# Roles in Roleplaying Games



## Mark CMG (Nov 15, 2011)

A recent quote from the "Rule of Three" article from Rich Baker on the WotC website has me wondering if the designers of D&D are rethinking the trend in the last decade or so of thinking in terms of "roles" being codified as the role a character plays in combat.



> Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all.




How does this affect your own sense of the game?  Have your games always had "roles" tied to their combat role (regardless of edition)?  Does codifying "roles" as combat roles affect the way players approach the game?  How so, in your own experience?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 15, 2011)

I think that in general combat roles are a fairly natural development.  In the real world, military tactics have used formalized roles since the Romans, Greeks, and before, and similar things are still used today right?  Why shouldn't gamers use the same basic concept?

Unless your game has no stats whatsoever, a given character is going to be better at some things than others.  And one (as a player or character) will probably tend to play to strengths in a situation as risky as a fight, so what the character is good at will tend to define your role in combat for you.  In a game with classes, then, a class will tend to fall into some combat role, whether the roles are formally defined or not.  

There will probably always be some bleed over from combat role to non-combat abilities, if only because some combat roles call for certain skills and attributes, and those skills and attributes lead to proficiency with related things outside of combat.


----------



## Jack7 (Nov 15, 2011)

Roles in the games I create or in my settings  never go to assigned positions. To me this is a Napoleonic-era/British and  Austrian Imperial strategy regarding capabilities, similar to that employed by  the Great Europeans armies of that age -where commissions and ranks and  positions could be bought and sold, or were assigned by artificial means of  determining "_*status*_."

In my games and in my settings any role (be it  combat, group leader, explorer, tracker, etc) goes to that party member best  suited to the role, having the most experience, or whom the party decides is  best qualified. It is also not for me as GM to tell them who they feel is best  suited to lead in any given situation - they role play, that is their job. I  don't micro-manage such decisions either by Game Design, or by refereeing  action. The players are not my children, and I am not their coach. They should  make their own leadership choices. (Even if they were my children I personally  would encourage them to use their own reason and experience to decide who is  best at what function.)

Roles are assigned based upon merit and by no  other set of standards. I have found this works in Real Life, and it works for  anything and everything else. *Merit and real capability makes for the best  leaders*.

In my opinion everything else is entirely  artificial, counter-productive, and even dangerous to long-term operational  success.

Leadership should be earned and merited, never  bought, and never assigned by any arbitrary method, no matter how theoretically  logical it may seem at first glance. Merit and experience and talent creates  reliable men and good leaders. Theories breed case-studies.

I've rarely ever seen models based upon "*assigned  leadership patterns*" work out beneficially, but I've often seen them end  disastrously. 

I'd easily follow a truly capable.  meritorious commander. (Or a truly capable anyone.) I've refused to follow  assigned and incompetent ones.

I've no interest in "_assigned disaster_." And  that's what you're shooting for with pre-assigned roles.


----------



## Wycen (Nov 15, 2011)

For me, when I hear "wizard" or "cleric" or "tank" I have a good idea of what you are talking about and can generally guess how they might work in party.  Sure you could have a wizard diviner who likes asking questions and doesn't have many "pew pew" spells, but I still understand what you are talking about.

When I heard "leader" or "controller" it makes me smirk.  So you are a leader because you can trigger an extra action in other characters?  I don't think roles have much influence on how my characters act.  My *stats* will influence my actions far more.  If I have a low STR I'm probably not wading into melee combat.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 15, 2011)

The codification of roles in 4E hasn't really changed anything about character development for our group. Old classes used to be able to cover multiple combat roles depending on how you made your character, whereas now you choose a class that supports the role you want to play. I find that non-combat roles are less constrained now than in previous edition when the non-combat role is tied to specific skills.



Jack7 said:


> I'd easily follow a truly capable.  meritorious commander. (Or a truly capable anyone.) I've refused to follow  assigned and incompetent ones.




I wasn't following how your post relates to the topic of codified roles in RPGs, so maybe it doesn't. But it seems you are equating "4E Leader" with "Party Leader." A "4E Leader" is actually shorthand for "Healer and Buffer" while the party leader can be taken on exactly how you describe it by any character and/or player.


----------



## Wycen (Nov 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I wasn't following how your post relates to the topic of codified roles in RPGs, so maybe it doesn't. But it seems you are equating "4E Leader" with "Party Leader." A "4E Leader" is actually shorthand for "Healer and Buffer" while the party leader can be taken on exactly how you describe it by any character and/or player.




This is a good example of how the roles can be confused depending on who's talking about them.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Nov 15, 2011)

I don't understand the who "role" thing in the first place. This is some sort of 4e lingo I take it?


----------



## GSHamster (Nov 15, 2011)

Niccodaemus said:


> I don't understand the who "role" thing in the first place. This is some sort of 4e lingo I take it?




The idea is that there are different "roles" that people naturally take in a combat game. Some people go for heavy defensive stuff, some people go for weaker defense but higher damage. Some people don't attack the monsters directly but make other people better. Some people inhibit the monsters mobility, but don't actually deal damage to kill them.

The argument is that these "roles" always existed, but in the past were very implicit. If you made a fighter with sword and shield, you tended to fight more defensively, to put yourself between the monster and the wizard. If you dual-wielded instead, you tried to do lots of damage.

4E made the roles explicit, and assigned classes to each role.  That way you could talk about multiple classes being the healer, rather than specifying druid/cleric/warlord.

Then, because relatively few people want to play a pure support character, they named the "support" role "leader" to attract people to that role.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 15, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> A recent quote from the "Rule of Three" article from Rich Baker on the WotC website has me wondering if the designers of D&D are rethinking the trend in the last decade or so of thinking in terms of "roles" being codified as the role a character plays in combat.



Sounds promising.


			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> How does this affect your own sense of the game?  Have your games always had "roles" tied to their combat role (regardless of edition)?  Does codifying "roles" as combat roles affect the way players approach the game?  How so, in your own experience?



Well, honestly it doesn't, because I'm as unlikely to play 5e as I was to play 4e.  But in my games, with various groups, we have not been role-protection type guys.  Combat is something that's fun, but it's more like an action scene in a swashbuckling adventure story than it is a serious tactical challenge.  We're more about building characters that we think would be interesting characters if we were authors of a book, not "effective" characters who work like a well-oiled machine with a number of other optimized characters as a tactical unit.


----------



## Ringlerun (Nov 15, 2011)

About the closest we have ever got to roles in any game is when we chose party formation.  Who is going first, second ect.  Other than that i find the whole idea of designating characters as tanks, healer, and such completely absurd.  

I have run games were a mage has been on point the whole time.  A few select spells (like stoneskin and blur) and a bag full of wands.  Why would the warrior step out in front?

I have never read in any sword and sorcery or pure fantasy novel were the main characters are pigeon holed into combat roles.  
LOL it would be funny tho having a group of adventurers escorting a prince and when it came to combat they push him in front 

"Come on Prince, up front, your the tank now do your job.. No No we can't do it we're only strikers.  Look it's just a little Ogre and some kobolds, just soak some damage while we get rid of the minions first.  Hey could you push the ogre closer to those boulders.  Thats a good lad"  
After the carnage of battle and the prince lying half dead in a pool of his own blood the captain of the guard approaches.  "See Prince nothing to worry about we're here to protect you"


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 16, 2011)

The tank, healer/leader, striker, controller roles have been around since the beginning days of the hobby -- Goodman Games used similar terminology in their 3E guides to playing effective fighters and wizards, for instance -- and I'd be really surprised to hear of many groups having, say, a cleric tanking for them in the 1E or 2E days instead of a fighter, barbarian, paladin or cavalier (or, I guess, an anti-paladin).

I don't play 4E, but I've never gotten what all the hand-wringing about explicitly stating the roles was about. Yeah, the cleric has a healer role -- this shouldn't be big news to anyone. Yeah, the rogue's role in combat is to stab things until they stop moving -- what else would he do?

I always viewed them making roles explicit as a way to both help newbie players so that they didn't think they were making Conan the Reaver when the rules under the hood were to create a defensive lineman instead, and to help designers create effective additional classes.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringlerun said:


> I have never read in any sword and sorcery or pure fantasy novel were the main characters are pigeon holed into combat roles.
> LOL it would be funny tho having a group of adventurers escorting a prince and when it came to combat they push him in front
> 
> "Come on Prince, up front, your the tank now do your job.. No No we can't do it we're only strikers.  Look it's just a little Ogre and some kobolds, just soak some damage while we get rid of the minions first.  Hey could you push the ogre closer to those boulders.  Thats a good lad"
> After the carnage of battle and the prince lying half dead in a pool of his own blood the captain of the guard approaches.  "See Prince nothing to worry about we're here to protect you"



Re-read the Fellowship of the Ring, specifically Weathertop and the battles inside Moria. Aragorn is definitely a tank/defender, as is Gimli. Everyone else are occupying striker/DPS roles. The movie's pretty blatant about it as well, with Aragorn forever shoving other people behind him as he defends them.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringlerun said:


> LOL it would be funny tho having a group of adventurers escorting a prince and when it came to combat they push him in front
> 
> "Come on Prince, up front, your the tank now do your job.. No No we can't do it we're only strikers.  Look it's just a little Ogre and some kobolds, just soak some damage while we get rid of the minions first.  Hey could you push the ogre closer to those boulders.  Thats a good lad"
> After the carnage of battle and the prince lying half dead in a pool of his own blood the captain of the guard approaches.  "See Prince nothing to worry about we're here to protect you"



Is that how you set up situations when you GM games? Presumably not - so why would you assume that an 4e GM would set up such a situation?



Mark CMG said:


> Does codifying "roles" as combat roles affect the way players approach the game?  How so, in your own experience?



I don't think it particularly affects how the players approach the game - they play their PCs, using whatever mechanical resources their character sheet, plus their PC's position in the fiction, throws their way.

I think it does seem to have affected design, and in a good way. Designers seem to be thinking harder about (i) how various sorts of capabilities can be interesting distributed across a range of PCs, and relative to the game's action economy, and (ii) what range of mechanical features the game needs if it is to produce a range of fictional situations that are interesting in a game of heroic fantasy.

A simple example is the marked condition. Putting to one side what, if anything, marking means as a story element, its metagame effect is fairly clear: a PC who can mark enemies is more likely to be attacked by those enemies (because of the incentive created by the -2 penalty to attack other targets). Thus, a PC who can regularly mark enemies is likely to regularly be the focus of enemy hostility. Which then creates the space for the designers to ask "What sort of character ought to be the regular focus of enemy hostility?", and to think about both story elements, and other mechanical elements, that suit such a character. And thus a defender is born.

Another example is the paladin power Valiant Strike, which grants a +1 to hit for every adjacent enemy. This power more-or-less guarantees that the PC who has it will be valiant, because the player of that PC has a mechanical incentive to hurl the PC into throngs of enemies, in order to boost his/her to hit chance. Again, combine this with broader thinking about what sort of PC (mechanically and story-wise) such a power would suit, and we get the image of the knightly defender emerging.

For me, this is one of the important design differences between 4e and classic D&D, and one which the idea of roles seems to have contributed. Of course in classic D&D it was possible to build a valiant knight, or a skirmisher, or whatever other sort of fighter one was interested in. But there was not a coherent package of mechanics that one could select for ones PC that would - at the metagame/mechanical level - tend to push the resolution of the game in the story direction that would reflect one's choices about one's PC. It was much more either a matter of colour/free roleplay, or perhaps depended upon the GM's interpretation of non-mechanically-mediated elements of the fiction.


----------



## Ringlerun (Nov 16, 2011)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Re-read the Fellowship of the Ring, specifically Weathertop and the battles inside Moria. Aragorn is definitely a tank/defender, as is Gimli. Everyone else are occupying striker/DPS roles. The movie's pretty blatant about it as well, with Aragorn forever shoving other people behind him as he defends them.




Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker.  Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.

I was trying to show that you cant pigeon hole characters in novels to the base defender, striker, warlord roles.  The scope of the characters are more than that.


----------



## Ringlerun (Nov 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Is that how you set up situations when you GM games? Presumably not - so why would you assume that an 4e GM would set up such a situation?




I was trying to show how absurd it would be if someone used the defined combat roles in rpg's in a book setting.  

It was not a represent of how i or anyone else plays an rpg.

My point is that you can not use the defined roles for characters in novels as they are more than just tanks or strikers.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 16, 2011)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I don't play 4E, but I've never gotten what all the hand-wringing about explicitly stating the roles was about.



It's getting pigeonholed that's the problem for me. For example, the paladin has always been my favorite class from a flavor perspective (but I never play them Lawful Bastard either), and is a defender in 4e. While I would like to play a paladin defender in 4e, I'd also like to play a paladin striker, paladin leader, or occasionally even a paladin controller.

If 4e had split things up differently, I think things could have been really interesting. First, divide powers by power source, so everyone can draw from those pools. Secondly, add themes, so that people can have a noncombat background that works with their concept. Third, let them choose their role, from which they can draw more powers (leader powers, controller powers, defender powers, and striker powers). When you choose your class, you keep your class abilities, as normal. For example, I could choose to be a paladin controller blacksmith with Lay on Hands. The onus would still be on the players to provide context to the powers, of course, but that's how it works now in 4e. Why is the paladin a controller? That's up to the players.

I understand that it's not a problem for everyone, and that's cool. I'm glad it's not. It is for me, and for a couple other people I play with (a couple others don't care). As always, play what you like


----------



## Wiseblood (Nov 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> It's getting pigeonholed that's the problem for me. For example, the paladin has always been my favorite class from a flavor perspective (but I never play them Lawful Bastard either), and is a defender in 4e. While I would like to play a paladin defender in 4e, I'd also like to play a paladin striker, paladin leader, or occasionally even a paladin controller.
> 
> If 4e had split things up differently, I think things could have been really interesting. First, divide powers by power source, so everyone can draw from those pools. Secondly, add themes, so that people can have a noncombat background that works with their concept. Third, let them choose their role, from which they can draw more powers (leader powers, controller powers, defender powers, and striker powers). When you choose your class, you keep your class abilities, as normal. For example, I could choose to be a paladin controller blacksmith with Lay on Hands. The onus would still be on the players to provide context to the powers, of course, but that's how it works now in 4e. Why is the paladin a controller? That's up to the players.
> 
> I understand that it's not a problem for everyone, and that's cool. I'm glad it's not. It is for me, and for a couple other people I play with (a couple others don't care). As always, play what you like




 I am not oppesed to roles. I am opposed to "here is how you will play this class" any deviation from this will yield suck. Often times the power structure in 4e hardwires this in. It, to me, feels like playing a wizard in 3e but not being able to change your spell load until you level.

Does page 42 alleviate this? If I have a fighter and my enemies are far away can I make up a ranged attack power on the spot to use my bow/javelin whatever? Would the DM let me? Or is that a protected niche?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Nov 16, 2011)

How many people complained that the 3.5 Bard doesn't do anything?
How many people complained that the 4E Warlock isn't DPS enough?


----------



## GSHamster (Nov 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> It's getting pigeonholed that's the problem for me. For example, the paladin has always been my favorite class from a flavor perspective (but I never play them Lawful Bastard either), and is a defender in 4e. While I would like to play a paladin defender in 4e, I'd also like to play a paladin striker, paladin leader, or occasionally even a paladin controller.




This was another design path. You could have made "kits" for each class, which is a set of abilities that allow that class to function in a specific role. So you could play a Fighter controller, simply by selecting the right chain of feats or abilities.

In videogames that use roles, you often see this. For example, the World of Warcraft paladin has three specializations, one healer, one defender, and one striker.  There is a common set of abilities, but each specialization also uses unique abilities.

WotC decided to go another route, which says that each class would map to one role, and they would make many classes.  So if they wanted a paladinish controller, they'd make a new class that was very similar in flavor to the paladin class, and then name it something different, like Templar.

It's really debatable which path is better. Separate classes is simpler, and easier to extend. Specializations sometimes feel like multiple classes within a class, and it can be a real challenge to get a healer paladin to "feel" like it belongs to the same class as a tank paladin.

Basically, the choice was:

1. Fewer classes, and more specializations per class;
2. Many classes, and one specialization per class

WotC chose #2. I cannot say that they were wrong. It is a defensible decision.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 16, 2011)

I think it is possible to underestimate the breadth of 4e classes.

Fighters can play as (quasi-)strikers, or as melee controllers (the polearm fighter in my game fits this description).

Paladins can be pushed fairly heavily in a leader-ish direction with the right selection of powers, and CHA paladins aren't too bad at modest control either with their implement attacks.

If I want a more leader-ish paladin I can hybrid with warlord or cleric, or just play a STR cleric or an e-warpriest.



Wiseblood said:


> Does page 42 alleviate this? If I have a fighter and my enemies are far away can I make up a ranged attack power on the spot to use my bow/javelin whatever? Would the DM let me? Or is that a protected niche?



Good question. I think page 42 is intended to rely on ficional positioning. So at a minimum, I think you'd have to say what it is about the environment that your fighter is using to make the ranged attack that is more dangerous than a basic ranged attack (eg I'm throwing my javelin to cut the rope that will cause the heavy block to fall on my enemy).


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> While I would like to play a paladin defender in 4e, I'd also like to play a paladin striker, paladin leader, or occasionally even a paladin controller.



I think there's two answers to this:

First, classes in 4e are a lot more abstract than they were in previous editions. If you want a Paladin striker why don't you just create a Lawful Avenger and play it as a Paladin? There's a lot less 'baggage' attached to a class's name.

Second, things have become more fluid over time. Classes introduced in PHB2 and PHB3 typically feature (and explicitly mention) secondary roles. Using multiclassing, hybrid rules or - my favorite - appropriate themes will allow you to lean towards roles that don't match your 'primary' role at all.

E.g. in our current Dark Sun campaign I'm playing a Dray (Dragonborn) Dragonmagic Sorcerer with the Templar theme.

Sorcerers are strikers first and controllers second while Templars are leaders. Being a Dragonborn and using the 'Dragonmagic' Build synergizes quite well with Melee classes like the Fighter.

So, depending on what aspect of my character I decide to emphasize when choosing a theme, feats and powers (and later paragon path) I can lean towards any role I prefer. The only thing I probably cannot do is not be a striker.

I generally don't like Essentials classes because they reversed this trend, cut down on customization options and imho focus quite strongly on a single role.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringlerun said:


> Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker.  Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.



Using a two-handed weapon doesn't automatically make you a striker. You can use two-handed weapons and still be a defender - or whatever else you want:

My secondary character in Dark Sun is an Ardent wielding a two-handed sword; and Staff-using wizards are still controllers.

It's not the tools that you use it's _how_ you use them that determines your role.

And of course novels don't require a strict categorization into combat roles. A lot of novel characters (or at least the protagonists) are basically 'Mary-Sues' - they can do everything the author wants them to do. There's no need to balance their abilities against anything.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 16, 2011)

I think that hte principle benefit from having well defined roles is the discipline it enforces on designers rather than its effect on play.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringlerun said:


> Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker.  Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.
> 
> I was trying to show that you cant pigeon hole characters in novels to the base defender, striker, warlord roles.  The scope of the characters are more than that.



Using a big weapon doesn't make you a striker. It is just lingo for specialized capabilities in combat.
And a character is always more that what he does during combat, regardless of the system.

And actually you can 'pigeon hole' the combat focus of most novel characters into roles. And all 4e classes have secondary combat role aspects. The paladin is a defender, but also has aid and healing abilities, making him a secondary leader. Many fighters are also capable of dealing much damage, making the class secondary strikers.

Further supplements have made this even more customizable.

Have you ever played 4e? besides maybe Encounters?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 16, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> I think there's two answers to this:
> 
> First, classes in 4e are a lot more abstract than they were in previous editions. If you want a Paladin striker why don't you just create a Lawful Avenger and play it as a Paladin? There's a lot less 'baggage' attached to a class's name.



I wouldn't mind this at all if there was no class abilities. I'd like to be able to pick up Lay on Hands, for instance.



> Second, things have become more fluid over time. Classes introduced in PHB2 and PHB3 typically feature (and explicitly mention) secondary roles. Using multiclassing, hybrid rules or - my favorite - appropriate themes will allow you to lean towards roles that don't match your 'primary' role at all.



This would definitely help alleviate the problem, but it doesn't make up for the problem, in my mind. It's just a preference, though. I'm definitely not saying it's close to a universal problem, as it's pretty clearly not.



> E.g. in our current Dark Sun campaign I'm playing a Dray (Dragonborn) Dragonmagic Sorcerer with the Templar theme.
> 
> Sorcerers are strikers first and controllers second while Templars are leaders. Being a Dragonborn and using the 'Dragonmagic' Build synergizes quite well with Melee classes like the Fighter.
> 
> ...



I can see why that doesn't appeal to you. I'm sure 4e is much more workable than I made it sound, and it's not like 3.X was much (if any) better a lot of the time. Then again, when I created my ideal RPG, it was classless, so that probably says a lot about how much I like versatility, variety, and using different combinations together. I definitely don't think my game would appeal to the masses (though my group loves it well enough). As always, play what you like


----------



## braro (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringlerun said:


> Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker.  Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.
> 
> I was trying to show that you cant pigeon hole characters in novels to the base defender, striker, warlord roles.  The scope of the characters are more than that.




Just read someone up above who said something similar, so editing to note that.
----
Er, what?

There are plenty of two handed defenders.
Fighters, Paladins, Berserkers, Swordmages...  I think the only one that doesn't have a decent two handed option is the Warden.  I don't know about the Battlemind, but.

In fact, there is a small school of thought that it is better to use a two handed weapon, as you do more damage, thus get more attention, and invite more attacks.

I'm not going to touch the main debate, but the logic you just used there suggests that there is some kind of confusion.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2011)

Hobo said:


> Combat is something that's fun, but it's more like an action scene in a swashbuckling adventure story than it is a serious tactical challenge.




Yes, but even Athos, Porthos, and Aramis had distinctive approaches and styles that led to them having somewhat different roles in combat, n'est pas?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind this at all if there was no class abilities. I'd like to be able to pick up Lay on Hands, for instance.




Just to pick up on this specific example, that's actually pretty easy.  A single feat and you have a cleric's Healing Word power (Initiate of the Faith Multiclass feat).  While I suppose it isn't specifically Lay on Hands, it's certainly close enough.


----------



## Verdande (Nov 16, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> How many people complained that the 3.5 Bard doesn't do anything?
> How many people complained that the 4E Warlock isn't DPS enough?




I think that's more of a class design fault than a fault with the system itself.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringlerun said:


> Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker.




As others have noted, using a two-handed weapon doesn't make one a striker.  And I'm not convinced that Narsil/Andruil is a two-handed weapon - my recollection is that Aragorn wears it on his hip, and that means it's no two-handed sword.

And, to be more picky, if I recall correctly, in at least one of the battles referenced, Aragorn was not using a sword at all, but a torch - Narsil was still broken when they were on Weathertop.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 16, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> I think there's two answers to this:
> 
> First, classes in 4e are a lot more abstract than they were in previous editions. If you want a Paladin striker why don't you just create a Lawful Avenger and play it as a Paladin? There's a lot less 'baggage' attached to a class's name.




I'm going to disagree with this. I think the problem is that 4e associates a very specific combat role with what appear to be pretty specific archetypes. As an example let's say I want to create the striker paladin... well the striker holy warrior is an Avenger, not exactly the knight in shining armor archetype. His class abilities, proficiencies, skills, powers, etc. all tend to push for a lightly armored stealthy warrior-assasin. I guess I just don't see how, without spending alot of feats this archetype can be forced into that of the shining knight in armor paladin with some healing powers who is a striker. 



Jhaelen said:


> Second, things have become more fluid over time. Classes introduced in PHB2 and PHB3 typically feature (and explicitly mention) secondary roles. Using multiclassing, hybrid rules or - my favorite - appropriate themes will allow you to lean towards roles that don't match your 'primary' role at all.




I would agree to a point... hybrids are only effective if the stats and abilities compliment each other... if not you can seriously end up hampering yourself. Themes and multi-classing are good if you want a dash of another class... but I don't think they are going to make your defending Paladin into a striker... at least not an effective one.



Jhaelen said:


> E.g. in our current Dark Sun campaign I'm playing a Dray (Dragonborn) Dragonmagic Sorcerer with the Templar theme.
> 
> Sorcerers are strikers first and controllers second while Templars are leaders. Being a Dragonborn and using the 'Dragonmagic' Build synergizes quite well with Melee classes like the Fighter.
> 
> So, depending on what aspect of my character I decide to emphasize when choosing a theme, feats and powers (and later paragon path) I can lean towards any role I prefer. The only thing I probably cannot do is not be a striker.




This is what I was talking about above... without attribute synergy you can end up with a real mess going this route when trying to patch together the character you want to play.



Jhaelen said:


> I generally don't like Essentials classes because they reversed this trend, cut down on customization options and imho focus quite strongly on a single role.




I think this is only true because they don't currently have the multi-class and hybrid options available for most of them... but I actually find many of the essential classes have secondary roles built in as well.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> As an example let's say I want to create the striker paladin... well the striker holy warrior is an Avenger, not exactly the knight in shining armor archetype. His class abilities, proficiencies, skills, powers, etc. all tend to push for a lightly armored stealthy warrior-assasin. I guess I just don't see how, without spending alot of feats this archetype can be forced into that of the shining knight in armor paladin with some healing powers who is a striker.




And I'd like a heavily-armored, high damage healer that can shoot fireballs. At some point you go from a reasonable archetype to a Mary Sue.

For your specific example: Two feats (one if you already consider scale armor to be 'shining') on a Fighter should get you the desired effect. Or one feat for a hybrid paladin/barbarian (Str/Cha).


----------



## Tayne (Nov 16, 2011)

It's the individual player's job to define his character's role, no one else's. 

When I saw that early PDF of 4E telling me "the cleric is a leader!" and "The Fighter is a defender!", etc I immediately said "Thank you but no thank you" and cancelled my amazon order. This was not the only factor obviously but it stands out in my memory.

From the sounds of it in this thread, those role descriptions of the characters may have been more guideliney than hard-codey, and I may have jumped the gun.

Still, I'm happy with pathfinder, and my buddy who played both games is too.

It's great to have both options, I think is the bottom line.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringlerun said:


> Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker.  Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.



The concept of a Defender is  that take the brunt of the damage for the party, not that they weapons X, Y and Z. That there are Defender classes who do use only certain weapons does not mean that the _role_ requires those weapons. You're doing the equivalent of saying all dogs are German shepherds.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And I'd like a heavily-armored, high damage healer that can shoot fireballs. At some point you go from a reasonable archetype to a Mary Sue.




Hyperbole always makes for better conversation...

First, I didn't create the example, but I don't think a striker paladin is anywhere near an unreasonable archetype.

Second, 4e could have done this so much more elegantly by keeping archetypes and combat roles seperate... they really aren't the same thing. I would have much preferred builds to be ways of exploring different roles under the archetypes from the get go. Instead we are just starting to enter this design space... as an example we now have the slayer(striker) who is a fighter (defender) build.




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> For your specific example: Two feats (one if you already consider scale armor to be 'shining') on a Fighter should get you the desired effect. Or one feat for a hybrid paladin/barbarian (Str/Cha).




So feat taxes to play something that should be a pretty common matching of archetype and role... not to mention needing PHB 2. It seems like you're just proving my point. It's possible, but you have to know what you're doing and pay in resources.

As I said above, I think a much better solution that is being implemented (slowly) now is actually not tyiing a particular archetype to a combat role... in essentials we actually have a striker fighter and in the Feywild book we have a dual role classs. Again I don't think archetype and combat role should have ever been explicitly tied together in the first place.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Hyperbole always makes for better conversation...




Sorry, it sounded snippier than intended on a second reading. I think the designers chose main roles in the PHB based on most likely. The average paladin would be the shining defender, not a heavy-hitting striker.



Imaro said:


> First, I didn't create the example, but I don't think a striker paladin is anywhere near an unreasonable archetype.




Nor do I. But I do think it is possible to achieve, especially as the game expands. Each edition of D&D has expanded to include more and more archetypes mechanically. You could say you were a barbarian and make some (suboptimal?) choices in 1E, but until UA came out (or the Dragon article) you weren't really supported mechanically.



Imaro said:


> Second, 4e could have done this so much more elegantly by keeping archetypes and combat roles seperate... they really aren't the same thing. I would have much preferred builds to be ways of exploring different roles under the archtypes from the get go. Instead we are just starting to enter this design space... as an example we now have the slayer(striker) who is a fighter (defender) build.




They could have done alot with the first book, as evidenced by multiple players handbooks and additional support material. But I think it's unreasonable to expect all that from the get go. 



Imaro said:


> So feat taxes to play something that should be a pretty common matching of archetype and role... not to mention needing PHB 2. It seems like you're just proving my point. It's possible, but you have to know what you're doing and pay in resources.




[Note: You accidentally attributed part of my post to Walking Dad]

I don't consider adding the ability to heal and gain training in another skill a 'tax' unless it diminished my current abilities. I could see the 'feat tax' argument for the armor proficiency. And needing PHB2? Definitely. I don;t think the archetype you describe is that common. Strikers before 4E were basically rogues. Their high damage came from Sneak Attack. Not something paladins are well-known for (despite the running joke in our group about one player's 'sneaky paladin.')

The designers started to expand on that role in the PHB with the Ranger and the Warlock. Again, they could have kept going, but there was only so much space you can devote to the core books before you need to get them out there.



Imaro said:


> I think a much better solution that is being implemented (slowly) now is actually not tyiing a particular archetype to a combat role... in essentials we actually have a striker fighter and in the Feywild book we have a dual role classs. Again I don't think archetype and combat role should have ever been explicitly tied together in the first place.




