|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 3:57PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2007
|
I think people don't like roles because they're something new. Another aspect, though, is that they were fundamentally applied wrong -- because even in the Player's Handbook, you could make Paladins that weren't defenders and Clerics that weren't Leaders. I think roles should have been applied to individual mechanic parcels (as a keyword), rather than whole classes -- so you can infer that a rogue is a largely-striker class if most of the powers, features and class feats have the Striker keyword, but the rogue is at no point labeled as a striker wholly, because a non-striker could be implemented.
Also, it might've presented the game the wrong way. Classes in 4e are listed first by their power source and role; so a rogue was a Martial Striker first. These roles were combat-only, so it demonstrated to people that were just learning the game that the system defines classes purely in the way they behave in combat (at least, as shorthand; again, Martial Striker told you nothing about its non-combat options).
Rather than creating a set of roles and squeezing classes into the categories, maybe D&D Next should look at the character types of the past editions and create categories for them to fit into. Categories that reflect all three pillars, rather than just one. Merely a thought; I have no example categories in mind.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 4:14PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I used roles mostly as a DM tool - they're handy (though really inaccurate in some cases) markers for "knowing what the party's strengths are", without actually having to know the ins and outs of every class and ability as DM.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 4:22PM
#13
|
|
|
Not all classes need to be able to fill all 4e roles, but preferrably more than one. I don't really like binding roles to class variants such as pacts, domains, etc. because it should be possible to create a character with a hybrid role, no role or an ambiguous strange role if so desired..
Something I am actually missing from 4E is the tactical part of movement (provoking opportunity attacks when moving within a threated area) and also marking.
I kind of disliked marking when I began playing 4e but I gradually started to like the mechanic, although we do it in a houseruled way (multiple marks can overlap from different characters/monsters).
It brings some more tactical aspects to the game.
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, and maybe refund two dice if the target violates the mark, or somesuch.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 4:24PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
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?)
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 6:39PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
Personally, I found the 4e roles to be pointless. Characters still end up being an amalgamation of their abilities in 4e, crossing role boundaries all the time. No skin off my teeth should roles be included in 5e, I simply have no need or desire for them as long as the underlying amalgamation of abilities that make up any particular character are fun.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 7:10PM
#16
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 7:51PM
#17
|
|
|
Ideally I would like to see feats being used to define roles, by modifying stats/class features/abilities to be more geared towards a certain style.
So a defender might have a series of feats that in total give him +2-3 hp per level and +1-2 AC, something similar to marking, and the ability to take multiple reactions in a round.
This would be a series of feats that any class can take to become an adequate defender. Some classes may be more inclined to it by default, but anyone can pick it up. If you want a durable front line wizard, you can do it (though the current inability to use any armor at all somewhat hinders this. It works much better for all the other classes).
On the other hand, you might have a similar series that gears a character more towards strikerness, giving a slight bonus to hit, a scaling bonus to damage, an ability or two to help pierce enemy defenses (such as DR/ER) , and you're good to go.
Do something like that for each role, give a few more feats of each role than a single character can take, and let them cherry pick/mix and match as they please.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 10:54PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
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.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 11:07PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Ther reason people objected to roles is that they are unnecessary and limiting. If you want to play a fighter as a damage sponge, you'll choose equipment and abilities which serve that proposed function. There's no need to codify it with a metagame term like 'tank' or 'defender.' And if you do, what do you do when a situation suddenly calls for your self-styled "defender" to suddenly act as a 'controller' by hurling the team halfling over a lava flow, or a 'striker' because he needs to crit on this dragon or we all die? What does she do, just throw up her hands and say "sorry, not my role?" That's assanine. So roles break immersion with metagamey concepts for absolutely no reason. They're crap.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 11:29PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 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.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
