, all gamist terminology that everyone now knows because of playing monopoly as a kid, but nobody questions them. Without the simplified jargon, it becomes more confusing to use and learn. If instead you had to say dot marked polyhedral collection then it gets confusing when yours has numbers or how about representational flat small cut out piece, when your tokens are the standup kind.
They will outgrow the simplistic terminology and further learn the complexities that are layered in the system and buy all the players manuals and such, or they may stick to the plastic pregen labeled 'defender with mark' they got at encounters and never change. But you cannot make the terminology complex because it defeats the purpose of helping the new player get into the game. Unless you are in the camp that thinks that D&D should remain a game for the old guard and you learned it decades ago and so shall the new blood. WOTC needs to grow their audience as the old guard is not enough to keep the game off the life support it is on, they are trying by doing board and skirmish and card games to keep the D&D brand, but I don't see much overlap there for RP types.
Packaging feats and powers per role does not really work, it has to be per role and class - even though the mage may function as a controller, if they are prohibited from shields and armor all the feats/powers related to that need rewritten to say things like magical shields and magical armour. Instead of physically pushing or commanding things around the battle field, they are throwing down ice and using their orbs force powers. So they may behave the same in the same role, but you cannot describe them the same with common controller powers/feats unless you entirely remove flavour text and have them be incredibly boring and say 'slide 2'. Likewise the druid may have a power where vines on the trees snake across the battlefield and control the enemy, how they control the battlefield is very different from another class.
People say they get bored of 4e because the mechanics are all the same, but watch a game where the DM/PC read the flavour line on their power cards every attack, it makes for a huge difference in RP. If you try to boil the game down to mechanics like you have the push feat means you are a defender or you have the slide feat means you are a controller, it does indeed get incredibly boring.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 3:19PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
The problem I've always seen is that if you design without some sort of role in mind (whether this role 'defender' or 'guy who hands out the heals when he attacks', a purpose role vs. an ability role) you end up with classes like the wizard and swashbuckler, one is massively op because he can do anything better than anyone else (until the erudite and the artificer come along anyways), the other is massively up because he doesn't really do anything well.
Sesdun, not quite correct, some classes such as the barbarian or many controllers like the wizard relied on their powers to perform their role, this is why their powers are some of the best to powerswap in for. Furthermore they weren't as stuck as you make them out to be, for example I can easily make a standard great weapon fighter who outdamages a slayer, all ai have to do is play a dwarf, use an axe, and abuse my marking mechanics to generate extra attacks. If you want out of your assigned role you gotta use the abilities they give you to do it.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 3:31PM
#28
|
|
|
Yes I know, for some classes these things were baked into the powers, but that's an exception to the basic structure. That's part of what I meant when I said you could use loopholes and exploits that felt like cheating to create some hybrids.
There is no reason for why the barbarian striker ability would be more easily obtainable to other classes than some of the other role abilities... the entire system feel bugged and poorly thought through. =(
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 3:39PM
#29
|
|
|
Ok I know a lot of people object to codified roles for classes, because .... well I haven't heard any good reasons but it seems to be a thing anyway.
What if each class had specific features for a role and when you take the class you choose which role features it progresses.
Not a bad idea... if you think of a class/character entirely by their combat role. Not everyone wants to design a character thinking of that, or have the design based around that one aspect of the game. The four roles are great in a combat game, but have no place with the story or exploration. And they're really only good for a tactical combat, having little use in a strategic combat or ambush combat. They're very narrow.
It's also fairly limited. Beacause it's tied to single class features, it's hard to multi-role to fill gaps in smaller groups. And people who don't want a role have to pick one.
It leads to role-filling in party design, where the group is expected to have all the roles filled. So the game assumed that, which means if someone deviates from the baseline (no defender, no healer, etc) the game does not function as well. Conversely, if roles are dedicated but the game is not balanced around filling roles, a party with a solid member of each role will find the game too easy.
It also leads the design of the game down one direction. Classes are designed not around what the class should do or what best represents that class, but into one of the four roles. And with your design, there's this implication that most classes need to fill multiple roles. There has to be a rogue that's not a striker, or that class feels lacking, so there's a forced attempt to make a rogue controller or something.
So for example instead of having the druid be OMFG HAX! because it has multiple class features stronger than whole classes, like in 3e, or limited to the wild-shape caster like in 4e. You pick one based on the role you wanna fill and how you wanna fill it.
So a defender druid would get wild shape and a more limited spell list.
A striker druid would get animal companion and a more limited spell list.
A controller druid would get better spells, especially access to AoEs and such.
While a leader druid would get more healy-buffy spells.
But does that feel like a druid? Would a 1e or 2e or 3e player new to the game look at that class and say, "Yes. This does everything I want a druid to do. I can remake my druid from older editions and it will work fine albeit more balanced."
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? My Webcomic: 5 Minute WorkdayUpdated every Tuesday and Thursday Spoiler:
Show
Updated Tuesday and ThursdayRead my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list). You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 3:41PM
#30
|
|
|
@rampant
I doubt that would outdamage an elven slayer that just dumps everything into dex and uses a bow.
I think I reached a flat bonus of over +20 damage on my slayer on any basic ranged attack at lvl 5, and that was as a human, not an elf, and he got a swift ranged weapon... _-_
|
|
|