Hindsight is 20/20. I've had my own thoughts in this direction since the mention of shared power lists in Ro3. But I don't have the time to design my own perfect game system. You can only hope the designers learn and continue down a path you enjoy. To expect that they should have gotten it right for you the first time around is unreasonable, IMO.

[sblock="Hybrid Paladin/Barbarian"]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Arjhan, level 1
Dragonborn, Barbarian/Paladin
Hybrid Paladin Option: Hybrid Paladin Will
Hybrid Talent Option: Paladin Armor Proficiency
Dragonborn Racial Power Option: Dragonfear
Redeemer of the Desecrated (+2 to Religion)
Theme: Knight Hospitaler

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
STR 20, CON 10, DEX 10, INT 8, WIS 11, CHA 16

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
STR 18, CON 10, DEX 10, INT 8, WIS 11, CHA 14


AC: 18 Fort: 16 Ref: 10 Will: 14
HP: 25 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Athletics +8, Intimidate +10, Religion +6

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics –2, Arcana –1, Bluff +3, Diplomacy +3, Dungeoneering +0, Endurance –2, Heal +0, History +1, Insight +0, Nature +0, Perception +0, Stealth –2, Streetwise +3, Thievery –2

POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Knight Hospitaler Utility: Shield of Devotion
Dragonborn Racial Power: Dragonfear
Paladin Feature: Divine Challenge
Barbarian Attack 1: Howling Strike
Paladin Attack 1: Strike of Hope
Barbarian Attack 1: Avalanche Strike
Barbarian Attack 1: Life Thane Rage

FEATS
Level 1: Hybrid Talent

ITEMS
Plate Armor x1
Greatsword x1
Adventurer's Kit
Trail Rations
====== End ======[/sblock]


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but even Athos, Porthos, and Aramis had distinctive approaches and styles that led to them having somewhat different roles in combat, n'est pas?



I was always more of a Rafael Sabatini than an Alexandre Dumas kinda guy, myself.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Sorry, it sounded snippier than intended on a second reading. I think the designers chose main roles in the PHB based on most likely. The average paladin would be the shining defender, not a heavy-hitting striker.




Oh, I get that... what I was moreso saying was that I don't think they should have connected explicit combat roles with archetypes... In other words the Paladin shouldn't have been a Defender... he should have been an archetype with a Defender build, a Striker Build and maybe even a Leader build. IMO, that would've covered the roles I've seen a Paladin take on in previous editions and fit more in tune with the varying examples of the Paladin archetype.





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Nor do I. But I do think it is possible to achieve, especially as the game expands. Each edition of D&D has expanded to include more and more archetypes mechanically. You could say you were a barbarian and make some (suboptimal?) choices in 1E, but until UA came out (or the Dragon article) you weren't really supported mechanically.




Oh, I agree... but I'm not speaking of expanding the archetypes... 4e created another axis to that when it went with eplicit roles for archetypes. Now not only did it have to include archetypes but it had to include a role for said archetype (which I feel was a mistake, especially since I think way too much effort, early on and even now, was/is put into creating builds that have the same role for the same archetype and thus further pigeonholing archetypes. Now I can have a striker fighter, without a feat tax or multi-classing... but this should have, IMO, been the direction in the first place. 





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> They could have done alot with the first book, as evidenced by multiple players handbooks and additional support material. But I think it's unreasonable to expect all that from the get go.




I think you're still confusing what I mean by archetype. In my mind an archetype is the fighter... but I don't feel the archetype of the fighter should have been initially constrained to the role of Defender... it leaves out too many iconic examples of fighters that weren't "defenders". It was role diversity within archetypes that I feel 4e should have focused on earlier in the game. Even now there are at most a couple of archetypes that aren't still pigeonholed into particualr roles... even if that role doesn't cover iconic concepts of said archetype. 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> [Note: You accidentally attributed part of my post to Walking Dad]




Whoops, sorry about that... 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't consider adding the ability to heal and gain training in another skill a 'tax' unless it diminished my current abilities. I could see the 'feat tax' argument for the armor proficiency. And needing PHB2? Definitely. I don;t think the archetype you describe is that common. Strikers before 4E were basically rogues. Their high damage came from Sneak Attack. Not something paladins are well-known for (despite the running joke in our group about one player's 'sneaky paladin.')




See and that's the problem, a paladin already has all these things... all I want to do is make him a striker as opposed to a defender. So it is a feat tax since I don't want the extra stuff... just a role change. The Slayer is a fighter who doesn't have to spend any feats to be a striker... yet to get a paladin striker I do...

As to your second point... I'm going to disagree I don't think the roles were as hardcoded and especially not in 3.x. 

Fighters weren't always tanks... they could easily be tweaked as strikers... Cleric's could tank or lead, Wizards could focus on particular spells to make themselves strikers, controllers, or defenders but probably not leaders in the 4e sense... and so on. So no, I don't agree with that 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The designers started to expand on that role in the PHB with the Ranger and the Warlock. Again, they could have kept going, but there was only so much space you can devote to the core books before you need to get them out there.




See maybe this is the disconnect... I don't feel they should have expanded archetypes based on roles... I feel they should have expanded the roles within archetypes. Something they're finally getting around to doing... though this could just be test material like Bo9S.




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Hindsight is 20/20. I've had my own thoughts in this direction since the mention of shared power lists in Ro3. But I don't have the time to design my own perfect game system. You can only hope the designers learn and continue down a path you enjoy. To expect that they should have gotten it right for you the first time around is unreasonable, IMO.




I don't know if it's totally hindsight... I remember quite a few complaints along the lines of... "Why can't my fighter be a striker as opposed to a defender?". These questions tended to be met with the answer of "Go play a Ranger.". When in actuality I feel the answer (which funnily enough it is now) should have been go play the striker build for the fighter.

[sblock="Hybrid Paladin/Barbarian"]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Arjhan, level 1
Dragonborn, Barbarian/Paladin
Hybrid Paladin Option: Hybrid Paladin Will
Hybrid Talent Option: Paladin Armor Proficiency
Dragonborn Racial Power Option: Dragonfear
Redeemer of the Desecrated (+2 to Religion)
Theme: Knight Hospitaler

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
STR 20, CON 10, DEX 10, INT 8, WIS 11, CHA 16

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
STR 18, CON 10, DEX 10, INT 8, WIS 11, CHA 14


AC: 18 Fort: 16 Ref: 10 Will: 14
HP: 25 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Athletics +8, Intimidate +10, Religion +6

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics –2, Arcana –1, Bluff +3, Diplomacy +3, Dungeoneering +0, Endurance –2, Heal +0, History +1, Insight +0, Nature +0, Perception +0, Stealth –2, Streetwise +3, Thievery –2

POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Knight Hospitaler Utility: Shield of Devotion
Dragonborn Racial Power: Dragonfear
Paladin Feature: Divine Challenge
Barbarian Attack 1: Howling Strike
Paladin Attack 1: Strike of Hope
Barbarian Attack 1: Avalanche Strike
Barbarian Attack 1: Life Thane Rage

FEATS
Level 1: Hybrid Talent

ITEMS
Plate Armor x1
Greatsword x1
Adventurer's Kit
Trail Rations
====== End ======[/sblock][/QUOTE]

Cool, though my Paladin now has the primal power source and rages and a host of other things that don't necessarily fit with the archetype I'm picturing... especially depending on the god or ideals I want him to follow.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Cool, though my Paladin now has the primal power source and rages and a host of other things that don't necessarily fit with the archetype I'm picturing... especially depending on the god or ideals I want him to follow.




There's a trade off with classes - you get a significant level of confidence that the party's on even footing, which gives you easy paths to encounter and adventure design.

To get that, you need to give up some flexibility.  

If you want infinite flexibility, you probably shouldn't be playing a game with classes.  If you are playing with classes, you ought to be ready and willing to either wait for someone to make up the class that fits your concept exactly, make it up yourself, or be willing to make a few compromises.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 16, 2011)

I don't mind combat roles, but you if you are going to Hard Code them into the system, I'd prefer you drop the Classes.

4E could have done the following - Pick a Power Source (Martial, Arcane, Divine, Psionic, Elemental, Shadow) and Pick a Combat Role (Striker, Healer (because that's what a Leader really is), Defender, or Controller).

By picking a power source, you'd open your character to all powers granted by that source (Arcane would get all Spells, Martial would get all Exploits, etc).  Any Arcane Source character could get Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Magic Missile, Sword Burst, or Eyebite.

By picking a Combat Role, you'd open yourself up to that Power Source's mechanic for that role.  Martial Defender may use the Knight's Defenders Aura.  Divine Striker might use the Avenger's two-roll system.  Arcane Leader might use the Artificer's Healing Infusion or something completely different.

Multiclassing would allow you select a new source and/or a new role, providing minor access to those abilities.

Now, you don't have to worry about the baggage of the name Paladin or Fighter or Bard.  Your Wizard might be an Arcane Leader with a multi-class into Striker.  Your Bard might be a Martial Leader with multi-class into Arcane for spells.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 16, 2011)

Umbran said:


> There's a trade off with classes - you get a significant level of confidence that the party's on even footing, which gives you easy paths to encounter and adventure design.
> 
> To get that, you need to give up some flexibility.
> 
> If you want infinite flexibility, you probably shouldn't be playing a game with classes. If you are playing with classes, you ought to be ready and willing to either wait for someone to make up the class that fits your concept exactly, make it up yourself, or be willing to make a few compromises.




I don't think anyone asked for "infinite" flexibility. But I do think a class system should be robust enough to cover the variations on the roles that particular archetypes encompass. This can be done in numerous ways such as making the class abilities generic and broad enough to fit with the varying iconic roles of the archetype (like a class in Basic D&D) or giving the player the option to customize it with decision points in order to "choose" which iconic role he wants his archetype to represent (feats and alternate class abilities in 3.x). However I think basing your archetypes around a particualr role leads to an unnecessary loss of flexibility overall. 

Again this wasn't a problem with missing classes it was a problem with, IMO, heavily tying archetypes to roles... in fact I would argue that the classes in 4e (as far as discussion goes) are much more associated with the role they serve in combat than any archetype they may be representing.


----------



## GSHamster (Nov 16, 2011)

I'm wonder if it would have been a good idea to have a _non-mechanical_ level above classes, say called archetype.

Archetypes would describe the general characteristics of classes that share that archetype, while classes would provide concrete instances.  All the rules would be in the class.

Like the Holy Warrior archetype would be:
 - wears heavy armor
 - has a little bit of healing
 - has a little bit of divine magic
 - worships a god
 - has a code of behavior

Then Paladin class is still a defender, but it shares the common characteristics of a Holy Warrior, but without involving mechanics. That way if there's a specific archetype component you don't want to include, or if you want to combine archetypes, you can do so without causing rules problems.

That way you can add other Holy Warrior classes, like an striker or controller, without stepping on the toes of the current Paladin class.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 16, 2011)

Umbran said:


> There's a trade off with classes - you get a significant level of confidence that the party's on even footing, which gives you easy paths to encounter and adventure design.
> 
> To get that, you need to give up some flexibility.
> 
> If you want infinite flexibility, you probably shouldn't be playing a game with classes.  If you are playing with classes, you ought to be ready and willing to either wait for someone to make up the class that fits your concept exactly, make it up yourself, or be willing to make a few compromises.



... or you could play a game with highly customizeable classes...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I don't think anyone asked for "infinite" flexibility. But I do think a class system should be robust enough to cover the variations on the roles that particular archetypes encompass.




Here's the thing - you have an idea of what "the variations" are.  Joe over there has a different idea.  Sam will have yet a different set of what "the variations are".  And there's no particular reason for me to take your variations, and not Joe's, right?

Gamers are a creative bunch.  If you add them up, the list of variations becomes very, very large.  



> Again this wasn't a problem with missing classes it was a problem with, IMO, heavily tying archetypes to roles...




Ah.  You see, I think the standard fictional archetypes usually imply their role naturally.  They are "archetypes" because we've seen them frequently in fictions - and in those fictions, they tend to play certain roles.  The archetype is, in large part, defined by the role commonly played!

Step away from fantasy fiction, and look at comic book superheroes for an illustration.  There are many examples of "the brick" as an archetype in comics - The Thing, The Hulk, Superman, the Tick - the big guy with lots of muscles who;s nigh invulnerable.  The archetype is primarily a melee combatant.

If you want to play that archetype, but have him be in the role of "support", you aren't playing the archetype.  You're playing *against* the type.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 16, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Here's the thing - you have an idea of what "the variations" are.  Joe over there has a different idea.  Sam will have yet a different set of what "the variations are".  And there's no particular reason for me to take your variations, and not Joe's, right?
> 
> Gamers are a creative bunch.  If you add them up, the list of variations becomes very, very large.




That sounds great to me. Are you implying that there's something wrong with having lots of options? I love all the class archetypal variant options in Pathfinder. I'm playing a phalanx soldier variant right now. It's great.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 16, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Here's the thing - you have an idea of what "the variations" are. Joe over there has a different idea. Sam will have yet a different set of what "the variations are". And there's no particular reason for me to take your variations, and not Joe's, right?
> 
> Gamers are a creative bunch. If you add them up, the list of variations becomes very, very large.




Using the 4e framework though... this isn't true. You see there are only 4 recognized roles in 4e... striker, defender, controller, and leader. So at most on a high level one needs 4 variations of a particular archetype and that's assuming that the archetype is considered to encompass a certain role.  the rest is individual customization through skills, feats, etc. 

As an example, the traditional D&D arcane archetype does not encompass healing magic and thus wouldn't have a leader role since that is the primary function of a leader. On the other hand the archetypical D&D fighter has been a striker, a defender, and now with 4e a leader (warlord). Ultimately what I'm saying is let the roles themselves define the variations at a high level and the player fine tune them at the specific level.  Instead we don't even have high-level variations in the archetypes.





Umbran said:


> Ah. You see, I think the standard fictional archetypes usually imply their role naturally. They are "archetypes" because we've seen them frequently in fictions - and in those fictions, they tend to play certain roles. The archetype is, in large part, defined by the role commonly played!




Uhm... I agree with the first part but not the last. In fiction the warrior is only sometimes presented as a defender and I would say he is portrayed as a striker just as much as rogue-ish characters are. On the other hand Wizards are very often strikers, defenders and controllers... clerics can be leaders, defenders, controllers and very rarely even strikers (depending on the god or ideal they follow). 



Umbran said:


> Step away from fantasy fiction, and look at comic book superheroes for an illustration. There are many examples of "the brick" as an archetype in comics - The Thing, The Hulk, Superman, the Tick - the big guy with lots of muscles who;s nigh invulnerable. The archetype is primarily a melee combatant.




Why are we stepping away from fantasy fiction to discuss fantasy archetypes? I'm not playing a superhero game. Secondly, melee combatant isn't a role... so I'm not sure what point you were making? 



Umbran said:


> If you want to play that archetype, but have him be in the role of "support", you aren't playing the archetype. You're playing *against* the type.




Really? Because the Warlord is very much a melee combatant and support. That's why I said melee combatant isn't a role, at least not how 4e defines them (which is of course what we are discussing here.).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Cool, though my Paladin now has the primal power source and rages and a host of other things that don't necessarily fit with the archetype I'm picturing... especially depending on the god or ideals I want him to follow.




Power Source has no mechanical bearing on the game outside of design.

You say Rage, I say Holy Fervor.
You say Rage, I say calling upon the strength of my god.

If you want a Striker (guy who dishes out lots of damage) it is unlikely he would choose to follow the goddess of peace. You would more likely choose a god whose ideals uphold proactive violence.



			
				Tayne said:
			
		

> Are you implying that there's something wrong with having lots of options? I love all the class archetypal variant options in Pathfinder. I'm playing a phalanx soldier variant right now. It's great.




There is nothing inherently wrong with alot of options. If those options lead to capable characters I'm all for it.

As for Pathfinder I think that would fall in the range of a large, maybe even vary large number of options. Whereas Umbran is talking about the near-infinite possibilities that a large group of creative minds can imagine. You can't please everyone, but you can continue building towards pleasing more. Pathfinder has basically had 11 years to develop the options it has today, whereas 4E has just 3. Most class-based games start at the popular archetypes and expand from there. Could you have built the same phalanx soldier you are playing today back in 2003?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Using the 4e framework though... this isn't true. You see there are only 4 recognized roles in 4e... striker, defender, controller, and leader. So at most on a high level one needs 4 variations of a particular archetype and that's assuming that the archetype is considered to encompass a certain role.  the rest is individual customization through skills, feats, etc.
> 
> As an example, the traditional D&D arcane archetype does not encompass healing magic and thus wouldn't have a leader role since that is the primary function of a leader. On the other hand the archetypical D&D fighter has been a striker, a defender, and now with 4e a leader (warlord). Ultimately what I'm saying is let the roles themselves define the variations at a high level and the player fine tune them at the specific level.  Instead we don't even have high-level variations in the archetypes.




The bard is the traditional arcane healer. 

Even if you limit your thinking to 4 roles, the existence of power source to expand archetypes in design is key. With the six existing power sources you have a base of 24. And even that isn't a limitation. Even in the first PHB you have two Martial Strikers that play and feel very different. Class concept adds a multiplicative variable to the base that is only limited by the imagination of the designers.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with alot of options. If those options lead to capable characters I'm all for it.
> 
> As for Pathfinder I think that would fall in the range of a large, maybe even vary large number of options. Whereas Umbran is talking about the near-infinite possibilities that a large group of creative minds can imagine. You can't please everyone, but you can continue building towards pleasing more. Pathfinder has basically had 11 years to develop the options it has today, whereas 4E has just 3. Most class-based games start at the popular archetypes and expand from there. Could you have built the same phalanx soldier you are playing today back in 2003?




Of course I could have. I can build anything I want, if the DM allows it.

Options in a good role playing game aren't near infinite, they are infinite.*

Again, is there anything wrong with this? I don't see the logic in this line of reasoning at all. Isn't homebrewing still encouraged? Aren't all RPG systems brewed in someone's home, after all?

Is 4E so restrictive that people, in it's defense, argue FOR pigeonholing and stereotyping AGAINST plurality of options and diversity? Or is that just kind of a misguided way to stick up for it?

*subject to DM discretion offer not valid in Utah

(also, I would argue that both systems have their roots all the way back to the same time in the 1970's or whatever, it's just that Hasbro has chosen to scrap so much of that for 4E, calling the wisdom of that decision into question in the first place... but that's somewhat off topic)


----------



## Imaro (Nov 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Power Source has no mechanical bearing on the game outside of design.




No, that's not exactly true... power source does tend to correlate with the type of damage your powers do. Like alot of divine powers doing radiant damage and it being more effective against undead.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You say Rage, I say Holy Fervor.
> You say Rage, I say calling upon the strength of my god.




Great if you happen to worship a war god or something along those lines, but still limiting for other types of gods. 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If you want a Striker (guy who dishes out lots of damage) it is unlikely he would choose to follow the goddess of peace. You would more likely choose a god whose ideals uphold proactive violence.




I think there's a big middle between god of violence and god of peace that you are overlooking.  I don't see a correlation between the god/ideal and role. Otherwise why isn't my paladin of a war god a striker?

On another note I would argue every god in 4e upholds proactive violence by the simple fact that they all have weapon wielding paladins in their service... 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The bard is the traditional arcane healer.




I would argue that the bard isn't the traditional arcane archetype (that would be Wizard, and upon further thought the archetype is the wizard class.)... he's a totally different archetype since he's a little bit of everything not just arcane... in fact I would say the bard is more under the rogue archetype than that of the wizard.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Even if you limit your thinking to 4 roles, the existence of power source to expand archetypes in design is key. With the six existing power sources you have a base of 24. And even that isn't a limitation. Even in the first PHB you have two Martial Strikers that play and feel very different. Class concept adds a multiplicative variable to the base that is only limited by the imagination of the designers.




Sigh, I don't think power source has anything to do with it, that's something WotC extrapolated from archetypes... but true archetypes transcend that. When I say archetype, I am speaking of archetypical classes, and power source can be a part of them, but it doesn't define archetypes.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 16, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> A recent quote from the "Rule of Three" article from Rich Baker on the WotC website has me wondering if the designers of D&D are rethinking the trend in the last decade or so of thinking in terms of "roles" being codified as the role a character plays in combat.
> 
> 
> 
> How does this affect your own sense of the game?  Have your games always had "roles" tied to their combat role (regardless of edition)?  Does codifying "roles" as combat roles affect the way players approach the game?  How so, in your own experience?




I hope they do buck the recent trend. I think it does tend to be restrictive more than anything, and don't  think it added anything to the game. Worse, it provoked the creation of cookie cutter fill in the blank classes rather than ones with strong iconic themes. 

Obviously some people like it, but I don't


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Nov 17, 2011)

Roles are useful when building a party. Just think of all those movies with the dramatic phrase "I've been forming a team"

You need someone to take the bulk of melee
Someone to heal
Someone to do crowd control
Someone to hit hard at one foe
And someone to have the 'skills' side covered

Traditionally, the roles have been 
Fighter (bulk of melee, the 'tank', somewhat hit hard at one foe) 
The Cleric (Healer, crowd control [turn undead anyone?])
the Wizard (Crowd control, hit hard at one foe, sometimes 'skills' side)
The thief/rogue/burglar (Hit hard at one foe, skills)

That being said, they have helped get groups together or give me character ideas based on what is needed, with the OODLES of classes we now have in D&D, the roles are (IMO) fairly pointless, of course, that is saying 4e is 'now'

Sometimes I have, however, done the same character to build to suit as many roles as possible.

For instance
Human Fighter, focuses on archery.
Able to fill the role of 'controller' and 'striker' not to mention hold his own in melee, granted he doesn't enjoy it as much.

That was 3e

In AD&D I was able to pull of the same character, human fighter, focuses on archery, ect. ect.
Still did what he had to do
Even with the White Box I could do this.

I could mix wizard and fighter to make, thats right, and arcane archer (IF he was an elf instead) but I quickly figured that roles are less about combat, more about surviving the dungeon itself.

A spell like fireball can kill a lot of kobolds, as can my bow, but my bow cannot  grant me the ability to use scrolls or wands. I can strike hard like a sneak attack, but never can I open doors and disable traps. The roles are not just about combat, but character design.
You need the hard as nails merc fighter, the sly and devious thief, the wise and preachy cleric and the intelligent know-it-all wizard to get through a good dungeon, and a good dungeon is just as much thinking as it is fighting


----------



## Stormonu (Nov 17, 2011)

That the designers are still hung up _only_ on the class's combat roles, I say they still don't get it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 17, 2011)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I don't play 4E, but I've never gotten what all the hand-wringing about explicitly stating the roles was about. Yeah, the cleric has a healer role -- this shouldn't be big news to anyone. Yeah, the rogue's role in combat is to stab things until they stop moving -- what else would he do?




Well, that's right about what 4e thought about the roles when adopting them.

But there's a few problems.


 Roles describe your place in combat, but they don't describe your place in the adventure. The game not being about combat exclusively, a combat roles system makes the game seem mostly about combat. More traditional D&D roles were the roles of the character in the adventure: the cleric talked to folks (and helped out others when they failed), the fighter killed things, the rogue explored ahead of the group, and the wizard figured out what the dragon was weak against and what path to take in the maze.
 "Everyone Wants To Be A Striker." Damage is fun and effective and everyone gets to deal it and wants to deal it, so strikers become the sexiest classes and the sexiest abilities and the "support" roles (everything other than the striker) get marginalized.
 You still need someone of each of the 4 roles to make a "balanced party," forcing a player to often choose a class or character they're not as interested in just to balance out the party's role system. This is pretty undesirable. If the characters could shift back and forth in roles depending on the given round in combat (or whatever), that would make combat more tactical and interesting, while allowing a player to play whatever character they wanted.

I'd prefer a system where a character could swap combat roles each turn, and where the role you played in the adventure was more important than the role you played in the combat minigame portion of the adventure. Maybe something like:

_Role Stance_
As a minor action, choose your role from the list below. You gain the benefits of the role you choose until you choose another role.

 *Medic*: At the end of your turn, one ally within X squares of you gains Y hit points.
 *Guardian*: At the end of your turn, one enemy within X squares of you is provoked (-2 penalty to hit any allies)
 *Ravager*: At the end of your turn, one enemy within X squares of you is vulnerable (+Y to damage rolls against them)
 *Strategist*: At the end of your turn, one enemy within X squares of you is cursed (-2 penalty to defenses). 

Certain classes then have mechanics that key off their stance. For example, Fighters might be able to deal damage to provoked enemies that hit allies, and Paladins might also grant a defense bonus with their medic hit point power.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 17, 2011)

Mythic Heroes, from Bad Axe Games, was a d20 add-on that explored the idea of narrative roles drawn from real-world myths & etc - the ones I recall at the moment are The Shadow and The Maiden.  I liked the idea, and it has potentially broader role-playing implications than the 4e role concept.


----------



## tuxgeo (Nov 17, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> < KA-snip! >
> I'd prefer a system where a character could swap combat roles each turn, and where the role you played in the adventure was more important than the role you played in the combat minigame portion of the adventure. Maybe something like:
> 
> _Role Stance_
> ...




Those bonuses and penalties are untyped. 
So if you have a party of five (5) PCs, each having that power; and if, on the second combat round, they each (separately) select the "Ravager" stance against the same, selected enemy, then that one, selected enemy would be at Vulnerable (5 * Y) against all damage. 

You would need a bonus/penalty type, at the very least, to keep that from stacking. Might I suggest, "rolevary" as the bonus/penalty type? 
(Yes, that's terribly unimaginative of me. Blame the scotch. Actually, blame me for drinking it; but that's another issue entirely.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 17, 2011)

tuxego said:
			
		

> So if you have a party of five (5) PCs, each having that power; and if, on the second combat round, they each (separately) select the "Ravager" stance against the same, selected enemy, then that one, selected enemy would be at Vulnerable (5 * Y) against all damage.




Ya, if I was adding this to 4e as it exists, I would limit the overlap.

But if I were making the structure from the ground up, I would be inclined to let them stack those damage boosts, because at that point, they're not recovering HP, or being defended against attacks, and enemies attack them at full damage capacity. They might KO an enemy in that one round of all-out damage, but chances are strong they'd get KO'd in return, when the enemies are all at +2 to hit, you're at -2 AC, and they're doing effectively +Y damage. 

At any rate, the upthrust is that you aren't locked into your combat role at character creation, but can choose it dynamically as combat changes. 

And that combat role becomes simplified, so that you can have adventure role trump it in most circumstances.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Using the 4e framework though... this isn't true. You see there are only 4 recognized roles in 4e... striker, defender, controller, and leader. So at most on a high level one needs 4 variations of a particular archetype and that's assuming that the archetype is considered to encompass a certain role.  the rest is individual customization through skills, feats, etc.




I think if you try to develop a set of powers for, say, all possible martial striker characters, the powers would either be so abstract as to carry no flavor in and of themselves, or the list of them so long as to be intractable for casual players.  Either way, you are then losing one of the strengths of classes.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I think if you try to develop a set of powers for, say, all possible martial striker characters, the powers would either be so abstract as to carry no flavor in and of themselves, or the list of them so long as to be intractable for casual players. Either way, you are then losing one of the strengths of classes.




I don't get this.... I would think it wouldn't be any different than selecting powers in 4e or spells in 3.x... 

Off-hand for a martial striker I could see starting with 4-5 basic styles in the corebook... single weapon, ranged weapon, two-weapon, two-handed weapon and weapon and shield powers... this would be the equivalent of 5 builds in 4e. From there you would expand of course, but again... no different than the current situation except more streamlined. Now I can play a two weapon rogue, a fighter with ranged weapon and two-handed weapon powers or whatever combination I want. I don't see how this diminishes flavor any more than it already is... or how it wouldn't be more streamlined as opposed to more bloated.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> If you want a Paladin striker why don't you just create a Lawful Avenger and play it as a Paladin?



Or even play a paladin but use the Ardent Vow alternative to Lay on Hands (from Divine Power).



Ringlerun said:


> Aragorn uses a 2handed sword so not a defender he would be classes as a striker.  Gimli uses a 2handed axe so again another striker.





Jhaelen said:


> Using a two-handed weapon doesn't automatically make you a striker. You can use two-handed weapons and still be a defender



Yep. The fighter in my 4e game uses a two-handed weapon (a polearm) and is not a striker. He is a melee controller (lots of multi-target attacks, pull, push, slide, prone, OAs that stop movement, etc).



Ringlerun said:


> I was trying to show how absurd it would be if someone used the defined combat roles in rpg's in a book setting.
> 
> It was not a represent of how i or anyone else plays an rpg.
> 
> My point is that you can not use the defined roles for characters in novels as they are more than just tanks or strikers.



My point was that, because your example has nothing to do with how anyone plays an RPG, it doesn't shed any light on the effect of roles on play or on story.

If you, as GM (or players) want a story about bodyguarding a prince, then (i) build your bodyguards as defenders (or perhaps defenders and ranged strikers/controllers), and (ii) build your prince as a warlord (I think "lazy warlord" is the technical term).

Conversely, if you build the prince as a defender and the bodyguards as skirmishers, then you haven't got a story about a prince and his bodyguard at all. You've got a story about a knight sallying forth with a group of commoner retainers. And in that story it makes sense that the "prince" holds the line while the skirmishers go off and do their skirmishing. (And if the prince ends up half-dead in a pool of blood, then it wasn't a very good defender build. Or was overwhelmed by numbers, as happened to Boromir - a defender "prince" - in LotR.)


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> I don't mind combat roles, but you if you are going to Hard Code them into the system, I'd prefer you drop the Classes.
> 
> 4E could have done the following - Pick a Power Source (Martial, Arcane, Divine, Psionic, Elemental, Shadow) and Pick a Combat Role (Striker, Healer (because that's what a Leader really is), Defender, or Controller).
> 
> ...



I quite like classes. Generally they are more than just power sources and roles. In combination with the defence bonuses, proficiencies and skill lists that they bring, they are story elements.

Now some 4e classes are more successful in this respect than others - contrast warlocks with wardens, for example - but I think this is a reason to favour a class approach over a more points-buy approach.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 17, 2011)

I don't know what happened, but *I never posted the quoted text in these posts* that were attributed to me:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5732123-post31.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5732157-post35.html

If you try to follow the links, they take you even to an unrelated discussion...


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I don't know what happened, but *I never posted the quoted text in these posts* that were attributed to me:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/5732123-post31.html
> 
> ...




Sorry about that WD... should be taken care of now.


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The bard is the traditional arcane healer.




I suppose if you jumped through all the hoops to create a bard in AD&D 1e, you would have a certain amount of healing magic in the form of druid spells - which doesn't scream arcane to me. They certainly weren't a healer in 2e, sharing the Mage spell list. So the tradition of arcane healer=bard is only really present in 3e.



Imaro said:


> I would argue that the bard isn't the traditional arcane archetype (that would be Wizard, and upon further thought the archetype is the wizard class.)... he's a totally different archetype since he's a little bit of everything not just arcane... in fact I would say the bard is more under the rogue archetype than that of the wizard.




Well, in AD&D 2nd edition the Bard was in the Rogue sub-group with the Thief.  Although I'm not sure what the archetype would be - Jack of All Trades isn't a common theme, and even when it extends to magic as well, it's not often about being a performance artist.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I quite like classes. Generally they are more than just power sources and roles. In combination with the defence bonuses, proficiencies and skill lists that they bring, they are story elements.
> 
> Now some 4e classes are more successful in this respect than others - contrast warlocks with wardens, for example - but I think this is a reason to favour a class approach over a more points-buy approach.




I like classes too, they are a sacred cow of DnD.  I dislike hardcoding a combat role into them however.

I agree that classes typically imply some sort of backstory with them.  Ranger is a great example of this.  Disassociate the combat role from the class.  The outdoors fighter shouldn't be forced into a single role in every fight.


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 17, 2011)

To my thinking on the OP...

Keep your Roles out of my Classes and I'll keep my Classes out of your Roles.

Deal?

The combat role of a PC is whatever the_ player_ (that'd be the seemingly forgotten "P" of "PC") wants their character to be/do during combat.

The "role" in role-playing game is not/should not be "what they do in combat." It is the role the player gives/creates for their character in the game...in whatever situation they find themselves...whatever the player wants it to be.

I am absolutely baffled by the very concept that it is (or_ was_) either necessary or desired or even acceptable to players...For _da rulz_ to tell them what their PC (specifically) or class (more generally) is. Not 'should be' or works best for mechanics or (another of my favorites) 'game balance'...but _is_. That, to me, ruffles all kinds of imaginative/creative feathers. 

You want a rowdy thief from the tough streets that charges into battle (against everyone's better judgement)? Oh, nuh-no. You want a Fighter who's a big game/monster-hunter named "Crossbow Joe" who takes down his prey from a distance? Sorry. You don't seem to understand the "improvement" to the design of the rules.

Thank you, no. No Roles required nor desired.

Classes...for [arche]types of Player Characters, not "Rule-Design Stipulated Roles."

That's for me and my game(s).
Whatever you think about "Roles", have fun and happy gaming.
--SD


----------



## Hussar (Nov 17, 2011)

Steeldragons - what baffles me is how you could play D&D for any length of time and not think that "da rulz" weren't telling you exactly what you were.

If you played a cleric, you were "the healer".  Most of your spells revolved around healing/curing and certainly the expectation at any table I ever played at was that the cleric was going to be busting out the healing from time to time.

If you played the fighter, you were going to be the guy in the front taking the beats and laying the slippers to the baddies.  

If you were the thief/rogue, you were going to be the guy who looked for traps and tried to remove them, BECAUSE YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD.

It utterly boggles my mind that people think that the codification of combat roles in 4e is something new.  It's been around since the guy in the front was a Fighting Man.  How's that for a role?

Where the problem, in my mind, comes is that people insist on applying the idea of combat role to the entirety of the character.  That if I'm a "striker" then that must be the single, sole thing that my character is and I can never, ever do or be anything other than a "striker".

Sorry, that's utter and complete bollocks.  My current Dark Sun character is a noble from Urik whose family has been wiped out by the Sorcerer King of Urik for an attempt on his life.  I have a bounty on my head and a HUGE chip on my shoulder.  The fact that I'm also a Faelock is simply not what this character is.

We have three strikers in the group and all three are entirely different, despite two of them being the same race (thri-kreen).  

Why do people think that calling attention to the roles means that people have to lobotomize themselves and remove all their creativity?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 17, 2011)

steeldragons said:
			
		

> You want a rowdy thief from the tough streets that charges into battle (against everyone's better judgement)? Oh, nuh-no. You want a Fighter who's a big game/monster-hunter named "Crossbow Joe" who takes down his prey from a distance? Sorry. You don't seem to understand the "improvement" to the design of the rules.




I think, because class is archetype, people imagine their characters, in part, in terms of class, like the example above.

If you just made your "thief" a barbarian, and your "fighter" a ranger, there wouldn't be as much of a problem. 

But because class is archetype, you think of the thief first as a thief, and the fighter first as a fighter, and then find that the system doesn't support your customization options. Which suuuucks.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 17, 2011)

Tayne said:


> Of course I could have. I can build anything I want, if the DM allows it.
> 
> Options in a good role playing game aren't near infinite, they are infinite.*
> 
> ...




No, it is not that restrictive and if you've read any of my replies to Imaro you wold see that I'm in favor of taking stuff from the game and making it work for one's concept.

Delving into "just homebrew it" as your answer is disingenuous. You *know* that's not what I'm talking about. You *could* have built your phalanx soldier in 2003 *IF* your DM agreed to your homebrew creations. Same can be said for any concept in any game, but in common discussion one cannot assume that homebrewing is an option in another person's game. I'm pretty sure you knew my question was "Could you make a phalanx soldier the same way you do now with published rules" before you answered.



Imaro said:


> No, that's not exactly true... power source does tend to correlate with the type of damage your powers do. Like alot of divine powers doing radiant damage and it being more effective against undead.




That's what I meant by affecting design.



Imaro said:


> Great if you happen to worship a war god or something along those lines, but still limiting for other types of gods.




No. *You* just need to decide how it works out in fluff. If you want to make a Striker that works for the goddess of cute kittens and puppies, then you have to fill the gap between "Guy Who Does Lots of Damage" and "Defender of Fuzzy Baby Animals." No game is going to hand that to you on a silver platter.



Imaro said:


> I think there's a big middle between god of violence and god of peace that you are overlooking.  I don't see a correlation between the god/ideal and role. Otherwise why isn't my paladin of a war god a striker?




I know there's a middle ground and I'm not overlooking it. Why is your worshipper of the God of War a Paladin if your only concept for a worshipper of the God of War as a Striker? Why wouldn't you play a Barbarian and refluff the background to Champion of the War God? Even without Tayne's homebrewing there is alot of space to make the concept you want. You're the one stuck on the Paladin class and not allowing for any thoughts outside that box.



Imaro said:


> Sigh, I don't think power source has anything to do with it, that's something WotC extrapolated from archetypes... but true archetypes transcend that. When I say archetype, I am speaking of archetypical classes, and power source can be a part of them, but it doesn't define archetypes.




Well, I've always known the paladin as the Shining Protector, one maight even say *Defender* of the Meek. 



steeldragons said:


> You want a rowdy thief from the tough streets that charges into battle (against everyone's better judgement)? Oh, nuh-no.




Oh, yeah, uh-huh! Thug build of Rogue. No multiclassing, hybridization or feat taxes required.



steeldragons said:


> You want a Fighter who's a big game/monster-hunter named "Crossbow Joe" who takes down his prey from a distance? Sorry. You don't seem to understand the "improvement" to the design of the rules.




No. I don't think you do understand. If you want a fighter (intentional small 'f') who is highly skilled with the crossbow there are better martial class choices than Fighter for your concept. You are the one choosing to tie yourself to a class.

Even in third edition I encountered this baffling mindset. I made a multiclass barbarian/sorcerer. People tried to pigeonhole my character as a brute from the fringe of society. Nope, he was a minor noble's son from a large city. People tried to pigeonhole him as a spellslinger. Nope, the concept was a young man from a noble bloodline tainted (or blessed) with dragon blood. He could call upon the strength of his dragon heritage for short bursts of time. The spells I chose for him supported the concept and weren't of the flashy type but represented this inner strength he pulled from. But too many people saw Brb/Sor and demanded that I was some wild hedge wizard instead of my true character concept.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But too many people saw Brb/Sor and demanded that I was some wild hedge wizard instead of my true character concept.




BINGO.  That is exactly the issue.  A player should start the "build" of his character with a concept, not a class.  Then he can choose mechanical add-ons that support that concept.  These mechanical add-ons can be themes, class, race, etc.

When the player starts with the idea I want to be a fighter, the DM should explore what the player actually expects this "fighter" to do, so he can recommend a mechanical fit that will fulfill that concept.

If as a player I came to the game and said, I want to play a fighter.  I want to be able to kick creature ass, with a hammer, smash them to the ground with my god's righteousness and charge into combat with abandon.  The DM needs to look at the concept and see if  FIGHTER, the class, is the right fit, or whether PALADIN, the class, is a better one.

Trying to take a class and apply a concept it does not support is just going to lead to frustration.  If a player wants to play a fighter that cast spells there are multiple ways of supporting that concept, but a hybrid rogue/barbarian is not a recommended build for that concept. That is not a problem with the classes, its a problem with unrealistic expectations.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> It utterly boggles my mind that people think that the codification of combat roles in 4e is something new. It's been around since the guy in the front was a Fighting Man. How's that for a role?




Codified Combat Roles are new.  Yes, clerics and druids both healed, but they could also be front line fighters.  Put that cleric in heavy armor, give him a mace and you are good to go.  Were roles implied by the rules absolutely.  Enforced by the rules, not so much.

Look at 3rd Edition.  What's a Fighter who dips into Rogue?  Is he a defender?  Is he a striker?  What about a fighter who takes levels in cleric?  What's that, a healer?  What's a Barbarian?  What's a monk - Striker, Defender, Controller?  What's a bard?  He can heal, but if you say he's just a healer, you've just hacked off 75% or more the class.  What's a Druid?  It can be a front line fighter, or a spell slinger, or a healer.

3rd Edition allowed you to be whatever you wanted to be.  Multi-classing, feats, and spells could focus a character or broaden a charater to your heart's content.  The player defined what, if any role, the character would have in combat.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> 3rd Edition allowed you to be whatever you wanted to be.  Multi-classing, feats, and spells could focus a character or broaden a charater to your heart's content.  The player defined what, if any role, the character would have in combat.




Correct, add-ons to the base class allowed you to change your "basic" role in combat.  But if you took fighter as a class and then expected to cast spells you were not playing to the "role" of that class, which is NOT spellcaster.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2011)

steeldragons said:


> The combat role of a PC is whatever the_ player_ (that'd be the seemingly forgotten "P" of "PC") wants their character to be/do during combat.
> 
> The "role" in role-playing game is not/should not be "what they do in combat." It is the role the player gives/creates for their character in the game...in whatever situation they find themselves...whatever the player wants it to be.
> 
> I am absolutely baffled by the very concept that it is (or_ was_) either necessary or desired or even acceptable to players...For _da rulz_ to tell them what their PC (specifically) or class (more generally) is. Not 'should be' or works best for mechanics or (another of my favorites) 'game balance'...but _is_.



Then you shouldn't have any trouble with 4e. It doesn't tell you what to do in (or out of) combat. It just tells you what works best, as a general rule.

Even if we're talking about sound rather than wacky tactical play, there can be a lot of variations in 4e. The drow sorcerer in my game does a lot of frontline fighting (using close bursts, darkness for defence, and teleporting out if things get too hairy) and on the odd occasion, when the fighter is low on hit points, has even taken on the defender role as best he can.



Hussar said:


> what baffles me is how you could play D&D for any length of time and not think that "da rulz" weren't telling you exactly what you were.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Why do people think that calling attention to the roles means that people have to lobotomize themselves and remove all their creativity?



I agree with all this. The mechanics are a general guide to what your PC is best at. The "role" designation in 4e is just a generalisation of this. Creative play will buck those generalisations, from time to time at least, if not often.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 17, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Correct, add-ons to the base class allowed you to change your "basic" role in combat.  But if you took fighter as a class and then expected to cast spells you were not playing to the "role" of that class, which is NOT spellcaster.




In 3rd, if you are a Fighter 3 / Wizard 3, what are you?  What's your role?  You don't have enough information with that description to know what that Character's combat role is.  

In 4th, if you say are a Figther with a wizard multiclass, you know exactly the role that the character performs in combat.  The system defined it for you.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Why do people think that calling attention to the roles means that people have to lobotomize themselves and remove all their creativity?




Apparently because labels have meanings that can't be entirely circumvented by saying that "fighter" means something specific.  I don't have a problem with such labels, but then I work in a field where I often encounter this problem.  

There might be so much baggage associated with class names as archetypes that the old class names are no longer useful as technical terms.  "Druid" and "Bard" and "Paladin" were problematic from the start, and have only gotten worse as time passes.  

So maybe there is something to be said for using "Fighting Man", "Magic User", "Holy Guy", "Sneaky McStabby Pants", and whatever other goofy descriptions are needed for the generic idea.  The whole thing has been going downhill ever since "Thief" and "Cleric" made an entrance.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Then you shouldn't have any trouble with 4e. It doesn't tell you what to do in (or out of) combat. It just tells you what works best, as a general rule.




Absolutely incorrect.  If you are playing a Swordmage and refuse to mark anything or a Warlord who refuses to heal, you are violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> In 3rd, if you are a Fighter 3 / Wizard 3, what are you?  What's your role?  You don't have enough information with that description to know what that Character's combat role is.
> 
> In 4th, if you say are a Figther with a wizard multiclass, you know exactly the role that the character performs in combat.  The system defined it for you.




Correct, you added a multiclass to "break" out of your role.  

If you said you're a Fighter 3 in 4e, you would have to look at build/feats/power selection to determine what aspects of the "defender" role the fighter decided to "specialize" in.  Not only that there are certain build that are not defenders.  If he had multiclassed then you have the same issue as in 3e, because there are multiple ways to multiclass.  Is he a hybrid, is he a multiclass, is he a swordmage, is he a bladesinger, what feats did he take, what powers?  All of those different factors allow you to "break" the role, or play to it.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Absolutely incorrect.  If you are playing a Swordmage and refuse to mark anything or a Warlord who refuses to heal, you are violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table.




If you're playing a 3e Fighter and refuse to "fight" you are also violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table.  Stupid decisions at how to run a character do not a point of data make.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Codified Combat Roles are new.  Yes, clerics and druids both healed, but they could also be front line fighters.  Put that cleric in heavy armor, give him a mace and you are good to go.  Were roles implied by the rules absolutely.  Enforced by the rules, not so much.



But this is still true. You can stick your STR cleric in chain armour (or scale if you spend a feat) and have him/her fight in the front line. You can even get marking powers.

The rules don't _enforce_ that a STR cleric, or a warlord, can't hold the front line. They just make a fighter better at doing that job.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Steeldragons - what baffles me is how you could play D&D for any length of time and not think that "da rulz" weren't telling you exactly what you were.



I'm going to disagree here, I feel like in earlier editions "da rulz" gave you much more freedom to decide what role in combat you wanted to take on within the archetype of the class you picked.


Hussar said:


> If you played a cleric, you were "the healer". Most of your spells revolved around healing/curing and certainly the expectation at any table I ever played at was that the cleric was going to be busting out the healing from time to time.



See now you're talking about expectations of the players. The rules don't force a cleric to be a healer, there are plenty of useful spells pre-4e that allow a cleric to take on a multitude of roles... From defender to controller. Choosing to focus on healing was just one facet.


Hussar said:


> If you played the fighter, you were going to be the guy in the front taking the beats and laying the slippers to the baddies.



Unless you focused on being a ranged fighter or sacrificed defense for damage output.


Hussar said:


> If you were the thief/rogue, you were going to be the guy who looked for traps and tried to remove them, BECAUSE YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD.



Uhm... This isn't a combat role and I would venture so far as to say is actually more a part of the rogue archetype.


Hussar said:


> It utterly boggles my mind that people think that the codification of combat roles in 4e is something new. It's been around since the guy in the front was a Fighting Man. How's that for a role?



I think you're confusing "combat roles" with archetypical abilities in certain instances of your examples. Combat roles have never been as explicitly hardcoded as you're trying to make them out to be or as I feel they have been with 4e and its power system.


Hussar said:


> Where the problem, in my mind, comes is that people insist on applying the idea of combat role to the entirety of the character. That if I'm a "striker" then that must be the single, sole thing that my character is and I can never, ever do or be anything other than a "striker".



No, most people in this thread are sticking to combat... As in the archetype I want has been pigeonholed into a specific role in combat, and all that doing that entails.


Hussar said:


> Sorry, that's utter and complete bollocks. My current Dark Sun character is a noble from Urik whose family has been wiped out by the Sorcerer King of Urik for an attempt on his life. I have a bounty on my head and a HUGE chip on my shoulder. The fact that I'm also a Faelock is simply not what this character is.
> We have three strikers in the group and all three are entirely different, despite two of them being the same race (thri-kreen).
> Why do people think that calling attention to the roles means that people have to lobotomize themselves and remove all their creativity?



Total strawman here... What people are saying is why does my selection of the holy warrior archetype auto-regulate me to taking hits and being a blockade... When really I want to be doing damage and striking down my gods enemies like a hot knife through butter.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 17, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Correct, you added a multiclass to "break" out of your role.
> 
> If you said you're a Fighter 3 in 4e, you would have to look at build/feats/power selection to determine what aspects of the "defender" role the fighter decided to "specialize" in.  Not only that there are certain build that are not defenders.  If he had multiclassed then you have the same issue as in 3e, because there are multiple ways to multiclass.  Is he a hybrid, is he a multiclass, is he a swordmage, is he a bladesinger, what feats did he take, what powers?  All of those different factors allow you to "break" the role, or play to it.




I guess the point is that when you take Fighter in 4E, you are expected by the rest of the party to be the Defender.  It's what the class says on the can.  In earlier editions, the only class that really had that expectation was cleric (you are expected to heal, it's a violation of the social contract of the game if you refuse to).

By hardcoding the combat roles into each class, the game system is creating a social contract to do what the role says you should be doing.  I disagree with that being part of the social contract of any class (except cleric ) .

That's why I wouldn't mind you doing a generic Power Source / Combat Role system, removing class labels.  But when the game rules start applying roles to classes and saying this is the way every X should be, I balk.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 17, 2011)

D'karr said:


> If you're playing a 3e Fighter and refuse to "fight" you are also violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table.  Stupid decisions at how to run a character do not a point of data make.




Agreed, it says "Fight" on the Figher can 

4th Edition adds a new layer to that social contract saying you must also be a defender.  I disagree with this additional role.  Let the player decide if he wants his character to have this role, don't force it upon the class.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Absolutely incorrect.  If you are playing a Swordmage and refuse to mark anything or a Warlord who refuses to heal, you are violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table.





D'karr said:


> If you're playing a 3e Fighter and refuse to "fight" you are also violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table.  Stupid decisions at how to run a character do not a point of data make.



I agree with D'karr here. Why would you build a Swordmage and not mark? Or build a Warlord and not heal? In general, why would you not use your class features?

But I thought the question here was not about whether or not players will use their class features, but about whether or not they are obliged to play to role in any constraining sense. A swordmage might use his/her mark, for example, but not defend - perhaps s/he stays in the second rank, marking and attacking at range, and using the shielding aegis to reduce damage. This swordmage would play more like a leader/ranged striker. Or a warlord might heal, but from the front line, leading attacks and engaging foes in one-on-one combat - not sticky enough to be a defender, but again playing something like a melee striker/leader, and certainly quite different from (for example) a WIS cleric.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> That's why I wouldn't mind you doing a generic Power Source / Combat Role system, removing class labels.  But when the game rules start applying roles to classes and saying this is the way every X should be, I balk.




A label is just that a label.  In your example about a fighter 3/wizard 3 you mentioned that you couldn't tell by that "label" what the character's role was.  This has a tendency to become a dead-end trap for players.  If I want to play a character that "defends" but casts spells I have certain choices.  If I want a character that mostly casts spells and still fights, there are other choices.  The roles make it easier for the player to make the right choice for what concept they want, rather than the nebulous class labels.

The roles allow the players to choose "labels" for their characters that will fit the way they want to play.  Instead of providing "loaded" labels that end up not fitting what they want to play.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> In 3rd, if you are a Fighter 3 / Wizard 3, what are you?  What's your role?  You don't have enough information with that description to know what that Character's combat role is.




A warrior that fights like a priest and casts spells like a bard? A sub-optimal character? I don't know the answer to your riddle. 



Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> In 4th, if you say are a Figther with a wizard multiclass, you know exactly the role that the character performs in combat.  The system defined it for you.




And you chose that class most likely because you wanted to fill that role. 



Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Absolutely incorrect.  If you are playing a Swordmage and refuse to mark anything or a Warlord who refuses to heal, you are violating the social contract of the class and it's role at the table.




And why did you choose that class if you don't like its function? It really would be like choosing Fighting Man in OD&D and then hanging back trying to cast spells.



Imaro said:


> I'm going to disagree here, I feel like in earlier editions "da rulz" gave you much more freedom to decide what role in combat you wanted to take on within the archetype of the class you picked.




All 4E did was take a different approach to the same end. Determine your concept first, pick what class suits that concept best. Some of us did that in 3E already instead of choose class then force concept.



Imaro said:


> See now you're talking about expectations of the players. The rules don't force a cleric to be a healer, there are plenty of useful spells pre-4e that allow a cleric to take on a multitude of roles... From defender to controller. Choosing to focus on healing was just one facet.




As the only class that could keep your party alive reliably in prior editions (although Druid became slightly better in 3.5) you're really claiming that peer pressure didn't force one into the healer role? So all those times my group diced off for who was "forced" to be the healer were just my imagination?



Imaro said:


> Unless you focused on being a ranged fighter or sacrificed defense for damage output.




A ranged Fighter that sacrificed defense for damage output? That sounds REALLY familiar....oh yeah, the 4E Ranger. I know, how evil of them to make it woodlands themed and give you Nature or Dungeoneering as a bonus skill plus another bonus skill of your choice. I know, you're dead set on playing a "Ranger Fighter that sacrificed defense for damage output" and no one will ever talk you into playing another class, nuh-uh!



Imaro said:


> No, most people in this thread are sticking to combat... As in the archetype I want has been pigeonholed into a specific role in combat, and all that doing that entails.




There are two reasons for that. One, no one has ever presented a limited list of non-combat roles. The only common ones seem to be Face, Trapfinder, and Tracker. I believe there are so many more that it would be difficult to codify them into the limited list that 4E combat roles have been. Second, the smaller skill list and folded skills allow you to make your character fit whatever non-combat role synergizes with your characters abilities.



Imaro said:


> Total strawman here... What people are saying is why does my selection of the holy warrior archetype auto-regulate me to taking hits and being a blockade... When really I want to be doing damage and striking down my gods enemies like a hot knife through butter.




But why *must* you play a Paladin to be the holy warrior archetype?!? That's the same thinking that says every time you enter a chapel in any town that the priest leading the flock is a Cleric. In every edition I've had the equivalent of Commoners, Experts, Nobles, Fighters, Rogues, etc, etc, etc leading a congregation. Cleric is a description that shorthands the ability package you are choosing for your character. It need not limit the concept of what your character actually is.



Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Agreed, it says "Fight" on the Figher can
> 
> 4th Edition adds a new layer to that social contract saying you must also be a defender.  I disagree with this additional role.  Let the player decide if he wants his character to have this role, don't force it upon the class.




If you want to be a Fighter that doesn't defend, choose a melee class that isn't a Fighter. How hard is that? To me it's like complaining that my 1E Fighter can't enter a Rage. If you wanted to rage you played a Barbarian.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 17, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> The whole thing has been going downhill ever since "Thief" and "Cleric" made an entrance.




Uh, Cleric made an entrance in the very first edition of OD&D... If you think it has been going downhill since before RPGs appeared...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> 4th Edition adds a new layer to that social contract saying you must also be a defender.  I disagree with this additional role.  Let the player decide if he wants his character to have this role, don't force it upon the class.




If the role is baked into the class, then the player picks the role with the class.

If the role is an option of the class, then the player picks the role when he picks the role-appropriate options of the class.

Either way, the player gets to pick what role they play.  Ultimately, exactly where that choice is made doesn't really matter all that much.  One design has a whole lot of classes, each with a few choices, the other has a few classes, with a whole lot of choices.

In the end, the difference is mostly in how things are organized, not in their functional end results.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 17, 2011)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> Roles are useful when building a party. Just think of all those movies with the dramatic phrase "I've been forming a team"
> 
> You need someone to take the bulk of melee
> Someone to heal
> ...




I disagree. Back in the old days a party was just a collection of whatever characters the party wanted to play, and the DM tailored adventures (on the rare occasions it was necessary) so that it matched the party capabilities. It could still be a sandbox, while allowing for flexibility in how the game was played. 

Itn that mode of play there was never a NEED to have specific party 'roles' covered - and was all the better for it.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> I disagree. Back in the old days a party was just a collection of whatever characters the party wanted to play, and the DM tailored adventures (on the rare occasions it was necessary) so that it matched the party capabilities. It could still be a sandbox, while allowing for flexibility in how the game was played.
> 
> Itn that mode of play there was never a NEED to have specific party 'roles' covered - and was all the better for it.




In that respect nothing prevents a current DM from doing the exact same thing, and creating tailored adventures for the characters at the table.

I have seen many games without specific roles at the table and they still went well when tailored by the DM.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree with D'karr here. Why would you build a Swordmage and not mark? Or build a Warlord and not heal? In general, why would you not use your class features?





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And you chose that class most likely because you wanted to fill that role.



Both of these statements seem to be absolutely missing the point.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

A fitting example of methodology for character building approaches is the current DDI Character Builder.

You can choose to create an Essentials Character and when you choose that option, the builder asks what play style you prefer.  It takes the time to explain the role in detail.  Once you've selected your preferred style it shows the classes that fit that "role".

You can also you choose to build a Custom D&D Character.  In this case the builder assumes that you are more experienced and puts you at the "advanced tab" for character creation.  You can sort the classes by role, power source, primary ability or source.  It follows a step by step methodology for character creation but it doesn't hand hold you.  All of the "custom" options are available here (Hybrids, etc.).

The point is that for "beginners" it has a way of filtering from the start what you'd like to play, so that it doesn't put you in a label (class) that, though it might sound good, doesn't work with your playstyle.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> That's what I meant by affecting design.




But this is also a mechanical effect that has in-play consequences. The holy warrior archetype has traditionally been good against evil and undead... in 4e this is partly expressed through his use of radiant damage, a barbarian doesn't get these types of powers.





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> No. *You* just need to decide how it works out in fluff. If you want to make a Striker that works for the goddess of cute kittens and puppies, then you have to fill the gap between "Guy Who Does Lots of Damage" and "Defender of Fuzzy Baby Animals." No game is going to hand that to you on a silver platter.




Or. like I said we could not conflate an archetype like holy warrior... with how he chooses to fight in combat. And there are many games, including previous editions of D&D that allow exactly what you are claiming can't be done.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I know there's a middle ground and I'm not overlooking it. Why is your worshipper of the God of War a Paladin if your only concept for a worshipper of the God of War as a Striker? Why wouldn't you play a Barbarian and refluff the background to Champion of the War God? Even without Tayne's homebrewing there is alot of space to make the concept you want. You're the one stuck on the Paladin class and not allowing for any thoughts outside that box.




Let me flip that, what about the holy warrior or paladin archetype makes him intrinsically fight in a defender role? Why is one even connected to the other?  Isn't this just as arbitrary as my concept being a striker? 

On another note why do I have to sacrifice the ability to have radiant damage powers in order to be a striker paladin?




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Well, I've always known the paladin as the Shining Protector, one maight even say *Defender* of the Meek.




One could also say the best defense is a good offense...


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> A warrior that fights like a priest and casts spells like a bard? A sub-optimal character? I don't know the answer to your riddle.




Hey, I like bards!  



> And you chose that class most likely because you wanted to fill that role.




And that's my point.  If you pick fighter, you've selected it because you want to be a defender, not because you want to focus on martial weapons.  I love martial characters but I tend to build them to suit my own designs, not to fit a predefined combat role.

I think this comes down to personal preference.  I like my classes loosely defined so I can impose my character idea upon them.  I dislike my classes strongly defined where I need to pick the class that best represents my character idea.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And why did you choose that class if you don't like its function? It really would be like choosing Fighting Man in OD&D and then hanging back trying to cast spells.




You've hit the problem dead on.  

Theives sneak around and use specialized skills to overcome problems.  Clerics use divine gifts to overcome problems.  Wizards use carefully researched spells to overcome problems.  Fighters use force of arms to overcome problems.

DnD has stopped defining the characters by what tools they use to solve problems.  Instead, the modern rules define characters by how they are suppose to behave in combat.

_Edit_:  You've hit the nail on the head for me.  I like class that are given a set of tools to solve problems, not a combat role.  Just clarifying this is my opinion on the subject, not some general statement about the way the game MUST be played.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> No, it is not that restrictive and if you've read any of my replies to Imaro you wold see that I'm in favor of taking stuff from the game and making it work for one's concept.
> 
> Delving into "just homebrew it" as your answer is disingenuous. You *know* that's not what I'm talking about. You *could* have built your phalanx soldier in 2003 *IF* your DM agreed to your homebrew creations. Same can be said for any concept in any game, but in common discussion one cannot assume that homebrewing is an option in another person's game. I'm pretty sure you knew my question was "Could you make a phalanx soldier the same way you do now with published rules" before you answered.




Yes, I knew you were talking about the system rules.  No, there's nothing wrong with assuming anyone can homebrew, because literally anyone can, and in every system I've ever played they encouraged it in the source material. 

Or so I thought, at least. I guess the reason I bring it up is because I have very little experience with 4.0 and I wanted to see if homebrewing was encouraged/doable in 4.0. I take it from your response that that's not the case?


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> But this is also a mechanical effect that has in-play consequences. The holy warrior archetype has traditionally been good against evil and undead... in 4e this is partly expressed through his use of radiant damage, a barbarian doesn't get these types of powers.




Most classes that are not tied to a deity in some form don't have radiant damage



> Or. like I said we could not conflate an archetype like holy warrior... with how he chooses to fight in combat. And there are many games, including previous editions of D&D that allow exactly what you are claiming can't be done.




What edition of D&D let's you take the Paladin class with no alterations and allows him to sneak as well as a rogue(thief), or give him backstab/sneak attack?  None.  Why is that?

What edition of D&D let's a rogue class with no alterations affect undead with "radiant" power?  Once again none.  Why is that?

In D&D Classes have always existed for a particular reason they are easy to use, the leveling mechanic makes it easy to adjust, and presents instant gratification every time you level.  Each Class has a "role" to play in the interaction with combat and those roles are sometimes unique and sometimes they overlap.  Everyone does damage in combat, but rogues get sneak attack, why doesn't the Paladin get sneak attack damage?  Because it is not in his class.  But Paladins get Radiant damage to undead, and lay on hands, etc.




> Let me flip that, what about the holy warrior or paladin archetype makes him intrinsically fight in a defender role? Why is one even connected to the other?  Isn't this just as arbitrary as my concept being a striker?
> 
> On another note why do I have to sacrifice the ability to have radiant damage powers in order to be a striker paladin?




Why does the Ranger Class in any edition of D&D not do "radiant" damage to Undead.  Why does he have to "sacrifice" light armor, and two weapon attacks if he wants to wear Plate Armor and a Shield?


----------



## Tayne (Nov 17, 2011)

A role is not a class feature, it's a job, or a purpose. A player should define his character's role in and out of combat. Whether or not the class he chose best suits that role is one thing, but dammit, if you want to try to be a cleric striker or a rogue defender it should be common sense telling you not to do that, not the source material.

ps look what I found, off topic - 

http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971

a review for D&D 5.0


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> DnD has stopped defining the characters by what tools they use to solve problems.  Instead, the modern rules define characters by how they are suppose to behave in combat.
> 
> _Edit_:  You've hit the nail on the head for me.  I like class that are given a set of tools to solve problems, not a combat role.  Just clarifying this is my opinion on the subject, not some general statement about the way the game MUST be played.




What "modern rule or rules" in the game prevent or disallow thieves to sneak around, and use specialized skills to overcome problems, clerics to use divine gifts to overcome problems, wizards to use carefully researched spells to overcome problems, or fighters to use force of arms to overcome problems?

Thieves/Rogues still sneak, Clerics still get spells from Divine sources, Wizards are still the studious types, and fighters still bash things.  So what is being prevented.

The roles in combat have nothing to do with how you overcome problems outside of combat and players are still encouraged to be as creative as they want to be in combat too.

If a cleric wants to backstab in combat that is something that has never been a "feature" of the base class.  So in combat in D&D (all editions) Clerics don't backstab.  So the rules in ALL editions prevent that option, but then there are multiclassing rules that allow just that type of customization.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 17, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> I disagree. Back in the old days a party was just a collection of whatever characters the party wanted to play, and the DM tailored adventures (on the rare occasions it was necessary) so that it matched the party capabilities. It could still be a sandbox, while allowing for flexibility in how the game was played.
> 
> Itn that mode of play there was never a NEED to have specific party 'roles' covered - and was all the better for it.




You say this like it is some kind of absolute. Well it doesn't match my experience at all. My group has always made sure that the basics are covered. Back in the old days that meant having at least one cleric, one fighter-type, one wizard, and one thief before any other characters were added. Whereas now they don't always have each of the four roles covered when creating characters.



JamesonCourage said:


> Both of these statements seem to be absolutely missing the point.




Umbran explained best why I think you're missing the point. In the 'old days' you didn't choose a Fighter if you wanted to cast spells. In 4E you choose Ranger, or Rogue, or Seeker, or Hunter, or Bard, or Warlord if you want to be the ranged weapon guy, not Fighter. The only difference is that previous systems used to let the Fighter fill this role. Things change, but the missile-weapon high-damage low-defense guy still exists, he just isn't called Fighter any more.



Imaro said:


> But this is also a mechanical effect that has in-play consequences. The holy warrior archetype has traditionally been good against evil and undead... in 4e this is partly expressed through his use of radiant damage, a barbarian doesn't get these types of powers.




If radiant damage is important to your concept, then you have to find another way to achieve your concept. But as you keep adding additional requirements to your desired concept you sound like someone wanting a Mary Sue character, IMO. Maybe someday they will develop a heavy armored radiant striker. But they'll hopefully put more thought of balance into it than just saying "take a barbarian and slap radiant on all his powers." You have the tools to make the character you want, yet you complain that you are asked to pay for those abilities or sacrifice something to achieve what you want. The balancing of a new divine striker/defender would build in those same costs or sacrifices.



Imaro said:


> Or. like I said we could not conflate an archetype like holy warrior... with how he chooses to fight in combat. And there are many games, including previous editions of D&D that allow exactly what you are claiming can't be done.




Maybe you could give me an example of one and I would better understand your argument. I feel like you and I have different defintions of Striker.



Imaro said:


> Let me flip that, what about the holy warrior or paladin archetype makes him intrinsically fight in a defender role? Why is one even connected to the other?  Isn't this just as arbitrary as my concept being a striker?




Nope. I already told you it fits my understanding of the stereotypical paladin. If you want one that breaks those stereotypes then you either need to 1) use feats, multiclassing, or hybridization; 2) design it yourself; or 3) wait for someone else to design it. I understand the designers choice to stick with the most common stereotype of what a paladin is.



Imaro said:


> On another note why do I have to sacrifice the ability to have radiant damage powers in order to be a striker paladin?




You don't. You can be a hybrid and still have radiant powers. You could be an avenger and break the stereotype of holy warriors being buried under plate armor. There are alot of options open to you.




Tayne said:


> Yes, I knew you were talking about the system rules.  No, there's nothing wrong with assuming anyone can homebrew, because literally anyone can, and in every system I've ever played they encouraged it in the source material.
> 
> Or so I thought, at least. I guess the reason I bring it up is because I have very little experience with 4.0 and I wanted to see if homebrewing was encouraged/doable in 4.0. I take it from your response that that's not the case?




Homebrewing is not as widespread as you think. Your personal experience has no bearing. Many DMs I've played with since the beginning of the game will not allow homebrewed material. That is why you can't assume. Even if they allow homebrewing, they may not like your current offering and reject it. That is why you cannot assume.

The one detriment to homebrewing in 4E is the Character Builder software. It currently does not allow outside material to be loaded. But if you are willing to make your character without technological help (like the good old days) then this impediment disappears.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Homebrewing is not as widespread as you think. Your personal experience has no bearing. Many DMs I've played with since the beginning of the game will not allow homebrewed material. That is why you can't assume. Even if they allow homebrewing, they may not like your current offering and reject it. That is why you cannot assume.
> 
> The one detriment to homebrewing in 4E is the Character Builder software. It currently does not allow outside material to be loaded. But if you are willing to make your character without technological help (like the good old days) then this impediment disappears.




I refer you a few posts back where I included the caveat "subject to GM approval." I know there are GMs out there who won't allow it, that's not what i'm talking about. You CAN do it, even if you MAY not.

Off topic, but if you're not houseruling/homebrewing at all, you're doing it wrong, in my humble opinion.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> I think this comes down to personal preference.  I like my classes loosely defined so I can impose my character idea upon them.  I dislike my classes strongly defined where I need to pick the class that best represents my character idea.




I think you summed up the thread!   

Also, since we're talking about class...


----------



## Tayne (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> I think this comes down to personal preference.  I like my classes loosely defined so I can impose my character idea upon them.  I dislike my classes strongly defined where I need to pick the class that best represents my character idea.





MichaelSomething said:


> I think you summed up the thread!
> 
> Also, since we're talking about class...



Yeah, this is true. At the end of the day, we live in a great time where everybody in this argument has a system to suit their preferences.

And with that, I extract myself....


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 17, 2011)

Woot!  I win the Internets!  /dance

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to playing my game of choice, Tic-Tac-Toe ( "O" is clearly the best class in that game)


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> What people are saying is why does my selection of the holy warrior archetype auto-regulate me to taking hits and being a blockade... When really I want to be doing damage and striking down my gods enemies like a hot knife through butter.



"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "




Would some kind soul please give [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] an Experience Point for me?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 17, 2011)

Whatever...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Saying "IMHO" neither makes this truly humble nor does it make for a good attitude. It's OneTrueWayism at its finest. I understand that you enjoy homebrewing. I also understand that some people do not like homebrewing. Whether I  would never say that either side is doing it wrong. Wrong for your tastes? Sure. Wrong in a general sense, which is what I'm getting from your "humble opinion," cannot be true as long as the group has agreed that's what works best for them. I've experienced both homebrew customization and pure published material games. I like either. I will consider any player submission of homebrewed rules and have often said yes in the past, yet my players do not seem to look for this.




Stop picking a fight with someone's opinion, otherwise you'll get booted from the thread. There is nothing wrong with his attitude here, but there is something wrong with you accusing him of one true way ism. 

Thanks


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 17, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Uh, Cleric made an entrance in the very first edition of OD&D... If you think it has been going downhill since before RPGs appeared...




I was playing shortly thereafter. I'm aware of that. The point is that as soon as "cleric" and "thief" got attached to mechanical packages, people started quibbling about the archetypes in their heads that went with those labels and how the package didn't match them. I believe Umbran made this point a couple of times already. 

As to what should be done about it, I don't know. It would be nice if people would take labels that are specialized, in the context of what they represent, but the resistantance is enormous. See the 20 year fight to get people to treat radio buttons as single selection and a row of check boxes as multiple selection. Some UI experts arbitrarily decided to reinforce that distinction because they knew that if it were enforced, everyone would be more productive. Yet people *still* fight it. My boss, of all people, still wants multiple selection radio buttons. 

"Fighter/Fighting Man" wasn't even an archetype when it was coined. "Warrior" was an archetype. The former has become an archetype only because D&D players have made it one.

So I think communication about games would be a lot more clear if we could have labels for mechanics that did not take on archetypical connotations. Given the resistance to that in forums, I don't know that we could ever get there. 

So yeah, this aspect has been going downhill since people started attaching their own archetypical ideas to "cleric" and "thief"--and expecting everyone else to have the exact same archetypical ideas.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Most classes that are not tied to a deity in some form don't have radiant damage




That was my point.



D'karr said:


> What edition of D&D let's you take the Paladin class with no alterations and allows him to sneak as well as a rogue(thief), or give him backstab/sneak attack? None. Why is that?




What does this have to do with our present discussion... we are discussing combat roles... not class abilities.



D'karr said:


> What edition of D&D let's a rogue class with no alterations affect undead with "radiant" power? Once again none. Why is that?




Again read what I posted above.



D'karr said:


> In D&D Classes have always existed for a particular reason they are easy to use, the leveling mechanic makes it easy to adjust, and presents instant gratification every time you level. Each Class has a "role" to play in the interaction with combat and those roles are sometimes unique and sometimes they overlap. Everyone does damage in combat, but rogues get sneak attack, why doesn't the Paladin get sneak attack damage? Because it is not in his class. But Paladins get Radiant damage to undead, and lay on hands, etc.




Combat roles are striker, defender, controller and leader...



) 


D'karr said:


> Why does the Ranger Class in any edition of D&D not do "radiant" damage to Undead. Why does he have to "sacrifice" light armor, and two weapon attacks if he wants to wear Plate Armor and a Shield?




The answer to these questions is irrelevant to the discussion as again, we are talking about combat role not class (archetypical) abilities.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The answer to these questions is irrelevant to the discussion as again, we are talking about combat role not class (archetypical) abilities.




Interesting assumption since the "archetypes" are enforced by Class Features.  If they were not they'd be simply labels.

In combat the label "rogue" without sneak attack has no mechanical difference to "paladin".  The same as the label "wizard" without spells has no mechanical difference to "paladin"

Without class features the archetypal labels are simply labels.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> What does this have to do with our present discussion... we are discussing combat roles... not class abilities.




The role of a striker is to do lots of damage. This is accomplished by every existing striker via class abilities that allow him to do lots of damage. 

The reason we keep asking for a 3E Paladin that Sneak Attacks is because Sneak Attack was the only striker mechanic in 3E. You couldn't make a paladin in that edition or any previous edition that met the current definition of striker without multiclassing or feats, which you handily turned down when suggested for 4E.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 17, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> I think this comes down to personal preference.  I like my classes loosely defined so I can impose my character idea upon them.  I dislike my classes strongly defined where I need to pick the class that best represents my character idea.




Would you say then that D&D in general has always had this problem because it is a class-based system? The Thief/Rogue, the Fighter and the Paladin have always used the same "tools" as you put it, but in different ways. What if you wanted to be a holy warrior that snuck around and Backstabbed/Sneak Attacked people. The classes got in the way in previous editions also.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Interesting assumption since the "archetypes" are enforced by Class Features. If they were not they'd be simply labels.
> 
> In combat the label "rogue" without sneak attack has no mechanical difference to "paladin". The same as the label "wizard" without spells has no mechanical difference to "paladin"
> 
> Without class features the archetypal labels are simply labels.




No the archetypes are represented through the class features... there's a difference. The archetypes are the overarching ideal of a rogue or a warrior or a wizard... In other words the fact that the wizard class casts spells is part of the wizard archetype... what you don't get is a wizard archetype with no ability to cast spells or a warrior archetype that is not competent in combat. 

What isn't part of said archetype, IMO, is whether the warrior fights by taking damage and protecting his comrades or whether by hitting enemies hard and fast. The same way a wizard archetype isn't defined by whether he uses spells that do alot of direct damage to a single target or spells that divine the future so he can lead his companions better... both are still under the wizard archetype.

So you're saying without the defining characteristics of an archetype, the classes become interchangeable and meaningless... Uhm, yeah the defining characteristics are what make the classes archetypical... without them they aren't archetypes, just misleading names. I'm not understanding your point.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The role of a striker is to do lots of damage. This is accomplished by every existing striker via class abilities that allow him to do lots of damage.
> 
> The reason we keep asking for a 3E Paladin that Sneak Attacks is because Sneak Attack was the only striker mechanic in 3E. You couldn't make a paladin in that edition or any previous edition that met the current definition of striker without multiclassing or feats, which you handily turned down when suggested for 4E.




I know I said I was done, but one last thing - wasn't smite evil in 3E? Smite evil is "a striker ability."

It kind of seems like 3E had way, way more than one striker mechanic, anyway... Magic missile?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The role of a striker is to do lots of damage. This is accomplished by every existing striker via class abilities that allow him to do lots of damage.
> 
> The reason we keep asking for a 3E Paladin that Sneak Attacks is because Sneak Attack was the only striker mechanic in 3E. You couldn't make a paladin in that edition or any previous edition that met the current definition of striker without multiclassing or feats, which you handily turned down when suggested for 4E.





I don't have a problem using feats or multiclassing, what I have a problem with in 4e is that every suggestion has been that in order to get my paladin character to be a striker (a role that has more to with my style of playing the game as opposed to concept or archetype), I have to dilute the actual archetype I want to play.

In 3e if I took Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Improved Smite, used a weapon with a higher damage die, and so on I do more and more damage without the core concept of my paladin being dilluted or mixed with primal powers or themes that don't fit the concept of my character... that is my issue. If I want to play a holy warrior and not some frakenstein combo character... It seems like I'm outta luck in 4e... In other words I feel like roles shouldn't have been hardcoded into archetypes or classes because one has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> No the archetypes are represented through the class features... there's a difference.




So the class features play no part in defining what that class can do.  Because it's only "representing" the archetype.

Talk about double speak.

A paladin is a word, a label, and at some point someone decided to assign it mechanical features that represent what that character can do within the game.  In 1e the Paladin had Lay on Hands, in 3e he had Lay on Hands, in 4e he has Lay on Hands.

If you take the Lay on Hands Class Feature from the Paladin he's a guy with Heavy Armor and Shield.... Oh, a Fighter.

So saying that Class Features represent the archetype but that they are no important because they don't define the archetype is ridiculous.

The ONLY thing that defines an archetype in "game terms" are the Class Features.

Your definition of Paladin might include righteous warrior of a peaceful god, but if the class features don't support that then it's just a label, and you can apply that label to any righteous warrior of a peaceful god.  A "barbarian class" that defines himself as a RWoaPG is a Paladin.


----------



## Gryph (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The bard is the traditional arcane healer.
> 
> Even if you limit your thinking to 4 roles, the existence of power source to expand archetypes in design is key. With the six existing power sources you have a base of 24. And even that isn't a limitation. Even in the first PHB you have two Martial Strikers that play and feel very different. Class concept adds a multiplicative variable to the base that is only limited by the imagination of the designers.




1e Bard was a Druidic caster based on Irish mythology. An archtype I still prefer to the arcane mess that 2e intriduced and the later editions have continued.

I think that's what Umbran is getting at. Your tradition and mine aren't the same and I would hesitate to make any claim to rightness of either.

So which traditional bard should the system incorporate?


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> In 3e if I took Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Improved Smite, used a weapon with a higher damage die, and so on I do more and more damage without the core concept of my paladin being dilluted or mixed with primal powers or themes that don't fit the concept of my character... that is my issue. If I want to play a holy warrior and not some frakenstein combo character... It seems like I'm outta luck in 4e... In other words I feel like roles shouldn't have been hardcoded into archetypes or classes because one has nothing to do with the other.




Interesting, so by adding feats that do more damage you increased the damage of your character.

I'm not sure if you even play 4e so this is an honest question, have you seen all the feats and class features that increase damage in general, and all the Paladin Specific powers that do so?  Divine Power has an actual build called the Ardent Paladin that is more of a striker.

What are you losing by selecting feats that complement your Paladin?  Go to the charop boards and you'll find 101 ways to do more damage if that is what you're after.

The rogue (a striker) gets his first 4[w] power at level 15, a daily power.  The Paladin gets one at 1st LEVEL!, and his next one at 5th LEVEL!!!!

I honestly don't understand your complaint.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

First some context for you...

An *archetype* (
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



/ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/) is a universally understood symbol or term[1] or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.



D'karr said:


> So the class features play no part in defining what that class can do. Because it's only "representing" the archetype.
> 
> Talk about double speak.




I guess if I had actually said what you claim here... it would be double speak.



D'karr said:


> A paladin is a word, a label, and at some point someone decided to assign it mechanical features that represent what that character can do within the game. In 1e the Paladin had Lay on Hands, in 3e he had Lay on Hands, in 4e he has Lay on Hands.
> 
> If you take the Lay on Hands Class Feature from the Paladin he's a guy with Heavy Armor and Shield.... Oh, a Fighter.




Wrong... the paladin (or exemplary holy warrior) is an archetype that existed before D&D was created. The archetype's holy powers are  represented in part by the ability of lay on hands in the D&D game... D&D however did not create the archetype or define it. 



D'karr said:


> So saying that Class Features represent the archetype but that they are no important because they don't define the archetype is ridiculous.




I never said they didn't matter... and saying class abilities define the archetype is wrong... the archetype existed before the class abilites for D&D were created. The class abilities were used to create a classs that represents the archetype... they don't define the archetype itself.



D'karr said:


> The ONLY thing that defines an archetype in "game terms" are the Class Features.




In game terms sure... but if you stick superfluous features that contradict or narrow the archetype (like assigning a combat role to it) it's unnecessarily restrictive and can weaken or dillute the archetype. Now we don't have an exemplary holy warrior of a god... we have an exemplary holy warrior who is much better, for some odd reason, at taking a beating and drawing enemy fire than at actually killing the enemies of his god. Sorry you get to define the mechanics in-game that represent the archetype (which is restrictive enough but necessary in a class system)... but don't also define how I have to play my archetype let me do that.



D'karr said:


> Your definition of Paladin might include righteous warrior of a peaceful god, but if the class features don't support that then it's just a label, and you can apply that label to any righteous warrior of a peaceful god. A "barbarian class" that defines himself as a RWoaPG is a Paladin.




You've missed the point entirely.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Interesting, so by adding feats that do more damage you increased the damage of your character.




Yep.



D'karr said:


> I'm not sure if you even play 4e so this is an honest question, have you seen all the feats and class features that increase damage in general, and all the Paladin Specific powers that do so? Divine Power has an actual build called the Ardent Paladin that is more of a striker.




I play 4e and PF...

Going this route I'll still always be a second-rate, probably even a third rate striker compared to a true striker class that maximizes for damage (I would say about the only defender class this isn't true for is the fighter right now). I will only truly excel as a defender... because the class was built that way.



D'karr said:


> What are you losing by selecting feats that complement your Paladin? Go to the charop boards and you'll find 101 ways to do more damage if that is what you're after.
> 
> I honestly don't understand your complaint.




I'm not loosing anything (except the ability to defend better)... the problem is that I am in an uphill race at this point where other "true" strikers are already ahead of me.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

Gryph said:


> 1e Bard was a Druidic caster based on Irish mythology. An archtype I still prefer to the arcane mess that 2e intriduced and the later editions have continued.
> 
> I think that's what Umbran is getting at. Your tradition and mine aren't the same and I would hesitate to make any claim to rightness of either.
> 
> So which traditional bard should the system incorporate?




I don't have an answer to this... but I guess my question would be... once the designers have decided what archetype we are basing the class on... why restrict it further with the unnecessary attachment of an explicit combat role??


----------



## Gryph (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I don't have an answer to this... but I guess my question would be... once the designers have decided what archetype we are basing the class on... why restrict it further with the innecessary attachment of a explicit combat role??




Well I sort of agree with you and sort of don't. I do think the 4 roles of 4e are actually fairly artificial in concept. I prefer to think of character roles in terms of tactical placement on the battlefield. So, frontline anchor, melee floater, ranged artillery, crowd control, mid-range support. I think the NPC roles of Soldier, Brute, Lurker, Skirmisher, Artillery are better role descriptors than the PC roles.

On the other hand, I would prefer classes to have fewer available builds and be more specific and iconic in their usage. Even if that means having a larger set of classes to choose from.

So I think that means I like class and role to be fairly tightly coupled, I just don't think that the four roles are the right ones.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'm going to disagree here, I feel like in earlier editions "da rulz" gave you much more freedom to decide what role in combat you wanted to take on within the archetype of the class you picked.




I think I see the disconnect here....



> Total strawman here... What people are saying is why does my selection of the holy warrior archetype auto-regulate me to taking hits and being a blockade... When really I want to be doing damage and striking down my gods enemies like a hot knife through butter.




The thing is, the paladin class is not *the* holy warrior archetype, in full and total.  It is one class that fits within the archetype.  I would say that "holy warrior" is an exceedingly broad archetype, and I wouldn't generally want the designers to try to represent very broad archetypes in a single class.  

Look, for example, at arcane spellcasters - if you speak as the word is used in literature, "wizard" is broad.  In the game, there are multiple classes for the archetype, including both the wizard and sorcerer.  

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seem to be you want all things that meet a broad archetype to be one class.  Others don't feel the need for that.  The real argument is about how broad "class" should be.



Crazy Jerome said:


> So I think communication about games would be a lot more clear if we could have labels for mechanics that did not take on archetypical connotations. Given the resistance to that in forums, I don't know that we could ever get there.




It would be more clear, but it cannot be done unless the designers make up new nouns.  White Wolf did this - they have hordes of names for "classes" throughout their games: Tremere, Children of Gaia, Virtual Adepts.  These words mean very little, outside the game, carrying only a smidgen of connotation to a person in the real world. 

This has a result - if you approach the game, you need to learn a whole new vocabulary before you can tell what folks are talking about at all.  If you listen to someone talking about the game, it comes out as gibberish - I see this now as my friends talk about nWoD games.  They have different names than the oWoD that I'm used to, so I cannot follow discussions easily at all.

Meanwhile, if you call a class a "fighter", yes your ideas of what a fighter does may differ some from the exact implementation in the game, but you have a general idea that it's a guy who fights.  In a fantasy game, the images of people in armor with swords leap to mind.

There's a tradeoff there.  Clear communication for folks already in the know is traded for a level of accessibility for those who aren't.  ("Spellsword" - okay, that's someone who uses spells, *and* a sword!  I got that fast.  "Euthanatos"?  Huh?)


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you wanted to be a "first rate striker" then you should have picked a class that supports that fully.

If I want to play Sebastian from the Little Mermaid and I choose to play Sebastian from the Little Mermaid, and the rules support playing Sebastian from the Little Mermaid, I don't then complain that someone else is playing Megatron.  You could have picked Megatron, the rules support playing Megatron, but YOU chose to play Sebastian.

You chose to be a Paladin and there are tons of feats and powers that let you do as much damage if not more than a striker. The choice was yours.



> I'm not loosing anything (except the ability to defend better)... the problem is that I am in an uphill race at this point where other "true" strikers are already ahead of me.




LOL you should seek help.  There are a lot of ads on the internet to take care of this ***** envy "problem."

*Mod Note:*  Right.  Folks, if you hadn't noticed, there's a moderator active in the thread.  Taking cheap personal shots is remarkably unwise under such circumstances.  ~Umbran


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I think I see the disconnect here....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





This is close to what I am getting at Umbran... My bigger point though is why tie a particular archetype, whether it's Paladin or Wizard to a specific role in combat... I'm finding it hard too understand why you would do this instead of, for excample, leaving them open and having a build for numerous roles (like...surprise, surprise, they are finally doing now.). It's like they tried to tie a game conceit into the part of the game that revolves around concept.

As an example, the Paladin could fit the concept for my character perfectly... but if I don't like the gameplay of the defender role... he won't be fun to play. I don't like that 4e tied these decisions even more intimately to each other.  On the one hand the proficiencies, class abilities, skills, etc. could be perfect for my concept but the role could be terrible for the type of play experience I enjoy.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This is close to what I am getting at Umbran... My bigger point though is why tie a particular archetype, whether it's Paladin or Wizard to a specific role in combat... I'm finding it hard too understand why you would do this instead of, for example, leaving them open and having a build for numerous roles (like...surprise, surprise, they are finally doing now.). It's like they tried to tie a game conceit into the part of the game that revolves around concept.




I think part of this in 4E is an accident of the implementation (or at least a side effect of it). When they decided that each class would have its own list of powers, and then the powers became a big part of expressing the role, not just the class, we were going to get a certain amount of class/role blending no matter what. (That is, regardless of whether one thinks that is a good idea or not.) 

Now, I'm not particularly bothered by role/class linking in the ways discussed in this topic. But I happen to not like some of the other side effects of having a list of powers for every class. I believe it was mentioned as a possible mistake in one of the recent WotC posts. So there may very well be some design/implementation avenues open here that would appeal to multiple style preferences, albeit for different reasons.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 17, 2011)

Tayne said:


> I know I said I was done, but one last thing - wasn't smite evil in 3E? Smite evil is "a striker ability."




No it isn't. A rogue, with Sneak Attack, can reliably dish out extra damage every round, like a 4E Striker. A Paladin can Smite Evil a maximum of 5 times per day by 20th level without spending feats to increase this. It's more like a specialized attack spell with linited targets than a Striker mechanic.



Tayne said:


> It kind of seems like 3E had way, way more than one striker mechanic, anyway... Magic missile?




Yes. Wizard and Clerics and Druids, oh my! They stepped on the toes of everybody else's role. In my humble opinion the game was entirely busted and near-unplayable by those that abused the Mary Sue classes. In my humble opinion 4E is the only edition to move in the right direction of given character classes a unique identity. In my humble opinion anyone who champions for these unbalanced classes is playing the game wrong.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 17, 2011)

Umbran said:


> It would be more clear, but it cannot be done unless the designers make up new nouns. White Wolf did this - they have hordes of names for "classes" throughout their games: Tremere, Children of Gaia, Virtual Adepts. These words mean very little, outside the game, carrying only a smidgen of connotation to a person in the real world...




Interesting.  I've never played any White Wolf or hung around much with those that have.  So my question is did these made up nouns retain their made up, technical nature over time, or did the players start to assign other meanings to them?  Was this part of why there was a change in the nWoD, to get new made up nouns since the old ones had "baggage", or was it something else?

Reason I ask is that part of my hypothesis is that you can't get there even with made up nouns.  Or at least you can't stay there.  "Magic User" is about as generic and bland as one could possible hope to get, and not move to a completely made up term.  Yet it still picked up some baggage.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This is close to what I am getting at Umbran... My bigger point though is why tie a particular archetype, whether it's Paladin or Wizard to a specific role in combat... I'm finding it hard too understand why you would do this instead of, for excample, leaving them open and having a build for numerous roles (like...surprise, surprise, they are finally doing now.). It's like they tried to tie a game conceit into the part of the game that revolves around concept.






Crazy Jerome said:


> Now, I'm not particularly bothered by role/class linking in the ways discussed in this topic.  But I happen to not like some of the other side effects of having a list of powers for every class.  I believe it was mentioned as a possible mistake in one of the recent WotC posts.  So there may very well be some design/implementation avenues open here that would appeal to multiple style preferences, albeit for different reasons.




Imaro, I've given you alot of flak, but to be fair I can see how the game could have gone down this route. I'm just not convinced that 3E was any better in this regard. I hope they keep expanding upon these ideas and learning what works best to create the theoretically perfect game. But they can't make it perfect for everyone, so I merely hope they keep trying things to see what works and what doesn't and continue to head down a path I enjoy. And I'm happy for those who have other companies continuing to support their game of choice and hopefully growing it in a direction they enjoy.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

D'karr said:


> If you wanted to be a "first rate striker" then you should have picked a class that supports that fully.




Which ties right back into my problem with role and class being explicitly connected in 4e.



D'karr said:


> If I want to play Sebastian from the Little Mermaid and I choose to play Sebastian from the Little Mermaid, and the rules support playing Sebastian from the Little Mermaid, I don't then complain that someone else is playing Megatron. You could have picked Megatron, the rules support playing Megatron, but YOU chose to play Sebastian.




These aren't archetypes or even concepts, they are specific characters... you're analogy doesn't even make sense in the context of what we are discussing.



D'karr said:


> You chose to be a Paladin and there are tons of feats and powers that let you do as much damage if not more than a striker. The choice was yours.




How about my concept was best represented by the Paladin, but I enjoy the gameplay of the Striker role?





D'karr said:


> LOL you should seek help. There are a lot of ads on the internet to take care of this ***** envy "problem."




... Really? Let's not go there.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> No it isn't. A rogue, with Sneak Attack, can reliably dish out extra damage every round, like a 4E Striker. A Paladin can Smite Evil a maximum of 5 times per day by 20th level without spending feats to increase this. It's more like a specialized attack spell with linited targets than a Striker mechanic.




Huh?  In 3.5 there were specific conditions that had to be met for the Rogue to sneak attack... and certain groups of monsters were immune to it... so I don't think I'd say it was anywhere near reliable that the rogue got this every round.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Imaro, I've given you alot of flak, but to be fair I can see how the game could have gone down this route. I'm just not convinced that 3E was any better in this regard. I hope they keep expanding upon these ideas and learning what works best to create the theoretically perfect game. But they can't make it perfect for everyone, so I merely hope they keep trying things to see what works and what doesn't and continue to head down a path I enjoy. And I'm happy for those who have other companies continuing to support their game of choice and hopefully growing it in a direction they enjoy.




Yeah, I'm arguing for my preferences but I don't want anyone to think that I don't recognize the fact that they are exactly that... my preferences and aren't objectively right or wrong... just what I enjoy.  Really I just like the discussion...


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> the DM tailored adventures (on the rare occasions it was necessary) so that it matched the party capabilities.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> there was never a NEED to have specific party 'roles' covered - and was all the better for it.



I think this is still the case. My 4e party played for 8 or so levels with no leader - only a paladin and a couple of PCs with warlord and cleric multi-classing. In combat, they made up for their lack of healing and buffing by just bringing more striking and defence to the table.



Tayne said:


> A player should define his character's role in and out of combat. Whether or not the class he chose best suits that role is one thing, but dammit, if you want to try to be a cleric striker or a rogue defender it should be common sense telling you not to do that, not the source material.



Are you saying that that definition should happen during PC building, or during play? D&D classes have always put limits on what can be achieved in play (eg a thief/rogue has never made a very robust front line combatant), and has always encouraged players to choose a PC build that will enable them to do what they want to do in combat. 4e doesn't seem to me very different in this particular respect.



Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> I like class that are given a set of tools to solve problems, not a combat role.



This seems to be the equivalent, in 4e, of choosing a power source. Or have I misunderstood you?



Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> If you pick fighter, you've selected it because you want to be a defender, not because you want to focus on martial weapons.  I love martial characters but I tend to build them to suit my own designs, not to fit a predefined combat role.



What is the difference in principle between (i) choosing to play a fighter, and then choosing the combination of equipment/feats/etc that make that fighter suit your own design, and (ii) conceiving of the design for your PC, and then choosing the class that best realises that design (which in your example may be a fighter, a warlord or a ranger, or even some sort of hybrid)?



JamesonCourage said:


> Both of these statements seem to be absolutely missing the point.



Would you care to elaborate?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> What is the difference in principle between (i) choosing to play a fighter, and then choosing the combination of equipment/feats/etc that make that fighter suit your own design, and (ii) conceiving of the design for your PC, and then choosing the class that best realises that design (which in your example may be a fighter, a warlord or a ranger, or even some sort of hybrid)?




Here is the difference in a very simple example... can I play a Ranger who fights with his powers unarmed?


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Which ties right back into my problem with role and class being explicitly connected in 4e.




I like playing lightly armored characters, rangers and duelists fit the bill.  They are two of the character concepts I like most.  Rangers are currently a class in the game, duelists are not a class, or build in the game.

I LIKE to play characters that are good at both melee combat, and ranged combat.  So I CHOSE to build my ranger to be capable at both.  To do that I had to split my ability scores for STR and DEX, and because WIS is important I also put some points there.  Now, a ranger is a striker.  If I split my abilities so that I can do both of the things I enjoy, he still does a lot of damage WHEN HE HITS.  But because I CHOSE to split my abilities I hit less often. These are all choices I MADE.

I don't go around complaining about the game and the rules because my ranger misses, or is not an effective striker.  I also don't go around complaining that I can't wear heavy armor without expending feats.  The rules support the character I wanted to play, but there are tradeoffs.  I don't go blaming the rules or the designers because of the CHOICES I MADE.

I'm happy to be playing the character I wanted, and don't worry about the times when I do miss.

Every class has trade offs. The class names are labels, and sometimes not very accurate labels.  You want to call them archetypes but as soon as someone starts assigning mechanics to the class they might not have the same archetype in mind as you have.  For example I can play a perfectly capable duelist with the ranger class, if I don't get hung up on the labels.

If the concept I like is an arcane dude with horns, and he fights with a sword, heavy armor, and shield.  I go look for a Tiefling, and select  a role/class that fits that.  Like maybe a hybrid fighter/wizard, or a bladesinger, or whatever fits my concept.  I don't select a gnome illusionist and then complain that I don't have horns, can't wear armor, use a sword, or a shield.

There are paladin builds now that are more strikerish, there are multiclass options to increase damage, and there are feats and a ton of powers to select from.  You've decided to get hung up on "A paladin is NOT a defender", instead of looking for ways to complement the character concept you want to better achieve what you want.  And your only complaint is that you don't do as much damage as a "first rate striker".  My ranger misses often, and doesn't get to wear heavy armor...  

If you want a character with no trade offs then you are not looking for a class based, level based game.  At this point I think your argument really boils down to unrealistic expectations, and nitpicking.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Here is the difference in a very simple example... can I play a Ranger who fights with his powers unarmed?




Why couldn't you?  Unarmed attacks are an improvised weapon that has no proficiency.  Unless you are a one armed ranger you have two fists that have no proficiency bonus and do 1d4 damage.  

If you are a one armed ranger you have a problem because you would not be using two weapons to begin with and your choice of ranged weapons would be limited.  But a Melee Basic Attack is still a power, and anyone can use one of those.

Can you fire a ranged weapon when you have no ranged weapons? NO! But I'd assume that of any ranged attack for any class.

So what's the next "gotcha" question?

Can your Paladin use his weapon powers without a weapon, as I said an unarmed attack is a melee weapon.  Can he use a ranged weapon power without a ranged weapon? NO!

What's your point?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 17, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Why couldn't you?  Unarmed attacks are an improvised weapon that has no proficiency.  Unless you are a one armed ranger you have two fists that have no proficiency bonus and do 1d4 damage.
> 
> If you are a one armed ranger you have a problem because you would not be using two weapons to begin with and your choice of ranged weapons would be limited.  But a Melee Basic Attack is still a power, and anyone can use one of those.
> 
> ...




Edit: not even worth it since it would diminish the point I was trying to get across to pemerton who actually seems interested in real discussion.

On a more serious note... As far as continuing this discussion with you in particular... I have no desire to continue since your arguments and points are bordering on nonsensical.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I said powers... As in plural... So GOTCHA!!!
> 
> On a more serious note... As far as continuing this discussion with you in particular... I have no desire to continue since your arguments and points are bordering on nonsensical.




All of his melee powers work just the same.  So who's being nonsensical?  

Can a 3e fighter use a bow without arrows?

Once again what's your point?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 17, 2011)

D'karr said:
			
		

> If you wanted to be a "first rate striker" then you should have picked a class that supports that fully.




Well, that's kind of the problem in a nutshell.

Why can't any class support being a "first rate striker" (or whatever)?

Or, to go with some of the Rule of Three talk recently, why can't _every_ class be a first rate striker, in certain circumstances?

Fact is, "character concept" is entwined with class, but it is not necessarily entwined with combat role. Combat role in 4e is entwined with class, entwining it with character concept. It doesn't need to be, and a pretty persuasive argument can be made to liberate them, making combat role something that is not dependent on your class choice (or even a choice at character creation, such as the idea of changing roles round-to-round).


----------



## D'karr (Nov 18, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, that's kind of the problem in a nutshell.
> 
> Why can't any class support being a "first rate striker" (or whatever)?




Why can't every class cast magic missile?

Every game has trade offs.  If I want to cast magic missile I choose a class that offers that as a feature.  I don't pick fighter as a class and then complain that I can't magic missile.



> Or, to go with some of the Rule of Three talk recently, why can't _every_ class be a first rate striker, in certain circumstances?




Sure as an excercise in design it's great to discuss these things.  As a matter of fact several examples have been provided, for those that wanted them, of having a defender class that had more "strikerish" powers.



> Fact is, "character concept" is entwined with class, but it is not necessarily entwined with combat role. Combat role in 4e is entwined with class, entwining it with character concept. It doesn't need to be, and a pretty persuasive argument can be made to liberate them, making combat role something that is not dependent on your class choice (or even a choice at character creation, such as the idea of changing roles round-to-round).




Sure, but a way to look at character concept can also be to choose a role/class that best supports your character concept, specially in a class based game set.  Instead some are arguing that the game does not support their concept, which has no trade offs, by coming up with ridiculous expectations.

Even point buy systems have trade offs, class based systems simply have more of them cooked in.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> What is the difference in principle between (i) choosing to play a fighter, and then choosing the combination of equipment/feats/etc that make that fighter suit your own design, and (ii) conceiving of the design for your PC, and then choosing the class that best realises that design (which in your example may be a fighter, a warlord or a ranger, or even some sort of hybrid)?




Hey pemerton, upon further reflection I decided I actually want to go more in depth with my answer to you... 

IMO the difference is that of customization. In your first example I get an archetype and the details of both concept and gameplay are left up to me to decide upon.  In the second example I have to hope that the individual details of a simgle package will line up with what I want in both concept and gameplay.

  Now within a class system certain compromises in concept and gameplay are a fact of life but given a choice I want to pick my broad concept...but decide the details as opposed to hoping I find a specific archetype ( Also lets not forget the point about differing ideas on how to implement an archetype which become even more problematic as the details you customize is lowered )that both encompases my concept, as well as the gameplay experience I desire.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 18, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Fact is, "character concept" is entwined with class, but it is not necessarily entwined with combat role. Combat role in 4e is entwined with class, entwining it with character concept. It doesn't need to be, and a pretty persuasive argument can be made to liberate them, making combat role something that is not dependent on your class choice (or even a choice at character creation, such as the idea of changing roles round-to-round).




This sums it up nicely KM... No one is asking for everything (contrary to the strawman being continuously thrown out by one poster). They are saying class and combat role shouldn't be intertwined because they feel one shouldnt  dictate the other.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 18, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Fact is, "character concept" is entwined with class, but it is not necessarily entwined with combat role. Combat role in 4e is entwined with class, entwining it with character concept. It doesn't need to be, and a pretty persuasive argument can be made to liberate them, making combat role something that is not dependent on your class choice (or even a choice at character creation, such as the idea of changing roles round-to-round).




Here's the thing from the game design standpoint, though. Why is "character concept" being entwined with class some sacred part of the design? I've seen a lot of people in this topic say that they want it that way. I've seen a bunch assume that it is that way and/or should be (practically begging the question at times). I've yet to see anyone state a reason beyond personal preference why this is a good choice for game design. 

Now, before anyone gets in a twist, I'll grant you that something (or several somethings) needs to be entwined with character concept. But why is "class" automatically the thing? Give me a good reason, beyond some people saw it that way from the beginning. (Because some of us saw it as an almost purely mechanical element from the beginning, with a thin veneer of character development tacked on for flavor.)


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This seems to be the equivalent, in 4e, of choosing a power source. Or have I misunderstood you?




Close.  A Power Source in 4E provides a way to overcome combat challenges.  If you want a non-combat answer to problems, skills and rituals are the only thing available and they are provided to all classes.  

Yes, the Arcane Power source has spells and implements are needed for them all.  However, the overwhelming majority of 4E spells are combat only.  Ultimately, the power source only provides a way behaving in combat (much like role typecast you into certain behaviors in combat).

Prior to 4E, a class provided a set of tools for problem solving, both in and out of combat.  Classes used to have a wide variety of answers available to them.  Fighters got Fighter Feats which helped them to fight better (their niche, if you will, was combat prowess, so fighting for them is the right answer).  Rogues got bonus skills that allowed them to do lots of different things outside of combat.  Clerics and Wizards got a wide variety of spells.  Some were purely for combat (magic missile, bless, etc).  But the best spells were the ones that were put to creative uses for solving problems outside of combat.  

Not every class got an equal helping of combat answers, but then again, combat isn't the only area of the game (simply the area of the game that has the most numbers involved with it).  Now, every class gets the exact same piece of the combat pie.  To make sure everything is balanced, no one gets out of combat abilities beyond skills.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 18, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I've yet to see anyone state a reason beyond personal preference why this is a good choice for game design.
> 
> Now, before anyone gets in a twist, I'll grant you that something (or several somethings) needs to be entwined with character concept. But why is "class" automatically the thing? Give me a good reason, beyond some people saw it that way from the beginning. (Because some of us saw it as an almost purely mechanical element from the beginning, with a thin veneer of character development tacked on for flavor.)




And that's pretty much what it is, personal preference, and that's the way it's always been done.

The designers could decide that they want to decouple all these things and give you a "building block" type of game where your character concept is defined (built up) by:

2 Portions of Block A
1 Portion of Block B
3 portions of Block C

If you go into it and prefer to have 2 Portions of Block B that is workable but unbalanced.  As you start adding more blocks the more knock on effects you can end up with.

If as a player you start your character concept with an intractable idea of what Block B should be, and the designers did not define that Block as what you thought it should be you are going to end up with complaints.  But is that a designer issue or an expectations issue?

One of the problems with Classes is that they are labeled so that they are easily recognizable, but at the same time that can cause problems when the player expects class A to mean something other than what the designer put into the class.

I'd like class names to be evocative because I think it brings a lot to the game, but that also creates expectations that are not always being met.

The "roles" as they exist right now are so that the designer can easily design to them, and the player can easily identify what play style the role fits in combat.  From teaching players how to play I can say that roles are a huge benefit for new players.  They don't have to decipher 30 years of D&Disms to distinguish what a Bard does, or a Skald, or a Berserker, or a Fighter, or a Ranger.

The "role" only defines the "best" way, a roadmap if you will, that class operates in combat.  You can follow the roadmap and get exactly what the role advertised.  But that is all it should define.  I particularly don't want roles to define what I can and cannot do outside of combat.  That is where the game offers infinite flexibility.  In combat, the most rules intensive part of the game, the rules cannot offer infinite flexibility.  If they do then you end up with either every class/role stepping all over the other, or no balance, or too much balance and no flexibility.  This is where a "balance" of flexibility, playability, and fun needs to be struck.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Here is the difference in a very simple example... can I play a Ranger who fights with his powers unarmed?



There are (at least) two ways of interpreting that question, I think.

Can you build a 4e PC whose class is ranger, and who is a mechanically viable unarmed combatant? Not from the books that I'm familiar with (though there may be stuff in Dragon I don't know), although I personally don't think it would break the game if the GM let you swap your martial weapon proficiency for the Monk Unarmed Strike feature - and now you could be a two-weapon ranger who uses fists instead of longswords.

Alternatively, you could take Monk Unarmed Strike as a custom feat - it doesn't strike me as any more powerful, feat-wise, than a Superior Weapon Proficiency.

But a second interpretation of the question is - can you build a mechanically viable unarmed combatant who is a wilderness guide and tracker? And I think the answer to that question is "yes" - build a monk, or a brawler fighter, and take feats, background options, theme and/or multi-class options that get you Perception and Nature proficiency. Or even go for a hybrid brawler/ranger or monk/ranger.

I think that any of these PCs will be as viable, in the 4e play space, as a 3E PHB ranger using Improved Unarmed Strike would be in the 3E play space. Perhaps moreso, because I don't know of any way for that 3E ranger to get his/her unarmed strike up to the same power level as a longsword.

So I think the answer to your question is "Yes".



Imaro said:


> Hey pemerton, upon further reflection I decided I actually want to go more in depth with my answer to you...
> 
> IMO the difference is that of customization. In your first example I get an archetype and the details of both concept and gameplay are left up to me to decide upon.  In the second example I have to hope that the individual details of a simgle package will line up with what I want in both concept and gameplay.



OK. There's little doubt that compared to 3E, 4e emphasises "single packages" more, and customisation takes the form of choosing from long lists of big packages, where the fiddly stuff (powers, feats etc) tends to happen within constraints already set by those big packages.

But I don't particularly see this as a "role" thing. Rolemaster, compared to classic D&D and 3E, has a similar approach to spells - a spell-user has to choose a class, which determines a bundle of spell lists that are learnable, and there is no way of mixing and matching different spells onto those lists. But in Rolemaster this is not in service of "role" in the 4e sense. It is in service of flavour, and also (at least arguably) balance - no single PC can get access to all the best spells. Rolemaster does not have D&D-style "generic" wizards.

I see the class power lists in 4e as doing something similar - they ensure a coherent flavour, and serve the interests of balance. The connection of powers to role is reasonably loose, at least in my view. Fighters, for example, have a good range of self-healing powers, and also condition alleviation, which means that they tend to act as their own leaders (and given that they take a lot of the damage, obviate the need for more specialised leadership on the part of another PC). Fighters and sorcerers are also quite controller-y in certain respects, getting good forced movement effects. And I know from experience that a drow sorcerer using cloud of darkness plus force movement effects can play much the same role as a defender - locking down the front line without dying.

From my point of view, the objection to 4e's approach to classes isn't "roles". It's class bloat. WotC's sub-class solution is an interesting compromise (although capable of producing clunkers like the Binder) on this front, because it both reduces bloat and opens up more role flexibility. The conern for me is that it runs the risk of making certain classes "universal" classes - able to do everything - which then runs the risk of killing off other, more flavourful, options. The witch being a wizard rather than a warlock I think is a possible example of this, although I'm yet to learn more about the class than what the WotC previews have shown.



Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> A Power Source in 4E provides a way to overcome combat challenges.  If you want a non-combat answer to problems, skills and rituals are the only thing available and they are provided to all classes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I find that the class skill lists, combined with player choices in respect of skill selection, tend to support out-of-combat roles in 4e also. And because rituals are linked to either class or particular skills, which themselves have overtones of spell use and mystical education (Arcana and Religion), I find that rituals also tend to travel with particular power sources and flavours of PC.

I also think that it's just not true that no one gets out of combat abilities beyond skills. Some PCs get rituals, which are not skills, and which are out of combat abilities. And some PCs get utility powers which are not combat abilities. For example, of the 21 wizard utility powers in the PHB, at least 9 have obvious or primary non-combat utility, and of the 18 warlock utilities, at least 11 have obvious or primary non-combat utility.

And there are also feats that confer non-combat abilities. The wizard PC in my game, for example, has two of them: Skill Training (Dungeoneering) and Deep Sage. The sorcerer PC in my game has the Arcane Familiar feat - which, even more than rituals, is something that tracks power source - in order to get an air mephit, in part for the bonus to Bluff (which he uses to hide in combat) but also so that he can read and speak Primordial, and have an invisible flying scout.

It may be that some players choose not to select powers or feats that enhance their out-of-combat capabilities. But I don't think it's fair to say that the game doesn't provide them.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why can't any class support being a "first rate striker" (or whatever)?



If it does this by having a menu of class features, chosen as part of the build process, then we're back in sub-class territory.

If it does this by having certain powers that are inherently stiker-y (like the Barbarian powers with bonus dice) then we're either just in a different sub-class territory (with power selection rather than feature selection being the focus of build choices), or we're in potentially overpowered territory - if I get to combine my striker-y power with my defender-y class feature, for example. No doubt this issue of balance can be handled with care - someone upthread already mentioned the STR paladin 4W powers, for example. But the greater the care, probably the less the striker feel.

If it is done not as part of build but as part of play - changing stances, for example, from defensive to agressive - then I'm sure it's viable. (Burning Wheel has a stance mechanic, for example, allowing the use of an action to shift between defensive, neutral and agressive stances - with the non-neutral stances giving bonuses and penalties to the appropriate sorts of actions.) I'm personally not sure it's better. Nor worse. It would be different from what I'm used to in D&D, or expect from a class-based system, but that's not necessarily an objection.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2011)

D'karr said:


> The "roles" as they exist right now are so that the designer can easily design to them, and the player can easily identify what play style the role fits in combat.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The "role" only defines the "best" way, a roadmap if you will, that class operates in combat.  You can follow the roadmap and get exactly what the role advertised.  But that is all it should define.  I particularly don't want roles to define what I can and cannot do outside of combat.  That is where the game offers infinite flexibility.  In combat, the most rules intensive part of the game, the rules cannot offer infinite flexibility.  If they do then you end up with either every class/role stepping all over the other, or no balance, or too much balance and no flexibility.



I agree with this. Intricate rules like the 4e combat rules depend, for the interesting play that they generate, upon having different players doing different things with their PCs. This is just one part of the various features of 4e that make it very different, in the way it plays, from the buff-ambush style that is optimal play in earlier editions of D&D, in Rolemaster, etc.

If the game included action resolution rules for non-combat activities of the same degree of intricacy as the combat rules (eg something that bore the same relation to Burning Wheel's Duels of Wits as the D&D combat rules bear to BW's Fight!) then we would need out-of-combat roles, and out-of-combat powers/features, of the same degree of intricacy as the combat ones that we have now.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 18, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> No it isn't. A rogue, with Sneak Attack, can reliably dish out extra damage every round, like a 4E Striker. A Paladin can Smite Evil a maximum of 5 times per day by 20th level without spending feats to increase this. It's more like a specialized attack spell with linited targets than a Striker mechanic.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Wizard and Clerics and Druids, oh my! They stepped on the toes of everybody else's role. In my humble opinion the game was entirely busted and near-unplayable by those that abused the Mary Sue classes. In my humble opinion 4E is the only edition to move in the right direction of given character classes a unique identity. In my humble opinion anyone who champions for these unbalanced classes is playing the game wrong.




You're equivocating harder than I've ever seen anyone equivocate. Initially you defined a striker ability as the ability to do lots of damage and stated that sneak attack was the only example of this... then you state that, because it has limitations (5/day) smite evil isn't a striker mechanic... well -

A) Sneak attack has limitations too, you can't necessarily do it every single round and you definitely can't do it at all versus a wide array of opponents
B) I'm familiar enough with 4E to know that there are striker mechanics with X per Y limitations as well, and that does not prevent them from being considered striker mechanics.

Then you seem to admit that spellcasters (against which it sounds as if you have a bizarre grudge) "step on everybody else's role," presumably including strikers.

So... I guess sneak attack isn't the only "striker mechanic" in 3E?

Wouldn't it be easier to just say "Oops I guess I mis-spoke?" Are you capable of that?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Huh?  In 3.5 there were specific conditions that had to be met for the Rogue to sneak attack... and certain groups of monsters were immune to it... so I don't think I'd say it was anywhere near reliable that the rogue got this every round.






Tayne said:


> You're equivocating harder than I've ever seen anyone equivocate. Initially you defined a striker ability as the ability to do lots of damage and stated that sneak attack was the only example of this... then you state that, because it has limitations (5/day) smite evil isn't a striker mechanic... well -
> 
> A) Sneak attack has limitations too, you can't necessarily do it every single round and you definitely can't do it at all versus a wide array of opponents




Sneak Attack required flanking or flat-footedness. Easy to achieve. Yes, if your DM faced your Rogue with Undead, Constructs and Oozes in abundance you'd be out of luck. Your paladin's out of luck merely by changing the E to an N on the alignment line.



Tayne said:


> B) I'm familiar enough with 4E to know that there are striker mechanics with X per Y limitations as well, and that does not prevent them from being considered striker mechanics.




You are correct. Some Essentials build have tried some limited striker mechanics and I'm not as familiar with the Essentials material.



Tayne said:


> Then you seem to admit that spellcasters (against which it sounds as if you have a bizarre grudge) "step on everybody else's role," presumably including strikers.




No, because I was referring to 3E. I have no 'bizarre grudge' against 4E spellcasters. (Actually I don't really have a grudge against the 3E ones either, just a bout of curmudgeonly behavior on my part.)



Tayne said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to just say "Oops I guess I mis-spoke?" Are you capable of that?




I misspoke about some 4E Essential Strikers, although I can't imagine how they compete as viable strikers when non-Essentials classes can perform the job every round.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 18, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Sneak Attack required flanking or flat-footedness. Easy to achieve. Yes, if your DM faced your Rogue with Undead, Constructs and Oozes in abundance you'd be out of luck. Your paladin's out of luck merely by changing the E to an N on the alignment line.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually you misspoke by saying sneak attack was the only way to do lots of damage in 3E. That was your initial definition of a striker mechanic, which you later amended once you were proven hilariously wrong.

Even if we discard that initial careless definition, lots of abilities in 3E can be considered generally analagous to "striker" mechanics. You admitted that with the line about wizards, druids, etc stepping on the toes of all the other roles.

Keep moving the goalpost if it makes you feel better, i guess, but keep in mind how bad it makes you look to anyone paying attention.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 18, 2011)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Why can't every class cast magic missile?
> 
> Every game has trade offs. If I want to cast magic missile I choose a class that offers that as a feature. I don't pick fighter as a class and then complain that I can't magic missile.




Right, but that's shifting the goalposts. Combat role doesn't need to be one of those trade-offs. It hasn't always been one of those trade offs. It's a choice to make it one of those trade-offs, and that choice has features that are both positive and negative for various different players. 



			
				D'karr said:
			
		

> Instead some are arguing that the game does not support their concept, which has no trade offs, by coming up with ridiculous expectations.




The expectations aren't ridiculous. They come from what the game was able to do before the most recent edition change. Expecting what you like about the game to remain intact is hardly a ridiculous expectation. 



			
				Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> Here's the thing from the game design standpoint, though. Why is "character concept" being entwined with class some sacred part of the design? I've seen a lot of people in this topic say that they want it that way. I've seen a bunch assume that it is that way and/or should be (practically begging the question at times). I've yet to see anyone state a reason beyond personal preference why this is a good choice for game design.




It's a psychological thing. It's really about managing expectations. 

Classes are contained within conceptual archetypes rather than mechanics because that's how we think of them. "Ranger" isn't about the particular mechanics the class has (like favored enemy or two-weapon fighting), it's about the particular feel those mechanics generate (an agile wilderness warrior!). 

You can dissociate those, but people generally don't think of classes as faceless bags of mechanics. Your warlock in WoW has the trappings of a dark wizard of eeeeevil because that's the conceptual archetype it is meant to embody. The mechanics of the class -- pet summoning and the like -- reflect that conceptual archetype. They are a secondary addition. The conceptual archetype is the important part.

This is because when we first approach an RPG, we don't approach it saying, "I want to maximize my attack rolls with my bow, so I'm going to be a ranger!", we say, "I want to be like Robin Hood, so I'm going to pick the ranger!"  If my character isn't like Robin Hood, I don't want to be a ranger. I'm not going to pick the Ranger class if I'm interested in being a cultured, urbane mercenary for hire, even if my cultured, urbane mercenary for hire still wants to maximize his attack rolls with his bow.

Dissociation also has other risks (seekers, battleminds, runepriests, etc.), but this thread largely isn't about that.  

This instinct to follow archetype -- in a game based around fantasy archetypes like knights, dragons, dwarves, and elves, is part of why the dissociation of mechanics and flavor is not an approach I generally encourage. Sure, it makes re-fluffing a cakewalk. But it also means that, fundamentally, mechanics are meaningless. If the exact same player ability can be the healing words of a deity and some jerk shouting at you, it's not great design, IMO, because quite evidently there should be a _difference_ in those effects, since they are quite distinct in flavor. The inability of the mechanics to demonstrate this difference mechanically makes them lousy at creating the immersive fantasy game I want from my D&D. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> If it does this by having a menu of class features, chosen as part of the build process, then we're back in sub-class territory.




Sounds mostly like semantics to me. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> It would be different from what I'm used to in D&D, or expect from a class-based system, but that's not necessarily an objection.




I don't think everyone expects classes to have an automatic combat role. 

Because of that, I think that flexibility in a combat role for every class is something to pursue. 

I also think it's something to pursue because of the "someone's gotta play the X" problem when you're missing a role. If everyone can be the X, whenever they need to be, regardless of their character concept, then it's the best-case solution to that problem, I think.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Nov 18, 2011)

For me I think "roles" more than anything else screamed "video game design".  Classes had specific roles that they 'must' play in the course of combat.   And while in previous editions there was a trend to pigeonhole certain classes into certain areas - Thief, open locks, find/remove traps, Cleric - heal/buff, Mage - kill from afar and Fighter - mobile hit point platform, it wasn't always that way in the hands of a creative player..

For example, I was DMing a group that had my son playing a dwarven cleric; during the first battle they encountered, the party started screaming for healing, my son politely asked ,"Why are looking at me?", of course the standard reply was "Well, you're the cleric!"

But he structured his cleric as a summoner - buffing summoned monsters and using them to deal damage, all the while bashing the hell out of anything that moved.  Basically he had a high hit point, combat capable, armor wearing mage .  Needless to say, when the party realized that brother Rurik wasn't making with the aid and comfort, the party began to negotiate more....

Or how about the rogue that specialized in surveillance and espionage, not breaking and entering?  The fighter that shunned armor and went to finesse?  The mage that focused on buffs not blasting?  They existed, all of them, but is it easy to do now?  Not really; possible, but highly improbable.

I like the odd, the quirky, the out of the ordinary.  It's what drew me to D&D all those years ago and what has me coming back all these years later.


----------



## Darwinism (Nov 18, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Close.  A Power Source in 4E provides a way to overcome combat challenges.  If you want a non-combat answer to problems, skills and rituals are the only thing available and they are provided to all classes.




...no? It's where your powers come from. Powers are how you overcome combat challenges, and there are more than a few powers that are not combat focused. Granted, the system is flawed in that you will usually have a choice between combat effectiveness or the ability to create a bridge of roots, but you're pretty wrong here.



Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Yes, the Arcane Power source has spells and implements are needed for them all.  However, the overwhelming majority of 4E spells are combat only.  Ultimately, the power source only provides a way behaving in combat (much like role typecast you into certain behaviors in combat).




So what you're saying is that a Wizard and Swordmage both are typecast to act... in wildly different ways because they're Arcane? Or the Runepriest and Avenger? I don't get what you're saying; the power source is where your powers come from, not how you act.




Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Prior to 4E, a class provided a set of tools for problem solving, both in and out of combat.  Classes used to have a wide variety of answers available to them.  Fighters got Fighter Feats which helped them to fight better (their niche, if you will, was combat prowess, so fighting for them is the right answer).  Rogues got bonus skills that allowed them to do lots of different things outside of combat.  Clerics and Wizards got a wide variety of spells.  Some were purely for combat (magic missile, bless, etc).  But the best spells were the ones that were put to creative uses for solving problems outside of combat.




Hahahah yes tell us the many out-of-combat choices for non-casters pre-4E. Ooh! Bonus skills for rogues! Just like 4E. Woops. The biggest difference is that spells were recognized to be far, far too powerful. So there are less trivialize-encounter buttons available for certain classes. That may shrink out of combat choices but it does so to make everyone capable of contributing roughly the same amount in and out of combat, ideally. 



Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Not every class got an equal helping of combat answers, but then again, combat isn't the only area of the game (simply the area of the game that has the most numbers involved with it).  Now, every class gets the exact same piece of the combat pie.  To make sure everything is balanced, no one gets out of combat abilities beyond skills.




D&D is a game whose mechanics are largely focused on combat. Has been for a long, long time. If the main focus of the game, ie small-unit skirmishes, is imbalanced that is _a huge issue_ and not a benefit. Also you're either ignorant or purposefully lying again, and my bet's on purposefully lying because you've already mentioned that you're aware of Rituals and presumably Martial Practices, which are specifically out-of-combat.

I guess it's really hilarious that you rag on 4E for cutting out spells and PFFF only having SKILLS for out-of-combat stuff when 3E is the exact same if you didn't have the foresight to be a system masteried caster.


----------



## Darwinism (Nov 18, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> For me I think "roles" more than anything else screamed "video game design".  Classes had specific roles that they 'must' play in the course of combat.   And while in previous editions there was a trend to pigeonhole certain classes into certain areas - Thief, open locks, find/remove traps, Cleric - heal/buff, Mage - kill from afar and Fighter - mobile hit point platform, it wasn't always that way in the hands of a creative player..




Requiring system mastery to break out of roles isn't a boon. Clearly stating roles is a boon, to let initial players know what will be expected, generally, of each class. And it's terminology that's been in use since MUDs _at least_.

For that matter, video game design has progressed far faster and better than TTRPG design. There is nothing wrong and everything right with examining good features of a path of game development and then seeing if they fit with your own game.



Thunderfoot said:


> For example, I was DMing a group that had my son playing a dwarven cleric; during the first battle they encountered, the party started screaming for healing, my son politely asked ,"Why are looking at me?", of course the standard reply was "Well, you're the cleric!"
> 
> But he structured his cleric as a summoner - buffing summoned monsters and using them to deal damage, all the while bashing the hell out of anything that moved.  Basically he had a high hit point, combat capable, armor wearing mage .  Needless to say, when the party realized that brother Rurik wasn't making with the aid and comfort, the party began to negotiate more....




This isn't good design; why shouldn't one of the only classes that can heal well be able to heal _and_ do fun things with their powers?




Thunderfoot said:


> Or how about the rogue that specialized in surveillance and espionage, not breaking and entering?  The fighter that shunned armor and went to finesse?  The mage that focused on buffs not blasting?  They existed, all of them, but is it easy to do now?  Not really; possible, but highly improbable.




What? It's entirely possible now. There's nothing more stopping you than there was in 3E. Where do you even get this kind of idea?



Thunderfoot said:


> I like the odd, the quirky, the out of the ordinary.  It's what drew me to D&D all those years ago and what has me coming back all these years later.




And? Nothing stops this in any edition. The thing is you seem to equate suboptimal choices in characters with better RP through some mystical inversion process, when that's just wishful thinking. To be sure you can RP a fun Fighter who wears only loincloths and wields only tankards, but that RP is no better than the guy in full plate with a greatsword by default.

But nothing is stopping _either_ character from being made in any edition I can think of, nor is it harder to do in 4E than 3E or AD&D 2E.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> while in previous editions there was a trend to pigeonhole certain classes into certain areas - Thief, open locks, find/remove traps, Cleric - heal/buff, Mage - kill from afar and Fighter - mobile hit point platform, it wasn't always that way in the hands of a creative player
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



It's hard to comment in depth without having the builds set out in detail.

But Invokers can be built as divine summoners (Divine Power has the relevant options), and if you want bashing as well you could Hybrid you invoker with a fighter or paladin (both can benefit from WIS).

A 4e rogue can be built to specialise in surveillance and espionage - Stealth, Streetwise, Bluff, Insight, Perception, Thievery. Take utility powers that enhance Stealth or senses, and eschew those that enhance movement and/or Thievery.

Martial Power has a build for an armour-shunning fighter (the Tempest, which can be built on DEX - to support blade specialisation - and get benefits from wearing light armour). If you want literally _no_ armour on your fighter, ask your GM to let you swap your armour profiencies for the Unarmoured Agility feat.

I don't think there is a solely buff-focused wizard (I don't have the Eberron books and don't know what an artificer does), butyou could build a wizard who focuses on zones, walls and the like (rather than "blasting") as offence and then uses buffing utilities (Jump, Invisibility, Resistance Fly, etc).

Except for your buffing wizard, the builds you describe don't seem to me especially hard to realise in 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Dissociation also has other risks (seekers, battleminds, runepriests, etc.), but this thread largely isn't about that.



I like the concept of runepriests! (I'm not sure about their mechanical implementation, though - I suspect they should have been a cleric sub-class.)

I also don't mind battleminds, because they are the D&D equivalent of a class in Rolemaster Companion 3 - the Noble Warrior - which is a mentalism-using paladin variant, and I once GMed an RM game with an interesting Noble Warrior PC.

Seekers, on the other hand, don't speak to me at all.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> If the exact same player ability can be the healing words of a deity and some jerk shouting at you, it's not great design, IMO, because quite evidently there should be a _difference_ in those effects, since they are quite distinct in flavor.



But that difference, surely, can be at the level of fiction - just as in classic D&D much of the difference between weapons is at the level of fiction (particularly in the days before variable weapon damage).

As some of these threads turn around and around, I realise that I'm becoming more and more aware of how important differences at the level of fiction, rather than just in the mechanics, are to the way I play the game. And also that, in 4e's design, keywords are a central anchor of the fiction to the mechanics. So for the difference between Healing Word and Inpsiring Word, the difference between Divine and Martial as keywords - which signify, in mechanical terms, the different character of those abilities as story elements - is enough for me.




Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think everyone expects classes to have an automatic combat role.



Sure, although not everyone expects the intricacy of 4e's combat mechanics either. It's the intricacy of the mechanics that means that good play depends upon different PCs doing different things, which in turn creates the design pressure towards roles (at least, that's my take on it).

But what I was trying to get to, in my comment about expectations, is that I don't expect to find "stance"-based round-by-round roles in D&D. It's true that earlier editions of the game, with looser action resolution rules for combat, have been looser in the relationship they make between class and role. But I can't think of anything in those editions that corresponds to your suggestion of taking on different roles round-to-round by adopting different "stances".

Again, I'm not saying I object to it. (Burning Wheel has something a bit like it, and in a different way so does Rolemaster with its round-by-round OB/DB shifting - although these both operate only on the aggressive/defensive spectrum).

But it would, for me, mark a change in what I expect as the D&D default, which is that my PC has a certain _stability _in the way s/he mechanically engages the situations that the game throws up.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Nov 18, 2011)

Darwinism said:


> Requiring system mastery to break out of roles isn't a boon. Clearly stating roles is a boon, to let initial players know what will be expected, generally, of each class. And it's terminology that's been in use since MUDs _at least_.



That's my point, I don't WANT to be told what I should do.  Regardless.



Darwinism said:


> For that matter, video game design has progressed far faster and better than TTRPG design. There is nothing wrong and everything right with examining good features of a path of game development and then seeing if they fit with your own game.



I respectfully disagree.  There is nothing right and everything wrong in my opinion.



Darwinism said:


> This isn't good design; why shouldn't one of the only classes that can heal well be able to heal _and_ do fun things with their powers?



My point was, he didn't want his player to be the healer, he was a cleric, not a medic...  And frankly, I thought it was great that he was doing something so far out of the norm.  Just because someone expects you to play your character a certain way is their problem, not yours.



Darwinism said:


> What? It's entirely possible now. There's nothing more stopping you than there was in 3E. Where do you even get this kind of idea?



 I said it was improbable not impossible - please don't put words in my mouth.





Darwinism said:


> And? Nothing stops this in any edition. The thing is you seem to equate suboptimal choices in characters with better RP through some mystical inversion process, when that's just wishful thinking.



Wow, you came up with that hogwash all on your own... I NEVER said suboptimal was better RP... EVER - I said I prefer people to think outside of the box....  [/QUOTE]



Darwinism said:


> o be sure you can RP a fun Fighter who wears only loincloths and wields only tankards, but that RP is no better than the guy in full plate with a greatsword by default.
> But nothing is stopping _either_ character from being made in any edition I can think of, nor is it harder to do in 4E than 3E or AD&D 2E.



  Again, I never said either was better, just what I preferred, please, don't transpose your gripes into my comments.
As far as stopping either character from being made, again, I said it was improbable, not impossible.  The real question comes from expectation.  The idea that a fighter is a tank made only to suck up damage or a ranger is a DPS (what ever the #*$8 that means in D&D since seconds aren't used as far as I know) is MUD/MMO thinking.  It goes beyond what I believe an RPG is supposed to do and moved the RPG back into the realm of combat simulation.  Combat is not a required element of play even though it is the one most often associated with D&D.  If a player associated fighter with tank then the player is more apt to ignore the RP part and go just in for the combat (third wheel mentality).  Again, this isn't a given, but is more likely to happen rather than not.  Yes, I'm sure you don't do it and none of your friends or anyone else you know has, that's great, but it happens, I've seen it, I loathe it.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> If a player associated fighter with tank then the player is more apt to ignore the RP part and go just in for the combat (third wheel mentality).  Again, this isn't a given, but is more likely to happen rather than not.



I've seen no evidence for this at all.

Two of my players play defenders - a dwarven polearm paladin, who plays in effect as a melee controller, and a tieflng CHA paladin of the Raven Queen. Both play their PCs pretty vigorously. Neither objects to using combat as a method of conflict resolution - it is D&D, after all, not Burning Wheel or HeroQuest! - but I don't know why you would think that roleplaying stops when combat starts.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 18, 2011)

These aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along. Move along.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2011)

[MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] - I'm not sure who the metaphorical droids are. Your post? My examples of play? Thunderfoot's non-RPing 4e players? Combat roles in general?

But anyway, I'm a bit sceptical of the suggesetion that there are all these players out there who are paragons of roleplaying in AD&D or 3E, but then who turn into WoW-bots as soon as they are given a 4e PC to play. But then, the world is full of strange things. And maybe it's also full of crappy 4e GMs. Who can tell?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 18, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Umbran explained best why I think you're missing the point. In the 'old days' you didn't choose a Fighter if you wanted to cast spells.



"Casting spells" is not what 4e means by role. At all. There's "dealing damage really well" and "healing people" and "controlling the battlefield" with casting spells. Those are defined as "roles" in 4e. Casting a spell is just a means to an end.

So, in 4e, my paladin has to have the "takes damage really well" role, whether or not I'd rather be a "dealing damage really well" paladin. It's not about spell vs melee vs skills, and it's not about class features. It's about the play style that is hard-coded and baked into the classes. D&D has always had this, but it's been more broad in the past. A Fighter wasn't always a "takes damage really well" type of guy. Now he has to be.



> In 4E you choose Ranger, or Rogue, or Seeker, or Hunter, or Bard, or Warlord if you want to be the ranged weapon guy, not Fighter. The only difference is that previous systems used to let the Fighter fill this role. Things change, but the missile-weapon high-damage low-defense guy still exists, he just isn't called Fighter any more.



The thing is, a Bard is an _entirely_ different archetype than a Fighter. As is a Ranger. As is a Warlord. As is a Rogue. There's only a couple upsides to classes, in my mind: simplicity, balance, and archetype support. I feel that the setup of some classes in D&D (including 3.X) are too restrictive to meet the "archetype support" upside. Just my opinion, but in a thread about my feelings on role, I am most certainly not "missing the point." As always, play what you like 



pemerton said:


> Would you care to elaborate?



Of course. I didn't mean to sound contrary or unproductive, but there seems to be _a lot_ of talking past one another in this thread so far, and while a few people have nailed the issue (as far as I can tell), I wanted my statement to be as clear as possible. Looking back, it may have come off as a little short, and if so, I apologize.

At any rate, let me quote your statement again to give it some context:


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I agree with D'karr here. Why would you build a Swordmage and not mark? Or build a Warlord and not heal? In general, why would you not use your class features?



Okay, context given.

Some people in this thread like the feel of broad archetype classes. The Fighter can represent of lot of different things: ranged, reach, sword and shield, two-handed, two-weapons, etc. The class "Fighter" is just the D&D archetype for "warrior" to me, for example. With this in mind, by narrowing the Fighter down to fulfilling one role very well (and other roles workably), you really take a bite out of the concepts that will fit into "warrior". I may envision my archer warrior as a light-on-his-feet kind of guy. I don't want to wear plate, I want to wear light armor.

If I'm a Warlord, it makes sense that I'd want to heal from a class-perspective, but not necessarily from a conceptual perspective in terms of archetypes. I may want to be someone who inspires his allies (healing or buffing them in 4e). I may, however, want to be someone who is a great tactician and military leader (I'm not aware of any class abilities or skills to reflect this).

As I mentioned, a few people have really nailed the issue, in my opinion. It's about how broad any individual wants the classes. I prefer the "Fighter" to be D&D's "generic warrior archetype" class. I'm not a big fan of Barbarian (3.X, can't say for 4e) because of how narrow it was. I remember being pretty impressed from some other d20 systems that used a talent system and gave you basically one or two class distinctions, and let you build the rest with shared tools to those broad classes.

That's my preference. So, when I hear "why would you be a Warlord and not heal?", I think "because that's a form of the archetype I'm thinking of." I admit, however, I think of archetypes in a rather broad sense. If you think "the heavily armored melee warrior" is an archetype, I can see where you're coming from. I say "warrior" instead, but it's not like you're wrong, either. It's just a difference in perception.

Thus, I said that it was missing the point (probably rather rashly). I was trying to point out (very poorly) that tying class abilities to roles is one way to define roles, yes. It's not like 3.X didn't do it from time to time, too. I was trying to point out (again, poorly) that it's not a given, and that pointing to class abilities as indicators of what that archetype is misses the point others have been trying to make: they don't agree with the narrow archetypes.

Again, not saying you're wrong. You're not. It's just perception. I'm not even sure that my players would agree with me (I haven't really talked to them about it). Again, sorry for the poor communication, short reply (originally), and possible confusion. As always, play what you like


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 18, 2011)

Imaro said:


> My bigger point though is why tie a particular archetype, whether it's Paladin or Wizard to a specific role in combat... I'm finding it hard too understand why you would do this instead of, for excample, leaving them open and having a build for numerous roles (like...surprise, surprise, they are finally doing now.). It's like they tried to tie a game conceit into the part of the game that revolves around concept.




I think I see where you are coming from.

I think the idea behind tying a certain class to a certain in-combat role was to make sure that the player knew what sort of choices he was making in character creation; making it obvious how the character would play out in the game.  (There's also some of this in the skills selection.)

So: What's gained here is that the player knows how his decision will impact game play.

I can see, though, how one would want a specific fictional archetype to play differently in the game - the hard-hitting holy warrior vs. the keep enemies off my bro's back's holy warrior.  That, I think, is a question for game design: What kinds of choices should a player make when designing their PC?  Personally, I'd rather the choice was simple - pick a class and there you go - but I can see how others would disagree.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> The thing is, a Bard is an _entirely_ different archetype than a Fighter. As is a Ranger. As is a Warlord. As is a Rogue.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The Fighter can represent of lot of different things: ranged, reach, sword and shield, two-handed, two-weapons, etc. The class "Fighter" is just the D&D archetype for "warrior" to me, for example. With this in mind, by narrowing the Fighter down to fulfilling one role very well (and other roles workably), you really take a bite out of the concepts that will fit into "warrior". I may envision my archer warrior as a light-on-his-feet kind of guy. I don't want to wear plate, I want to wear light armor.



OK. But I don't quite get why a Ranger built with Dungeoneering as a trained skill (rather than Nature) doesn't adequately realise your desire to play an archetypal archer warrior. You wear light armour (leather or hide), you're really good with a bow, you can fight with your sword or knife in a pinch (using the DEX melee powers for Rangers from Martial Power 2), and you have both attack and utility powers that let you move around the place to avoid/escape melee assailants.

I mean, what else would an archer warrior whose light on his feet look like?



JamesonCourage said:


> If I'm a Warlord, it makes sense that I'd want to heal from a class-perspective, but not necessarily from a conceptual perspective in terms of archetypes. I may want to be someone who inspires his allies (healing or buffing them in 4e). I may, however, want to be someone who is a great tactician and military leader (I'm not aware of any class abilities or skills to reflect this).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, when I hear "why would you be a Warlord and not heal?", I think "because that's a form of the archetype I'm thinking of."



Your Warlord sounds like either a Warlord with the right suite of class features (init bonus for allies, to hit bonus for allies based on INT, etc), powers (those that let allies move around the battlefield cleverly and effectively) and who treats Inspiring Word as helping allies who have got themselves into tactical dire straits out of those dire straits (I think this is one permissible reading of martial healing).

Alternatively, you could build a straight fighter or paladin with the appropriate warlord multiclass feat, but that build won't give as many tactical bonuses (although there are also fighter utilities and also skill powers that can help with this).

Generalising - as with Thunderfoot upthread, I don't see many of these PC types as that hard to build in 4e. The key (as I'm sure others have mentioned upthread) is to start with concept, and then have someone who knows the long lists of mechanical options for character building help you find the right bundle of options to realise your concept. Sometimes this will be easy (the archer is just a ranger). Sometimes it will require a bit of thought (your warlord option is pretty easy, but takes a bit more thought than the ranger). Sometimes it requires a higher degree of system mastery (eg any concept that requires hybriding to realise it).



JamesonCourage said:


> I think of archetypes in a rather broad sense.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



OK. I think it's obvious that, in some cases at least, 4e classes are subsets of archetypes. In other cases, they're supersets.

For example, I see the paladin as encompassing both Lancelot (STR) and Galahad (CHA). The fighter is both the duelist (Tempest, DEX) and the wild axeman (Great Weapon, CON). But _warrior_ includes the paladin, the fighter, the ranger, the warlord and (at least some iterations of) the rogue.

And then some classes - wizard, druid, invoker, shaman, warlock, sorcerer - don't really correspond to standard tropes at all, I think. The differences between them really only make sense in the context of the particular story elements that the game incorporates into their descriptions of classes.

I don't have any strong preference as to how PCs should be built. But in a game like 4e, where PC building depends upon looking through long lists of options and putting them together in more-or-less subtle ways, I'm not going to fuss too much about the precise labels given to elements of the lists, provided that in the end my PC does what I want it to. (Practical example - when I rebuilt my 2nd ed Skills and Powers cleric for 4e, I eventually settled on a paladin as the best way to realise him. What's in the change of class name? For me, nothing. It's all about the powers and class features.)

What I _do_ care about are keywords of powers and abilities, because these are one of the key anchors, in 4e, between mechanics and fiction. So I do have some sympathy for scepticism about the suggestion to build a paladin as a hybrid barbarian - I can't just ignore the "primal" keyword on those powers. Unlike the label "barbarian", which is just the label for a suite of mechanical options (although intended to tell you something about the likely sort of build you'll get out of those options), "primal" is a part of the power description that means something. It gives the power a "home" in the gameworld.


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 18, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Steeldragons - what baffles me is how you could play D&D for any length of time and not think that "da rulz" weren't telling you exactly what you were.




They gave me defined abilities and skills for my class. They did not tell me how my class was supposed to act. We know the archetypes of the class. We know the strengths and weaknesses of our abilities. And we played with them, sometimesfor the better sometimes, against "type" for theworse...not because the rules said I was a striker or controller or whatever, so I should be doing X. But because, "This is what I want my character to do!" 

This speaks entirely contrary to my idea of developing a character concept that I wish to play....unless, of course,I have no concept at all and am starting with a blank slate. But even then, I don't need the game to tell me how to play my character in combat.



Hussar said:


> If you played a cleric, you were "the healer".  Most of your spells revolved around healing/curing and certainly the expectation at any table I ever played at was that the cleric was going to be busting out the healing from time to time.




This is really neither here nor there for the discussion at hand, but that statement strikes me as entirely false. (it is one we've all heard many many times, and somehow that seems to have made it fact in the communal memory. However...)

Yes, the cleric has the reputation of the "heal-bot". Have I played healer-clerics/clerics of gods of healing? Sure I have. But the idea that that was what a cleric was supposed to do is something the game community has created.

A look at the pre-3e spell list shows this to be entirely untrue. You had ONE, count 'em, one curative spell to choose at first level, "Cure Light Wounds."

Second level spells, you could "Slow Poison". Third level spells, you could Cure Disease and Cure Blindness...not hit point damage. Cure Serious Wounds was a 4th level spell!...as was Neutralize Poison.

So you had to be 7th level before you could really do any useful healing beyond stocking up/filling your first level slots with Cure Lights. And, I wager to guess that by 7th level, you were taking more damage than a single Cure Lights could really help with. Some maybe you had to hit one PC with two or three of  the things and then what about everyone else in the party...or the next encounter you had?

The rest of the spell list, for all levels, was chock full o' useful protective/resistance spells, spells to boost attacks, bolster saving throws, divinations and even a few damage dealing combat-related spells.

The fact that any cleric, not specfically being role-played as a "healer", became known/expected to heal all of the time is not only narrow thinking, but practically impossible to do with the spells permitted.

The cleric was a "supporter" character, yes. An element of that support was to heal as he/she could. Yes. But he could help you survive against this or that Evil effect or magic, or fear or fire or cold, find the item or exit you were looking for, tell the party if someone was lying...and be handy in a melee when he wasn't invoking his deity. 

So, no, if I was playing a cleric, I was not told, by the rules, that I was to be a healer. It was just something (albeit perhaps the most notable, aside from Turning Undead) the cleric COULD do...not a definition of the class.



Hussar said:


> It utterly boggles my mind that people think that the codification of combat roles in 4e is something new.  It's been around since the guy in the front was a Fighting Man.  How's that for a role?




The codification _is_ something new (considering 4e to be "new").

Before that you were not told what/where/how your character had to be in combat. The class was not defined that way. It just made sense that the guy with the heavy armor and the most hit points would get up front. The guy who's going to be KO'd by a house cat should probably stay away from the orcs with the sharp n' pointies. And the guy who could move around the battlefield unseen and do lots of damage from behind would want to do that...but noone said this is the structure of how you must be in your battles.



Hussar said:


> Where the problem, in my mind, comes is that people insist on applying the idea of combat role to the entirety of the character.  That if I'm a "striker" then that must be the single, sole thing that my character is and I can never, ever do or be anything other than a "striker".
> -snip-
> Why do people think that calling attention to the roles means that  people have to lobotomize themselves and remove all their  creativity?




Agreed. I get that. Makes sense. But it does seem to be how the _codification _was designed to make/push people to think...and then the entirety of the game being designed around combat encounters much moreso than exploration, problem solving and NPC interactions only served to fuel that conception/enforce that way of thinking.

Yes, yes. D&D has always had combat. Killin' things and takin' their stuff has always been fun and a large part of every game I've ever been in. We like action and adventure. Note "_and_ adventure". The action (iow, "combat") was never the _only_ part...and the game was not, by design, set up to be _about_ combat...or one's Role in them. 

So...yeah...Guess that's all on that. Mostly just wanted to respond the "cleric/healer" thing...Not looking or interested in debating anything else.

As I said previously, for me, no roles are necessary, please and thank you. Everyone play what/how they like...and the game developers will, no doubt, design the next edition however they perceive we will like.

Happy Friday all.
--Steel Dragons


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Nov 18, 2011)

Darwinism said:


> D&D is a game whose mechanics are largely focused on combat. Has been for a long, long time. If the main focus of the game, ie small-unit skirmishes, is imbalanced that is _a huge issue_ and not a benefit. Also you're either ignorant or purposefully lying again, and my bet's on purposefully lying because you've already mentioned that you're aware of Rituals and presumably Martial Practices, which are specifically out-of-combat.
> 
> I guess it's really hilarious that you rag on 4E for cutting out spells and PFFF only having SKILLS for out-of-combat stuff when 3E is the exact same if you didn't have the foresight to be a system masteried caster.




You seem to be seeking something different from this conversation and our gaming experiences.  Best of luck to you.


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 18, 2011)

steeldragons said:


> The codification _is_ something new (considering 4e to be "new").
> 
> Before that you were not told what/where/how your character had to be in combat. The class was not defined that way. It just made sense that the guy with the heavy armor and the most hit points would get up front. The guy who's going to be KO'd by a house cat should probably stay away from the orcs with the sharp n' pointies. And the guy who could move around the battlefield unseen and do lots of damage from behind would want to do that...but noone said this is the structure of how you must be in your battles.




So where do you find the difference between what it makes sense for your class to do (because of heavy armour and high hit points) in AD&D and what it makes sense for your class to do (because of heavy armour and high hit points) in 4e? The "roles" were there, according to your description, they just weren't shouted out the same way.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 18, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> So where do you find the difference between what it makes sense for your class to do (because of heavy armour and high hit points) in AD&D and what it makes sense for your class to do (because of heavy armour and high hit points) in 4e? The "roles" were there, according to your description, they just weren't shouted out the same way.




I know this wasn't addressed to me but I think...

The difference is that in AD&D my heavy armour and high hit point fighter could still stand back and competently shoot enemies with a bow and arrow if that's what was necessary (and sometimes it was) to succeed or how I wanted to play him...

Dictating my class as a Defender and structuring my class abilities and majority of my powers around staying close, taking a beatdown and locking enemies down dictates and narrows my role and viable gameplay options in combat within that class or archetype.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I like the concept of runepriests! (I'm not sure about their mechanical implementation, though - I suspect they should have been a cleric sub-class.)
> 
> I also don't mind battleminds, because they are the D&D equivalent of a class in Rolemaster Companion 3 - the Noble Warrior - which is a mentalism-using paladin variant, and I once GMed an RM game with an interesting Noble Warrior PC.
> 
> Seekers, on the other hand, don't speak to me at all.




To each their own, of course.  I think each of these concepts fares better as a way to play a different class, rather than as a class all their own, myself.



> But that difference, surely, can be at the level of fiction - just as in classic D&D much of the difference between weapons is at the level of fiction (particularly in the days before variable weapon damage).
> 
> As some of these threads turn around and around, I realise that I'm becoming more and more aware of how important differences at the level of fiction, rather than just in the mechanics, are to the way I play the game. And also that, in 4e's design, keywords are a central anchor of the fiction to the mechanics. So for the difference between Healing Word and Inpsiring Word, the difference between Divine and Martial as keywords - which signify, in mechanical terms, the different character of those abilities as story elements - is enough for me.




For me, it's not enough. There's no functional difference in the way they actually work. That's a problem for me. 

It's a problem because, for me, anything that is just fiction, without a mechanical backing, is functionally empty and devoid of significance. It is a constant reminder that I am playing a game, not pretending to be a character. It makes me feel that I am numbers on a sheet rather than an imaginary character in an imaginary world. It's not specific enough. It's not significant enough. It's too empty and meaningless. 

It's sort of like the atmosphere generated by that _Gears of War_ commercial with Gary Jules in the background. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccWrbGEFgI8]gears of war (mad world) - YouTube[/ame]

It's empty and meaningless. The game isn't actually like that. The commercial is great, but it's nonsense, it has no bearing on reality. Flavor text without mechanical support is like that to me: vapid, shallow, weirdly disconnecting. When it says I am shouting at the guy on the tin, I don't expect it to do the exact same thing as someone who is channeling divine power to knit wounds. And yet...there it is.



> Sure, although not everyone expects the intricacy of 4e's combat mechanics either. It's the intricacy of the mechanics that means that good play depends upon different PCs doing different things, which in turn creates the design pressure towards roles (at least, that's my take on it).




Sure, I buy it. In my mind, that's part of the problem, though: mechanics that are WAY too intricate. 



> But what I was trying to get to, in my comment about expectations, is that I don't expect to find "stance"-based round-by-round roles in D&D. It's true that earlier editions of the game, with looser action resolution rules for combat, have been looser in the relationship they make between class and role. But I can't think of anything in those editions that corresponds to your suggestion of taking on different roles round-to-round by adopting different "stances".




That's true. The mechanic isn't meant to evoke earlier editions as much as it is meant to dissociate the combat role from the class, thus ensuring that, when you are making your character, you are not limited by what the party "needs," and can design the character you want. Once those two are divorced, playing a "tough rogue" and a "ranged fighter" become mechanically viable as they are, rather than just empty story gloss on foreign mechanics. 



> Again, I'm not saying I object to it. (Burning Wheel has something a bit like it, and in a different way so does Rolemaster with its round-by-round OB/DB shifting - although these both operate only on the aggressive/defensive spectrum).
> 
> But it would, for me, mark a change in what I expect as the D&D default, which is that my PC has a certain _stability _in the way s/he mechanically engages the situations that the game throws up.




Yeah, for that goal, I'd just say choosing your combat role at character creation should be enough. 

Of course, instead of combat role, I'd like to see a broader concept of adventure roles, encompassing adventure-level challenges rather than combat-encounter-level challenges, but that's sort of another thread.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 18, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I know this wasn't addressed to me but I think...
> 
> The difference is that in AD&D my heavy armour and high hit point fighter could still stand back and competently shoot enemies with a bow and arrow if that's what was necessary (and sometimes it was) to succeed or how I wanted to play him...
> 
> Dictating my class as a Defender and structuring my class abilities and majority of my powers around staying close, taking a beatdown and locking enemies down dictates and narrows my role and viable gameplay options in combat within that class or archetype.




The way I'm reading Imaro here, I think earlier editions made a *set* of roles available to characters by joining a particular character class. It was then up to that individual character to specify which role of that set (or roles considering some could be changed on a round-by-round or daily basis) he was gearing up for. 

That said, the more character building options worked into the system (particularly 3e feats), the more some characters tended to specialize in a single role in order to pursue maximum effect in that role. 4e's restrictive roles, I think, are an extension of that development, perhaps too far for players like Imaro and me.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2011)

Tayne said:


> Actually you misspoke by saying sneak attack was the only way to do lots of damage in 3E. That was your initial definition of a striker mechanic, which you later amended once you were proven hilariously wrong.




The Striker can do lots of damage *consistantly*. The 3E paladin runs out of Smite Evil uses. The wizard runs out of spells. The 3E rogue can keep Sneak Attacking as long as he has a team and isn't fighting certain creatures. The 3E rogue has the only class feature that compares to 4E strikers in a meaningful way.



Tayne said:


> Even if we discard that initial careless definition, lots of abilities in 3E can be considered generally analagous to "striker" mechanics. You admitted that with the line about wizards, druids, etc stepping on the toes of all the other roles.




In my humble opinion your actions were similar to those of an someone who is being an asshat. You can take my in my humble opinion comments with a big old grain of salt, in my humble opinion.

*Mod note:*  That's more than enough of that, thanks very much.  ~Umbran



Tayne said:


> Keep moving the goalpost if it makes you feel better, i guess, but keep in mind how bad it makes you look to anyone paying attention.




And keep twisting my words if it makes you feel better.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> The expectations aren't ridiculous. They come from what the game was able to do before the most recent edition change. Expecting what you like about the game to remain intact is hardly a ridiculous expectation.




The only concrete expectation given, so far, was a paladin striker. The 3E "paladin striker" example was more equivalent to a 4E paladin that chooses class features and feats that focus on dealing more damage. You still end up with marking, but what's the real difference between 3E and 4E here? In 3E since you were up front dishing damage, the creatures you attacked were most likely going to attack you back. Now in 4E they have more incentive to attack you instead of your buddy who's come to the front to help and if they do decide to take the penalty and actually hit him you get to dish out more damage. How terrible!



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Classes are contained within conceptual archetypes rather than mechanics because that's how we think of them. "Ranger" isn't about the particular mechanics the class has (like favored enemy or two-weapon fighting), it's about the particular feel those mechanics generate (an agile wilderness warrior!).




I'd buy this argument about conceptual archetypes if people were able to more easily step outside the box and see 'agile wilderness warrior' in more classes than just the one labelled Ranger. Instead it seems that people are unable to think outside the box and pigeonhole the class themselves because it's labelled Ranger.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is because when we first approach an RPG, we don't approach it saying, "I want to maximize my attack rolls with my bow, so I'm going to be a ranger!", we say, "I want to be like Robin Hood, so I'm going to pick the ranger!"  If my character isn't like Robin Hood, I don't want to be a ranger. I'm not going to pick the Ranger class if I'm interested in being a cultured, urbane mercenary for hire, even if my cultured, urbane mercenary for hire still wants to maximize his attack rolls with his bow.




And that's a problem. Like I said, in 3E I played a big-city noble-born character that was a Barbarian/Sorcerer. It's not the game's fault if people can't mold fluff material to their liking.



Thunderfoot said:


> Or how about the rogue that specialized in surveillance and espionage, not breaking and entering?  The fighter that shunned armor and went to finesse?  The mage that focused on buffs not blasting?  They existed, all of them, but is it easy to do now?  Not really; possible, but highly improbable.




Not improbable. Existing without need for multiclassing, hybridization, or feats. The answers to your specific questions are: Rogue. Ranger or Rogue. Artificer.



Thunderfoot said:


> That's my point, I don't WANT to be told what I should do.  Regardless.




Luckily 4E doesn't tell me what to do either.



Thunderfoot said:


> I prefer people to think outside of the box....




Me too. That's kind of my whole argument on demanding one's concept to be forced upon a class while ignoring others that will fit the concept better.



Thunderfoot said:


> The idea that a fighter is a tank made only to suck up damage or a ranger is a DPS (what ever the #*$8 that means in D&D since seconds aren't used as far as I know) is MUD/MMO thinking.




It's usually spoken of as DPR. The terminology may have come from computer games, but the original concept was stolen by them from the way people tended to play TTRPGs.



Thunderfoot said:


> It goes beyond what I believe an RPG is supposed to do and moved the RPG back into the realm of combat simulation.  Combat is not a required element of play even though it is the one most often associated with D&D.  If a player associated fighter with tank then the player is more apt to ignore the RP part and go just in for the combat (third wheel mentality).  Again, this isn't a given, but is more likely to happen rather than not.  Yes, I'm sure you don't do it and none of your friends or anyone else you know has, that's great, but it happens, I've seen it, I loathe it.




I've seen it too. In every edition of D&D from OD&D to 4E. IME it's the group, not the game.



JamesonCourage said:


> "Casting spells" is not what 4e means by role. At all. There's "dealing damage really well" and "healing people" and "controlling the battlefield" with casting spells. Those are defined as "roles" in 4e. Casting a spell is just a means to an end.




FYI - casting spells is not a requirement of controlling the battlefield.



JamesonCourage said:


> So, in 4e, my paladin has to have the "takes damage really well" role, whether or not I'd rather be a "dealing damage really well" paladin. It's not about spell vs melee vs skills, and it's not about class features. It's about the play style that is hard-coded and baked into the classes. D&D has always had this, but it's been more broad in the past. A Fighter wasn't always a "takes damage really well" type of guy. Now he has to be.




Yes, the Weaponmaster Fighter (capital F) must be that guy, but there are other fighters available to you that don't have to be that guy. Why would you insist to play a Weaponmaster Fighter if that's not what you want to play? Why would you eschew other fighting classes that match what you want?



JamesonCourage said:


> Some people in this thread like the feel of broad archetype classes. The Fighter can represent of lot of different things: ranged, reach, sword and shield, two-handed, two-weapons, etc. The class "Fighter" is just the D&D archetype for "warrior" to me, for example. With this in mind, by narrowing the Fighter down to fulfilling one role very well (and other roles workably), you really take a bite out of the concepts that will fit into "warrior". I may envision my archer warrior as a light-on-his-feet kind of guy. I don't want to wear plate, I want to wear light armor.




If they had made Rogue, Ranger and Warlord builds under Fighter so he could fulfill all four roles [Ranger has a Controller build] would that have been more to your liking?



steeldragons said:


> They gave me defined abilities and skills for my class. They did not tell me how my class was supposed to act. We know the archetypes of the class. We know the strengths and weaknesses of our abilities. And we played with them, sometimesfor the better sometimes, against "type" for theworse...not because the rules said I was a striker or controller or whatever, so I should be doing X. But because, "This is what I want my character to do!"




That's what we do when we play 4E, so I'm not sure WotC's mind control lasers are as honed as you imagine. 



steeldragons said:


> Yes, the cleric has the reputation of the "heal-bot". Have I played healer-clerics/clerics of gods of healing? Sure I have. But the idea that that was what a cleric was supposed to do is something the game community has created.
> 
> So, no, if I was playing a cleric, I was not told, by the rules, that I was to be a healer. It was just something (albeit perhaps the most notable, aside from Turning Undead) the cleric COULD do...not a definition of the class.




By some people's comments, 3E certainly seemed to tell you this was your job by allowing all clerics to freely swap prepared spells for healing spells. But I don't believe the 4E roles tell you how to play, so I certainly don't believe 3E cleric abilities told you how to play.



steeldragons said:


> Before that you were not told what/where/how your character had to be in combat. The class was not defined that way. It just made sense that the guy with the heavy armor and the most hit points would get up front. The guy who's going to be KO'd by a house cat should probably stay away from the orcs with the sharp n' pointies. And the guy who could move around the battlefield unseen and do lots of damage from behind would want to do that...but noone said this is the structure of how you must be in your battles.




No one is saying that now. The designers are telling you what toolset they used to design the character. Instead of having to infer what your character is desinged for they instead called it out. Its a matter of transparency, not forcing anyone to play a character a certain way.



steeldragons said:


> Agreed. I get that. Makes sense. But it does seem to be how the _codification _was designed to make/push people to think...and then the entirety of the game being designed around combat encounters much moreso than exploration, problem solving and NPC interactions only served to fuel that conception/enforce that way of thinking.




I do agree that exploration has seen a diminishing spotlight since the start of 3E. Problem solving by its very nature challenges the player instead of the character. This started eroded late in 1E with the introduction of non-weapon proficiencies.

But, I believe that 3E complex task resolution (or whatever it was called) and 4E skill challenge rules were an honest attempt to revitalize problem solving and NPC interactions without discarding the skill system. The concept was good, but it needs alot more work.



steeldragons said:


> Yes, yes. D&D has always had combat. Killin' things and takin' their stuff has always been fun and a large part of every game I've ever been in. We like action and adventure. Note "_and_ adventure". The action (iow, "combat") was never the _only_ part...and the game was not, by design, set up to be _about_ combat...or one's Role in them.




The designers have been working on creating more options for non-combat applications. There are utility powers driven by skills, etc. I still think non-combat situations are too broad a spectrum to define and any system that tried to codify non-combat roles for D&D would fail. I don't think it's a coincidence that the four roles of 4E coincide with the four main classes of D&D. Comabt is easier to codify and make solid rules for. Non-combat is too wide open and can only really benefit from advice. I think the 4E DMG is the best D&D guide since the 1E DMG for this advice.



Imaro said:


> The difference is that in AD&D my heavy armour and high hit point fighter could still stand back and competently shoot enemies with a bow and arrow if that's what was necessary (and sometimes it was) to succeed or how I wanted to play him...




He most likely did it less effectively though. Just like a 4E Fighter. This can and often does happen in my games all the time. Sometimes the best course of action isn't what your character is best at doing. The shooting a bow example (or throwing a javelin) is one. Another was the front-line fighter taking an action to tend to the wounds of the dropped leader. He was best at attacking, not even trained in Heal, but he dtermined that his best course of action to survive was to attempt to revive the fallen leader. He was right. That choice was the turning point of a seeming TPK.



Imaro said:


> Dictating my class as a Defender and structuring my class abilities and majority of my powers around staying close, taking a beatdown and locking enemies down dictates and narrows my role and viable gameplay options in combat within that class or archetype.




This is where some of us talk about trade-offs. You *can* do other things, just not as effectively (similar to the bow-using 1E Fighter - unless he was lucky enough to have high Str and Dex). If you want to be more effective at *both*, then you need to make trade-offs.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's a problem because, for me, anything that is just fiction, without a mechanical backing, is functionally empty and devoid of significance. It is a constant reminder that I am playing a game, not pretending to be a character. It makes me feel that I am numbers on a sheet rather than an imaginary character in an imaginary world. It's not specific enough. It's not significant enough. It's too empty and meaningless.




I'm not sure I understand. Fluff without rules is a constant reminder that you're playing a game? Fluff without rules makes you feel like you're not pretending to be a character? Fluff without rules makes you feel like you are numbers on a sheet? Is that what you're saying?

I think back to 1E when the Fighter was basically a decreasing THACO and the only real difference mechanically between two fighters was their stats, armor they could afford, and weapon choice. Yet we still imagined our characters as saracens, bodyguards, barbarians (before the class actually existed), etc.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Of course, instead of combat role, I'd like to see a broader concept of adventure roles, encompassing adventure-level challenges rather than combat-encounter-level challenges, but that's sort of another thread.




I would be higly interested in seeing this too. But who's going to be the company that risks entering uncharted territory?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2011)

It seems the current design team disagrees with my opinion:



			
				Rule of Three 11-14-11 said:
			
		

> In the last Rule of Three, you talked a little about roles existing in earlier editions but being codified in 4E. How do you think having these roles has affected the game? Is there anything you would change or anything you've learned from this design choice?
> 
> Well, the first thing I think we've gained from codifying roles is that party construction is streamlined quite a bit. In previous editions, if a player said he was playing a bard, a warlock, a bow ranger, or a monk, you weren't quite sure what that meant for the party mix. Did you still need a front-line fighter in the party, or would the monk take care of that? Was the bard enough of a healer to see you through, or did you still need a cleric? Could the warlock really replace a wizard, or not? In fact, some class choices could actually result in characters that totally failed to do what other players expected them to do. For example, in 2E, you could build a specialty priest with no real ability to throw out the heals other players might count on. (I personally like the fact that the leader role diminishes the specific need for a cleric; some players want to play healing or support characters that don't come with the story assumptions of the cleric, such as allegiance to temples or patron deities. Players who want to run healers have a wealth of viable archetypes to explore in 4th Edition.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Imaro (Nov 18, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> He most likely did it less effectively though. Just like a 4E Fighter. This can and often does happen in my games all the time. Sometimes the best course of action isn't what your character is best at doing. The shooting a bow example (or throwing a javelin) is one. Another was the front-line fighter taking an action to tend to the wounds of the dropped leader. He was best at attacking, not even trained in Heal, but he dtermined that his best course of action to survive was to attempt to revive the fallen leader. He was right. That choice was the turning point of a seeming TPK.




Less effectively than what? If I built him in 3.5 or earlier editions to be an effective ranged combatant... he wasn't less effective at it. The Rogue migh have the Dex bonus over him (but even this isn't guaranteed since I could go for a high Dex/average Str) but the BaB of a fighter made up for that over the long run anyway. So I'm not sure what you're getting at, because in 4e I am not allowed to build my fighter to be an effective ranged combatant... He's already been dictated his combat role by the designers of the game.





AbdulAlhazred said:


> This is where some of us talk about trade-offs. You *can* do other things, just not as effectively (similar to the bow-using 1E Fighter - unless he was lucky enough to have high Str and Dex). If you want to be more effective at *both*, then you need to make trade-offs.




I think I'm starting to see the disconnect you (and I believe D'karr) are having with my posts... I never said there should be no trade off... in fact I very much said why can't my Paladin be a striker, not a striker/defender... just a striker. i like the gameplay of a striker and the Paladin fits my concept to a tee... in 4e what do I do? 

I feel that archetype or class shouldn't dictate his role (gameplay) in combat... that's my argument, not that the Paladin should be a striker/defender/controller/leader mash with all the advantages and none of the drawbacks, I've never made this argument throughout the entire discussion.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 18, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It seems the current design team disagrees with my opinion:




D'opp miss-read... Nothing to see here...


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] - I'm not sure who the metaphorical droids are. Your post? My examples of play? Thunderfoot's non-RPing 4e players? Combat roles in general?



I posted something, then changed by mind. The _SW_ quote was just filler.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 18, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's a psychological thing. It's really about managing expectations.
> 
> Classes are contained within conceptual archetypes rather than mechanics because that's how we think of them. "Ranger" isn't about the particular mechanics the class has (like favored enemy or two-weapon fighting), it's about the particular feel those mechanics generate (an agile wilderness warrior!).
> 
> ...




That is a very good reason for why the archetype needs to be represented somehow in the game.  It says nothing about why "class" needs to be that something, other than some people expect it to be that way.  I've already conceded that, and explained that some of us--from the very beginning, expected it not to be that way.  I think a careful reading of Dragon magazine letters, variants proposed in early Dragon, and so on, will support me in this contention.

I get back to what Umbran said.  It's all fine to say that the archetype is expressed via the class--as long as it's *my* take on the archetype that is expressed.  As soon as you start accommodating other people, you either have a huge list of classes or you make the classes have complicated trades to support different variants.  

Now putting my cards on the table, I think there are two good design options to square the circle on class simplicity versus expressing a wide range of character concepts:  1) Drop classes in favor of some kind of point-buy, skills-based, or other options.  2) Make the classes narrow, meaningful only mechanically, and support multiclassing as the default as a way of expressing characters that aren't one dimensional cardboard cutouts.  Since I think D&D needs classes, I don't see the first one as a good choice for D&D.  Since I know that people do think in terms of archetypes, I don't object to making archetype a point of discussion in the game advice--or possibly even including some mechanical support for archetype separate from class.


----------



## chaochou (Nov 18, 2011)

Let's say I design a new game with four classes. But, as a designer I'm asked to ensure that each class can be just as effective as each other at the striker, leader, defender and controller roles. Okay, then.

At 1st level each has identical defences, identical HP. Each gets to choose one of four powers:
2d6 damage to one enemy
1d6 damage to enemies in a 5*5 area
1d6 damage to one enemy and +2 armour class for me
1d6 healing and +2 armour class to allies within 5 feet.

I've fulfilled the goal of making each class exactly as competent as each other in any role.

In my game, what does 'class' mean?

I'd say character class in my game is meaningless. It's effectively a point-buy design where you get one point at first level and four powers to choose from, each costing one point. What class you chose is irrelevant.

So I can't see how the design goal of 'I can fulfil any role with any class' can't be anything other than in direct conflict with the implicit goal of class-based design which is to 'make classes unique'.

Making classes mechanically equal across roles is, as far as I can see, the same as eliminating classes as the mechanical foundation for characters.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 18, 2011)

chaochou said:


> Let's say I design a new game with four classes. But, as a designer I'm asked to ensure that each class can be just as effective as each other at the striker, leader, defender and controller roles. Okay, then.
> 
> At 1st level each has identical defences, identical HP. Each gets to choose one of four powers:
> 2d6 damage to one enemy
> ...




We already have some classes in 4e like the fighter who, through seperate builds fulfills more than one role... and yet I haven't seen the complaint that a slayer is the same as a ranger... or that the slayer build is the same as the brawler.  Just because the method you chose to do this with had a certain result doesn't logically conclude that every method will have the same result.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 18, 2011)

chaochou said:


> Making classes mechanically equal across roles is, as far as I can see, the same as eliminating classes as the mechanical foundation for characters.




I agree. Class == role in earlier games. They defined the scope of the game. Fighters were good at combat, magic users at magic, thieves at thief situations, clerics at clericism. The primary choice during chargen was class. Eliminating classes means eliminating roles and a kind of role playing. 

This has been done in plenty of other games. D&D has kept roles though they have shifted the scope from fantasy situations by social role to individual roles in fantasy combat.

The method you illustrate of forcing PCs to choose 1 of 4 options each level still retains combat roles minimally (as well as levels). Another option is to give all 4 powers to everyone at every level, but then there is no mechanical differentiation at all between characters - at least in terms of combat powers. I suppose the description or fluff for these could be different.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 18, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I think I'm starting to see the disconnect you (and I believe D'karr) are having with my posts... I never said there should be no trade off... in fact I very much said why can't my Paladin be a striker, not a striker/defender... just a striker. i like the gameplay of a striker and the Paladin fits my concept to a tee... in 4e what do I do?
> 
> I feel that archetype or class shouldn't dictate his role (gameplay) in combat... that's my argument, not that the Paladin should be a striker/defender/controller/leader mash with all the advantages and none of the drawbacks, I've never made this argument throughout the entire discussion.




Fair enough, there certainly was some misunderstanding on my part. Also, I don't think I've presented my opinion clearly enough. I consider heavy armor to be part and parcel of the defender role. So, when you ask for a Striker Paladin I do believe your asking for something with no trade-off. Then again, there are the Blackguard Paladin, Hexblade Warlock and Slayer Fighter which are strikers that wear heavy armor, so maybe my preconceptions are clouding my judgement.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 18, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Fair enough, there certainly was some misunderstanding on my part. Also, I don't think I've presented my opinion clearly enough. I consider heavy armor to be part and parcel of the defender role. So, when you ask for a Striker Paladin I do believe your asking for something with no trade-off. Then again, there are the Blackguard Paladin, Hexblade Warlock and Slayer Fighter which are strikers that wear heavy armor, so maybe my preconceptions are clouding my judgement.




Yeah, plus the way armor works in 4e... Heavy or Light doesn't really matter except in so far as your prime attributes.  Most classes that have light armor also have Dex or Int as a secondary or primary ability... so they end up with nearly equivalent armor classes (after their attribute bonus is added in) as those classes with heavy armor... in fact I'd argue heavy armor with it's penalties and weight is more of a detriment than a bonus in 4e.  IMO, of course.


----------



## Stormonu (Nov 18, 2011)

While I have a lot of issues with 4E's roles, for combat I wished they'd approached it with the _power_ listing the role it fits and then letting you choose what you felt matched what you were trying to do with the character.

For example, _Swordhound_, a fighter power, might have the Defender keyword (say, it lets you make an attack against someone you've marked who attempts to attack someone else).  _Knockdown,_ another fighter power, might have the Controller keyword (say, it lets you knock down one or more opponents).  You also might be able to have "suites" of class abilities based on a chosen role (the Defender fighter gets class ability A,B,C, the Striker fighter gets D,E,F).  It would then be beneficial for the character to take powers within the role he's picked, but you could choose to override the designated role to pick something "out of role".

Yes, it would have increased the proliferation of powers, but perhaps cut down on the proliferation of classes.  Some powers might have even been generalized for several classes (for example, how some spells used to show up on the Wizard, Cleric and Bard list back pre 4E).  And, you might be able to do some mixing and matching of role powers.  Perhaps your fighter takes mostly Defender at-wills and a Defender encounter power, but decides that for his Daily, he really wants to take a Striker power.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> OK. But I don't quite get why a Ranger built with Dungeoneering as a trained skill (rather than Nature) doesn't adequately realise your desire to play an archetypal archer warrior. You wear light armour (leather or hide), you're really good with a bow, you can fight with your sword or knife in a pinch (using the DEX melee powers for Rangers from Martial Power 2), and you have both attack and utility powers that let you move around the place to avoid/escape melee assailants.
> 
> I mean, what else would an archer warrior whose light on his feet look like?



Well, Dungeoneering comes from 3.5 (it wasn't in 3.0), and I expunged it from my game. So, I (personally) don't want to take it when it comes to taking it with any character. What class features does the Ranger have? Does he have any sort of wild or animal empathy? A companion (is that a separate build)? I'm not completely sure whether or not the class abilities are nature-oriented, and if they are, that'd be why. If not, I don't see why that wouldn't work.



> Your Warlord sounds like either a Warlord with the right suite of class features (init bonus for allies, to hit bonus for allies based on INT, etc), powers (those that let allies move around the battlefield cleverly and effectively) and who treats Inspiring Word as helping allies who have got themselves into tactical dire straits out of those dire straits (I think this is one permissible reading of martial healing).



Yeah, when I said great tactician, I meant excelling at both tactics and strategy. In what way does being a Warlord help you achieve your long, overall aim? On the battlefield, having forced movement powers and having buffs helps out on the tactics front, but what reinforces strategy? And it's not like 3.X was any better here. I'm not arguing that 4e fails where 3.X succeeded. I'm saying that I prefer broad archetypes, and I don't see how being "a great mundane tactician and leader" should innately throw you into the Leader role (healing and buffs) automatically. Why can't a great tactician and leader be a striker, defender, or controller?

I know you said that you can mix and match as appropriate, but at the end of the day, I run across the same problem with that philosophy that I had with 3.X: why not just let someone build their character to concept? If you still had classes but only worried about flavor mechanics (Rangers are nature-oriented, Paladins have Lay on Hands and can evil creatures, Clerics serve a god and can affect undead, etc.), you could just break down different pools, and let people pick their primary pools at character creation. You could let them choose one power source pool, one role pool, etc. Allow feats or the like to grab a few options from other pools.

I'm sure you can play a lot of concepts with 4e. I'm not saying it's not doable. And I mean play those concepts well, and to a satisfactory end. I'm just saying that I don't see why roles are innately tied to class (not to get rid of roles, necessarily).



> I don't have any strong preference as to how PCs should be built. But in a game like 4e, where PC building depends upon looking through long lists of options and putting them together in more-or-less subtle ways, I'm not going to fuss too much about the precise labels given to elements of the lists, provided that in the end my PC does what I want it to. (Practical example - when I rebuilt my 2nd ed Skills and Powers cleric for 4e, I eventually settled on a paladin as the best way to realise him. What's in the change of class name? For me, nothing. It's all about the powers and class features.)



See, this is where we differ. I am going to fuss about how to get PCs their powers. I did when I made my RPG. What I prefer, personally, is being able to assemble the PC you've conceptualized and envisioned. I think that separate pools of powers to choose from really help towards that goal. A Ranger with the Leader role and Primal power source will be nature-oriented, and perhaps better tactically and perhaps more capable of healing than his fellow rangers, or just more inspiring. It'd also allow for PCs to advance different stats, as appropriate (the Ranger might want to boost Cha, now).

As for what class someone is called, it depends on what they are. The more focused the class, the more I care. I'm going to be picky about Paladins, because they're a very flavorful class. I'm not picky about a Fighter (though he has his place flavor-wise). The broader the archetype, the less I'll be picky about it. Yes, the warrior archetype can include the paladin, and I'd like to see the archetype reflect that. Be a warrior, grab some powers to reflect your paladin-ness, and we're good (Role of whatever, Divine power source). Or, be a warrior, grab some powers to reflect your barbarian-ness, and we're good (Role of whatever, Primal or Martial power source). Have class abilities that reflect the flavor of the class, as described previously. Just my preference.



> What I _do_ care about are keywords of powers and abilities, because these are one of the key anchors, in 4e, between mechanics and fiction. So I do have some sympathy for scepticism about the suggestion to build a paladin as a hybrid barbarian - I can't just ignore the "primal" keyword on those powers. Unlike the label "barbarian", which is just the label for a suite of mechanical options (although intended to tell you something about the likely sort of build you'll get out of those options), "primal" is a part of the power description that means something. It gives the power a "home" in the gameworld.



And this is how I feel about "paladin" and associated class abilities. To me, a paladin is clearly different from a cleric, _especially_ since I hated that paladins were no longer tied down to Lawful Good and their devotions. They basically made paladins warriors of specific gods, which is similar to what a cleric was already fulfilling. Personally, I'd like to see a paladin be a Warrior with the divine power source. Or a cleric be a Spellcaster with a divine power source, while a wizard or sorcerer a Spellcaster with an arcane power source. It's my preferred breakdown, if you're going to have pools of powers (which I'm also kind of against). Then again, as someone who plays a fantasy game and prefers point-buy for abilities, I don't think I speak for most people.

I do like that you take keywords into account. They seem anchored in the fiction to me, too, but so does a paladin. It's just where someone draws that line. I dislike having narrow archetypes (or subtypes, as you called them) like the paladin (even the Lawful Good paladin), but if you're going to make them, don't make paladin "warrior of a god" and cleric "priest of a god". Make a "servant of a god" archetype and let you tweak it to fit your concept. The Servant of a God class with a Divine power source and Role might be a cleric, but he might be a paladin if he has the Martial power source.

Personally, I'd prefer working in potential secondary power source or role powers, too. Something like every 4-5 levels, you can pick a new power that you qualify for. It can be from any power source. That way, you can stay focused on your concept, whether it's purely martial (and grabbing a new Martial power) or hybrid-oriented (this really helps bards, clerics, paladins, rangers, and the like). Just my opinions on how I'd prefer it if roles are going to be used in a game like 4e. As always, play what you like 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> FYI - casting spells is not a requirement of controlling the battlefield.



Who said it was? I've even mentioned that I might like to play a paladin controller some time. And I could see that either martially or through spells.



> Yes, the Weaponmaster Fighter (capital F) must be that guy, but there are other fighters available to you that don't have to be that guy. Why would you insist to play a Weaponmaster Fighter if that's not what you want to play? Why would you eschew other fighting classes that match what you want?



Because I'd like to see all the "warrior" archetypes under one class, ideally. And playing a nature-charged classed like the Ranger may not fit my concept of an archer.



> If they had made Rogue, Ranger and Warlord builds under Fighter so he could fulfill all four roles [Ranger has a Controller build] would that have been more to your liking?



If you had to pick and choose powers (therefore still making sacrifices), probably, yes. You wouldn't get to fulfill all four roles simultaneously, or at least not to any significant degree. Why not let all those powers fall under one class if you still have to pick powers? If my concept lines up with the Warlord, won't I still pick healing and buff powers? When addressing pemerton, above, I go more in-depth as to how I'd like to see that goal fulfilled. As always, play what you like


----------



## Tayne (Nov 18, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The Striker can do lots of damage *consistantly*. The 3E paladin runs out of Smite Evil uses. The wizard runs out of spells. The 3E rogue can keep Sneak Attacking as long as he has a team and isn't fighting certain creatures. The 3E rogue has the only class feature that compares to 4E strikers in a meaningful way.



There you go again amending your own definition after the fact to suit your agument.

Striker abilities in 4E run out of uses as well (per encounter abilities, per session abilities), that doesn't prevent them from being considered striker abilities. Stop equivocating, it's disgusting.

Besides, the paladin and wizard can take a nap, and a sorceror will probably never run out of spells at higher levels. A smart wizard wouldn't either, and both can always buy wands and scrolls.




> In my humble opinion your actions were similar to those of an someone who is being an asshat. You can take my in my humble opinion comments with a big old grain of salt, in my humble opinion.



I accept your apparent intellectual surrender and refuse your playground insult challenge.




> And keep twisting my words if it makes you feel better.



You're the one clearly twisting the definition of "striker mechanics" to suit your argument, as I've proven time and again.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think back to 1E when the Fighter was basically a decreasing THACO and the only real difference mechanically between two fighters was their stats, armor they could afford, and weapon choice. Yet we still imagined our characters as saracens, bodyguards, barbarians (before the class actually existed), etc.



I had a similar thought upthread.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> FYI - casting spells is not a requirement of controlling the battlefield.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If they had made Rogue, Ranger and Warlord builds under Fighter so he could fulfill all four roles [Ranger has a Controller build] would that have been more to your liking?



I think it is already possible to build a controller fighter. The dwarf polearm fighter in my game is a melee controller - bursts with push, prone, etc, plus immobilisation on opportunity attacks, plus utilities that let him move around the battlefield (Mighty Sprint), or move his allies out of danger (Create Opening). He's actually a more reliable controller than the wizard, who is more of a scholarly type - with the exception of the wizard's Twist of Space, which is unrivalled encounter control, and the wizard's daily walls and conjurations.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think the 4E DMG is the best D&D guide since the 1E DMG for this advice.



Agreed, but I wish it were better. HeroQuest, Maelstrom Storytelling and BW's Adventue Burner have been the books I've relied on for advice on how to GM 4e (especially outside tactical combat).



Imaro said:


> I very much said why can't my Paladin be a striker, not a striker/defender... just a striker. i like the gameplay of a striker and the Paladin fits my concept to a tee... in 4e what do I do?



Build a blackguard?


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> What class features does the Ranger have? Does he have any sort of wild or animal empathy? A companion (is that a separate build)? I'm not completely sure whether or not the class abilities are nature-oriented, and if they are, that'd be why. If not, I don't see why that wouldn't work.



A 4e ranger has no nature-flavoured stuff except the requirement to choose either Nature or Dungeoneering as a class skill. No tracking, wild empathy etc.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Build a blackguard?




You do realize we are talking in a general sense, and that the Paladin striker is just an example?

 I'm fully aware of the Blackguard and even gave the designers/developers of 4e acknowledgement for finally opening classes up to different roles... but I think this should have been done from the beginning and am against those arguing it shouldn't happen.  Also Blackguards have to follow a vice... and I want to be a paladin not an anti-paladin.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I want to be a paladin not an anti-paladin



Fair enough. I was being flippant.

But I do think a STR paladin - with Holy Strike (+WIS vs marked target) and Ardent Vow in lieu of Lay on Hands - is a modest approximation to a striker. You should be able to lock down a target and do a fair bit of damage. (Take Ardent Strike (?) as your other power and charge in to combat as your first action. And take that feat - Powerful Charge? - that boosts your damage on a charge.)



Imaro said:


> You do realize we are talking in a general sense, and that the Paladin striker is just an example?



Yes. But I think the lists are long enough that the problem isn't as serious as it is being made out to be.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 19, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> The only concrete expectation given, so far, was a paladin striker.




Nope! The expectation of class to be flexible in terms of the function of your class abilities is the expectation I was talking about. There's been multiple examples of people who can't meet their expectations here (tough thieves and crossbow-using sharpshooting fighters are two others, though high-damage paladins also work). "Paladin Striker" is...not the expectation that is not being met, here. The expectation is about character customization more generally.



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I'd buy this argument about conceptual archetypes if people were able to more easily step outside the box and see 'agile wilderness warrior' in more classes than just the one labelled Ranger. Instead it seems that people are unable to think outside the box and pigeonhole the class themselves because it's labelled Ranger.




It's not a failing of a player when they see Rangers described as agile wilderness warrior, and warlocks described as pact-sworn soul-selling spellcasters, and can't see them as flip-flopped. It's exactly what should be expected, since that's how the classes are described.

Is it useful to just "look at the mechanics" and use that to support whatever character concept you have? Sure. But a ranger who can be ANYTHING doesn't make an evocative agile wilderness warrior. And it shouldn't be a prerequisite. 



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> And that's a problem. Like I said, in 3E I played a big-city noble-born character that was a Barbarian/Sorcerer. It's not the game's fault if people can't mold fluff material to their liking.




It's not a problem, it's the way the mind works -- it grabs big ideas long before it grabs specific details. If you can shoehorn the rules to your style, that's great, but it's not a problem if others can't. I guess it's less effort, but _effort_ shouldn't be greatly required to play a game of make-believe with magical elves. 



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand. Fluff without rules is a constant reminder that you're playing a game? Fluff without rules makes you feel like you're not pretending to be a character? Fluff without rules makes you feel like you are numbers on a sheet? Is that what you're saying?




More or less, yeah. Disconnection doesn't reinforce the fragile suspension of disbelief that playing the game requires, it points at it and says, "Look at me, I am an arbitrary construct of mathematics!"



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I would be higly interested in seeing this too. But who's going to be the company that risks entering uncharted territory?




If not WotC or Paizo, then there's no one left who would notice it. 



			
				Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> That is a very good reason for why the archetype needs to be represented somehow in the game. It says nothing about why "class" needs to be that something, other than some people expect it to be that way.




Short answer: class doesn't need to be the thing that represents your archetype.

Supplemental: If it's not class, you will face an initial period in explaining why "class" in D&D doesn't mean what it means in any other game. You will also have to explain why your...theme?...is that thing. You will also have to abandon sacred cows like "druid" being a class. On the whole it is probably just more expedient in actual design to let classes be what they are understood to be, or to just go classless.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 19, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Short answer: class doesn't need to be the thing that represents your archetype.
> 
> Supplemental: If it's not class, you will face an initial period in explaining why "class" in D&D doesn't mean what it means in any other game. You will also have to explain why your...theme?...is that thing. You will also have to abandon sacred cows like "druid" being a class. On the whole it is probably just more expedient in actual design to let classes be what they are understood to be, or to just go classless.




Well, alternately, you could leave class as nothing but a synonym for "archetype" and move all the niche protection and other related mechanics into some other construct.  I wouldn't mind that, either.  You'll have to explain to another set of people why "class" in D&D doesn't mean this other thing that it used to mean.  I think those are the two choices.  I'd rather that than classless for D&D.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 19, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> Well, alternately, you could leave class as nothing but a synonym for "archetype" and move all the niche protection and other related mechanics into some other construct.




Like swap-able "class features"? I think we might have something.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Fair enough. I was being flippant.





You really need to learn more from my anti-examples of near felonious flippantry.  They lead to nothing but heartbreak and Internenvy.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 19, 2011)

I wonder if "roles" could be less well-defined?  In the lifespan of RPGing, "class" seems to have moved from being a sub-species of "role" to synonymous with "role" to being an overarching category of numerous "roles."


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Like swap-able "class features"? I think we might have something.



Isn't it called Essentials?


----------



## Niccodaemus (Nov 19, 2011)

Of all the things I've read that have made me suspect that 4e is not for me, this thread at the top.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 19, 2011)

Niccodaemus said:


> Of all the things I've read that have made me suspect that 4e is not for me, this thread at the top.





There are aspects of all systems worth exploring and understanding that make any RPGing time a little bit better, even if it seems as if something is entirely impracticle to your previous experience.  Don't be so fast to write off the whole thing.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> There are aspects of all systems worth exploring and understanding that make any RPGing time a little bit better, even if it seems as if something is entirely impracticle to your previous experience.  Don't be so fast to write off the whole thing.




I have written it off yet. I've been doing a lot of reading, but I don't suppose I'll actually know until I play it.

If I were to get one book in 4e to get the best vibe, which would you suggest? PHB, DMG?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 19, 2011)

Niccodaemus said:


> Of all the things I've read that have made me suspect that 4e is not for me, this thread at the top.



4e may not be for you but I would not base my opinion of 4e on the informnation on this thread.

I am a 4e supporter myself (just to lay my cards on the table) and i beleive that 4e is more flexible and doing character concepts that 3.x.

That said, while i am quite sympathetic to the view that role could be a selectable building block in character creation I am not sure if D&D goes down this route that there is any room for class.

I would be in favour of keeping classes in a defauilt role, I think it makes it easier for beginning players. I think that having a common power list for a source is a good idea but there would be a lot of powers in this common list since there would need to be powers for eash primary stat.

I think that perhaps, in this case, the class should provide the attribute boosts that would be expected of the class, remove racial attribute adjustments and replace with racial powers/feats.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 19, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Isn't it called Essentials?




Essentials certainly gets close, though for the bigger change I want, a new edition is probably needed, since it would involve re-working the old classes.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Nov 19, 2011)

My conception of roles in D&D:

Caller
Mapper


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 19, 2011)

Niccodaemus said:


> I have written it off yet. I've been doing a lot of reading, but I don't suppose I'll actually know until I play it.
> 
> If I were to get one book in 4e to get the best vibe, which would you suggest? PHB, DMG?





Can you find a game store running "Encounters?"  You could give the system a test drive.  If it turns out to be the system you've sought all your life, it would be nice to pick up something from the FLGS running the game for you.

Otherwise, I don't know that I would suggest you buy anything without playing it first, unless you can get something for under twenty dollars.  I suppose you can always resell whatever you get.  If you are set on buying into a system, the PHB is always the place to start.  Keep an eye on ebay

Four days left on this one for $12 (or buy it now for $19) -

D&D 4e - Player's Handbook (9780786948673) | eBay

Couple days left on this PHB 1, 2, & 3 starting at $20 (Buy it now for $40) - 

D&D 4e Player's Handbooks 1, 2 And 3 | eBay

If you'd rather not mess around, you can get a new copy from some sellers on Amazon (there are tons of them available) for $15 plus $4 shipping -

Amazon.com: Used and New: Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook

Once 5E is officially announced, I suspect those prices will drop a bit more, if you can wait a while.


----------



## D'karr (Nov 19, 2011)

> *Mod Note:*  Right.  Folks, if you hadn't noticed, there's a moderator active in the thread.  Taking cheap personal shots is remarkably unwise under such circumstances.  ~Umbran




[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], you are absolutely right.  I did not mean this as a cheap shot, but I can understand that it can be taken as such.  This is the type of banter that we sometimes have around the table among friends, but in this case it was not appropriate.

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], if I offended by the comment, I hope you accept my sincere apology.

Thanks.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 19, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Can you find a game store running "Encounters?"  You could give the system a test drive.



I could be wrong, but my impression of Encounters is that it doesn't present the system in it's best light.

That said, I don't have any sage advice for an alternative intro, other than find a group who are already playing it and tag along.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I could be wrong, but my impression of Encounters is that it doesn't present the system in it's best light.





Had a bad personal experience with that?




pemerton said:


> That said, I don't have any sage advice for an alternative intro, other than find a group who are already playing it and tag along.





How about gameday and convention games?  Might be able to do that with little or no investment.


----------



## Darwinism (Nov 19, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> That's my point, I don't WANT to be told what I should do.  Regardless.




Then don't play D&D. It's that simple. D&D has _always_ been about fantasy archetype roles. There's a plethora of other systems that won't tell you what to do. D&D is not and has not ever been one of them.



Thunderfoot said:


> I respectfully disagree.  There is nothing right and everything wrong in my opinion.




Why? What is wrong with progress? If someone else has a good idea, why should you ignore it just because it's part of some other system? To give an analogy; if a sedan was using a 60mpg engine, does that mean no one designing trucks should use it simply because they didn't design it first? There is _nothing_ wrong with cribbing good ideas unless you're convinced you're at the pinnacle of design. In which case you're a complete basket case.



Thunderfoot said:


> My point was, he didn't want his player to be the healer, he was a cleric, not a medic...  And frankly, I thought it was great that he was doing something so far out of the norm.  Just because someone expects you to play your character a certain way is their problem, not yours.




No, it's not their problem, it's the system's problem. When clerics by default make the best healers _in the system_ it's not the player's fault that they expect clerics to heal. And you didn't address my question; why should a class who makes the only good healer until you add splats be restricted to either healing or being fun? Why shouldn't they have the capability for both?



Thunderfoot said:


> I said it was improbable not impossible - please don't put words in my mouth.




Please tell me how it's improbable. Because it's not. I mean, I know you want it to be, but man it's not even all that rare to see a 4E Fighter who's not wearing anything more than Hide, tops. I know you _want_ it to be improbable like it was in 3E because there were so many mechanical penalties, but man to anyone who knows 4E even vaguely you're just making things up.



Thunderfoot said:


> Wow, you came up with that hogwash all on your own... I NEVER said suboptimal was better RP... EVER - I said I prefer people to think outside of the box....




You give the implication that you think some quirky sub-optimal character somehow is better, in your view, and then attack a system you don't even understand for not letting you make sub-optimal characters as easily. But you don't even know the system you're attacking, so you don't know that 4E is actually _better_ at making niche builds. That's what's funny.

Oh and the insistence that the quirky builds are why you play D&D, when 4E is the friendliest to them in an unfriendly series of systems and there are tons of systems that would perform better to fulfill your stated desires out of a TTRPG.



Thunderfoot said:


> As far as stopping either character from being made, again, I said it was improbable, not impossible.  The real question comes from expectation.  The idea that a fighter is a tank made only to suck up damage or a ranger is a DPS (what ever the #*$8 that means in D&D since seconds aren't used as far as I know) is MUD/MMO thinking.  It goes beyond what I believe an RPG is supposed to do and moved the RPG back into the realm of combat simulation.  Combat is not a required element of play even though it is the one most often associated with D&D.  If a player associated fighter with tank then the player is more apt to ignore the RP part and go just in for the combat (third wheel mentality).  Again, this isn't a given, but is more likely to happen rather than not.  Yes, I'm sure you don't do it and none of your friends or anyone else you know has, that's great, but it happens, I've seen it, I loathe it.




Hahahahahaha oh my god you think that D&D isn't a combat simulator? And that roles somehow define all a character can ever do period the end? My god. You don't even understand your own hobby. D&D has always been a combat simulator; it's _based off of a wargame, for the love of god._ What do you think it is? Some intricate socio-political simulation? Just because skills are tacked on and you can RP doesn't mean it's not primarily combat-focused. RP can happen in any system regardless, and the skill system's importance is very much downplayed compared to combat. Not to mention being pretty bad compared to other systems.

And, no. A player who wants to RP is going to RP regardless of what they're told. A player that wants combat is going to get into combat. I know full well my Paladin's role is a tank. It has never once stopped me from RPing him as far as I choose. Clarifying roles only tells people what they should expect when combat comes around. It's not more likely than not to influence their out-of-combat decisions and unless the people you play with are robots it doesn't tell them that the only answer to any situation ever is their role.

Also an over-emphasis on combat can be present in any edition of D&D. Might as well swear them all off, too! Because some people somewhere might have fun with combat, the whole system is flawed!

Go try other games.
Darwinism has been banned from the thread for this post. Hopefully everyone else can continue without further incident. Plane Sailing


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 19, 2011)

Darwinism said:


> Then don't play D&D. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> (. . .)
> ...





Let's leave that sort of advice out of this thread, please.  Allow me to quote my OP to help bring us back on track -




Mark CMG said:


> A recent quote from the "Rule of Three" article from Rich Baker on the WotC website has me wondering if the designers of D&D are rethinking the trend in the last decade or so of thinking in terms of "roles" being codified as the role a character plays in combat.






> Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all.






Mark CMG said:


> How does this affect your own sense of the game?  Have your games always had "roles" tied to their combat role (regardless of edition)?  Does codifying "roles" as combat roles affect the way players approach the game?  How so, in your own experience?


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 20, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> How  does this affect your own sense of the game?




Technically, Mark, it doesn't....since I don't play 4e.



Mark CMG said:


> Have your games always  had "roles" tied to their combat role (regardless of edition)?




I am inclined to say "no" but then, there have been arguments made in this thread that give me pause. Perhaps they did...we just didn't call them that back then...and I don't call them "roles" now. And, in keeping with my original post here, I see no reason I need the rules to tell me what the "role" of my character is.



Mark CMG said:


> Does  codifying "roles" as combat roles affect the way players approach the  game?




I will give this an unequivocal "YES"! It absolutely does. And I will go further to say that this was intentional on the side of the developers. "Make them feel like they're playing a video game". Yes. Absolutely. The creation/codification of roles was designed to effect how players approached the game.



Mark CMG said:


> How so, in your own experience?-




Well...sorry I cannot tell you that...as I have no (or next to no) experience with this style, and I DO consider it a 'style', a 'perspective', of play. Not a 'system' thing.

I simply do not subscribe or agree with that perspective or style for me and mine to have fun.

Cheers for getting things "back on track." 
--Steel Dragons


----------



## Tayne (Nov 20, 2011)

This is a well moderated forum if i've ever seen one.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 20, 2011)

D'karr said:


> @Umbran , you are absolutely right. I did not mean this as a cheap shot, but I can understand that it can be taken as such. This is the type of banter that we sometimes have around the table among friends, but in this case it was not appropriate.
> 
> @Imaro , if I offended by the comment, I hope you accept my sincere apology.
> 
> Thanks.




Hey D'karr... in all honesty the comment did rub me the wrong way, but life's too short to hold grudges especially on the interwebs so I have no problem with letting bygones be bygones. It was real classy of you to apologize, and I can't do anything but respect that, thanks.


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 20, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Have your games always  had "roles" tied to their combat role (regardless of edition)?




From the perspective of someone who plays a lot of different RPGs (and games in general), why should characters be equally good at all the different things they might want to do? There are few other games where using a sword regularly makes you better with a spear, or a mace, or a bow - and in those, the level of detail in the 'how' situations are resolved tends to be quite low. Even when the level of detail is low, you find characters becoming competent/expert in different areas - developing specific "Roles" within a group. They may not be the same roles that 4e uses, and they're rarely described explicitly, but the idea that they don't exist isn't one that I've noticed. Even in a game like Pendragon or Legend of the Five Rings where characters all come from similar backgrounds, roles were split between different members of a party.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 20, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> From the perspective of someone who plays a lot of different RPGs (and games in general), why should characters be equally good at all the different things they might want to do? There are few other games where using a sword regularly makes you better with a spear, or a mace, or a bow - and in those, the level of detail in the 'how' situations are resolved tends to be quite low. Even when the level of detail is low, you find characters becoming competent/expert in different areas - developing specific "Roles" within a group. They may not be the same roles that 4e uses, and they're rarely described explicitly, but the idea that they don't exist isn't one that I've noticed. Even in a game like Pendragon or Legend of the Five Rings where characters all come from similar backgrounds, roles were split between different members of a party.





Interesting but I am not sure that answers the question as to whether we are talking about a "role" in a larger sense or specifically a *combat* role.  For instance, a "Knight" in the game Pendragon, to choose one of your examples, has any number of potential combat styles but also, as a knight, has certain societal expectations tied to the role.  One could play such a character and focus on combat but the rules of the game draw up a much broader role than simply that of a combatant and, as such, the game supports roleplaying both in and out of combat quite well.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 21, 2011)

But, Mark CMG, in D&D, class has never really been tied to any sort of broader role.  Not really.  There's been nods to it of course, but, certainly it's never been as closely tied as something like Pendragon.

Forex, if I play a cleric in D&D, I'm supposed to have an entire faith built around my character.  There should be some form of heirarchy and organization.  Yet, where are the rules for this?  What out of combat role should my cleric be undertaking?  Am I supposed to minister to the masses?  Am I supposed to root out heresy?  

Outside of combat, what is my cleric supposed to do, according to the rules of the game?

Sure, I have options.  But, again sticking with cleric, almost all the mechanics related to my class is combat based - weapons, armor, 2/3rds of the spells, etc.  And, again, IME, the cleric is expected to be the healer in the group.  All of his abilities are directly tied to that role.  Yes, you can play against that role, but, if I announce I'm playing a cleric and then refuse to heal anyone, there's going to be some choice words at the table.

OTOH, if I play my cleric as a back up tank and healer, everyone nods and pats me on the head for playing my role.  Out of combat, I can be whatever the heck I want.  A zealot heretic who's out to found his own sect (just to point to one of my favorite cleric characters).  But when initiative starts, everyone at the table is looking at me to perform fairly specific tasks.  If I bring my cleric to the table in no armor, because I don't see myself as getting into combat, the rest of the group is going to suffer because they are lacking a pretty key element in the group - namely a backup tank.

When Bob's fighter gets ganked because my cleric refuses to get into combat, I'm thinking that Bob's not going to applaud my choice to play against role.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, Mark CMG, in D&D, class has never really been tied to any sort of broader role.  Not really.  There's been nods to it of course, but, certainly it's never been as closely tied as something like Pendragon.





Bluenose mentioned Pendragon so I used that as an example of an RPG that had noncombat roles closely tied to class.  Nevertheless, saying that D&D never had that isn't the same as saying it has never had combat role tied very closely to class in some editions, generally speaking.




Hussar said:


> Forex, if I play a cleric in D&D, I'm supposed to have an entire faith built around my character.  There should be some form of heirarchy and organization.  Yet, where are the rules for this?  What out of combat role should my cleric be undertaking?  Am I supposed to minister to the masses?  Am I supposed to root out heresy?
> 
> Outside of combat, what is my cleric supposed to do, according to the rules of the game?





I don't want to get into an edition war, so I'll keep this as general as possible.  Break out the core books from the various editions (easy enough to just check the first PHB and DMG from each one, I should think) that you have on your own shelf and you tell me.  Check out spells that are noncombat, check out rules for travel and the roles some classes would play in that, look toward uses for hirelings, look for rules regarding social status and class in some of the books, look for rules on territory development and strongholds, etc.  I'll leave it to you to tell me if some renditions of the rules are stronger than others for noncombat roles, and whether ot not it is tied to class.


If, however, we can discuss edition with out this becoming warlike, what is your opinion on this previous statement?




Mark CMG said:


> I wonder if "roles" could be less well-defined?  In the lifespan of RPGing, "class" seems to have moved from being a sub-species of "role" to synonymous with "role" to being an overarching category of numerous "roles."


----------



## Tallifer (Nov 21, 2011)

Wycen said:


> For me, when I hear "wizard" or "cleric" or "tank" I have a good idea of what you are talking about and can generally guess how they might work in party.  Sure you could have a wizard diviner who likes asking questions and doesn't have many "pew pew" spells, but I still understand what you are talking about.
> 
> When I heard "leader" or "controller" it makes me smirk.  So you are a leader because you can trigger an extra action in other characters?  I don't think roles have much influence on how my characters act.  My *stats* will influence my actions far more.  If I have a low STR I'm probably not wading into melee combat.




The roles in 4th edition are real and have been used since OD&D. It is just that now 4th edition gave them names and definitions. Unfortunately, the names chosen are not always appropriate. Leader is the worst name: it implies leadership and authority. In fact the role is called "support" in other games, but no one wants to play "support" so 4th edition tried to make it more palatable by calling it "leader." Enhancement and healing magic is necessary, but does not always seem very heroic.

(Also, "tank" is not a D&D term from ANY edition. "Fighter" or "paladin" are. I never encountered "tank" until I first played a massively multi-player on-line roleplaying game, Dark Age of Camelot.)


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 21, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> The roles in 4th edition are real and have been used since OD&D.






Not as such.  Previous editions allowed for more mutable combat roles, and perhaps role was not necessarily merely a combat consideration.  As far as combat goes, in OD&D (and AD&D, I would venture, maybe even in 3.XE, though perhaps less so), a character might be stepping into combat for a few rounds then stepping back to support, possibly administering healing, by potion or spell, then pulling out a bow/sling/x-bow and helping in that manner.  Neverthless, the thread's real question might be moot for you, since the question that I'm asking as the OP is regarding how tightly "role" is tied to combat.  Perhaps you see no sense of "role" in RPGs outside of combat?


----------



## Jack7 (Nov 21, 2011)

> I wasn't following how your post relates to the topic of  codified roles in RPGs, so maybe it doesn't. But it seems you are equating  "4E Leader" with "Party Leader."  A "4E Leader" is actually  shorthand for "Healer and Buffer" while the party leader can be taken on exactly  how you describe it by any character and/or player.




Yeah, I have a problem with that. By that I mean  sometimes I will make a general point and then use a sort of tangential example  to illustrate that is obvious in one way, but not obvious in all  ways.

I talk in terms of commanders and rank and order because  that's my nature. It's easy for me to formulate those examples. But I didn't  mean that example to be an entire encapsulation of what I meant. I didn't mean  to restrict everything i was saying to that one example. So I admit that can be  confusing at times, and it was my fault.

My real point was a general philosophical one and it was  this:

*Game Designers should not be establishing roles  for players. Players should.*

Players know through play and the dynamics of their  party who will be best at any role, be it combat or other roles.

_I have nothing against Game Designers speaking about  roles, or giving examples of how they may work in any given situation, but it's  the players who are or will become good at certain roles. Pre-fabricating roles  and pre-designing them and affixing them to classes or other component  structures is a big game design and construction flaw in my  opinion._

Players should be free to assume roles, create roles,  change roles, etc. It is role playing after all not Role-Assignment. That treats  players like children who must be prescribed their role, rather than develop or  construct or create their own role(s) through role-play.

Role play is the job of the players and it should be  their choice, not the Game Designers choice to pre-arrange and pre-assume "Role  Structures." Game Designers should stay out of role-playing except maybe to give  advice and examples. 

This occurs in my opinion because far too many game  designers want to emphasize their own importance and supposed genius than that  of the people who will use the game. There's nothing wrong with a clever and  creative game designer, but to me this is like the Senate fighting a war.  Soldiers fight wars, that is their job, not Senates. governments can say, a war  needs to be fought, or it doesn't, but it should not be taking command of an  army, planning strategy, or running ops. 

Hope that better explains my point and I tried to avoid  all but one example in this case so as not to tangentially confuse my  point.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 21, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Bluenose mentioned Pendragon so I used that as an example of an RPG that had noncombat roles closely tied to class.  Nevertheless, saying that D&D never had that isn't the same as saying it has never had combat role tied very closely to class in some editions, generally speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How are those class specific?  Hirelings were based on your charisma, not your class.  Social status and social class were based on a random role, again, not character class.  

Rules for travel?  Now that one you've got me.  Not sure where you're gong with this.  IIRC, rangers had something about this in AD&D, and Druids had Pass Without a Trace (kinda useless since it only applied to the druid and not anyone else), but, that's a pretty big stretch.

As far as spells go, I'd point out that, as a percentage, there are easily as many utility powers and non-combat powers in 4e as there are non-combat spells in any edition.  Total numbers might not be as much, although, considering every class gets them in 4e, I'd say it's pretty darn close.  So, while casters might have had about 1/3 of their total number of spells apply to non-combat situations (and that's being VERY generous), in 4e, you have every class have about 1/3rd of their powers being out of combat.  

Granted, that's going to depend a LOT on which powers get taken.  Forex, an Encounter utility is going to come up a lot more in game than a Daily.  Then again, all non-combat spells in earlier editions were Daily only.  I'd say it's a wash more or less.  Sure, you might cast Water Breathing when needed in 3e (probably after resting first), but, I'm busting out my Skill Bonus ability Encounter Power every chance I get - which is pretty much several times per session.

At the end of the day, it's a wash.

Now, I never did play Companion rules, so, the Territory development and whatnot rules passed me by.  Are they class specific?  Does a cleric and a fighter get different domains?  Do they rule things differently?  I honestly don't know.

But, the examples you provided Mark CMG, by and large, have nothing to do with class.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 21, 2011)

Jack7 said:


> Yeah, I have a problem with that. By that I mean  sometimes I will make a general point and then use a sort of tangential example  to illustrate that is obvious in one way, but not obvious in all  ways.
> 
> I talk in terms of commanders and rank and order because  that's my nature. It's easy for me to formulate those examples. But I didn't  mean that example to be an entire encapsulation of what I meant. I didn't mean  to restrict everything i was saying to that one example. So I admit that can be  confusing at times, and it was my fault.
> 
> ...




The problem is, you're conflating combat role with roleplaying.  They aren't related.  The arguement basically goes that every version of D&D has had combat roles built into the classes.  The fighter fights, the cleric heals, the Magic User is artillery.  This is precisely the way the classes were formulated back in the day from their wargame roots.  Anyone coming from a wargame background would immedietely recognise any of the classes as correlating to a wargame unit.

However, that doesn't preclude roleplaying in the slightest.  Telling people that a fighter (to go to a 4e example) class is really good at stepping up and putting the slippers to someone while taking the beats doesn't change anything.  It simply makes explicit what was alway implicit anyway.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> How are those class specific?  Hirelings were based on your charisma, not your class.  Social status and social class were based on a random role, again, not character class.
> 
> Rules for travel?  Now that one you've got me.  Not sure where you're gong with this.  IIRC, rangers had something about this in AD&D, and Druids had Pass Without a Trace (kinda useless since it only applied to the druid and not anyone else), but, that's a pretty big stretch.
> 
> ...





And so, to address the larger question of the thread . . .



Mark CMG said:


> A recent quote from the "Rule of Three" article from Rich Baker on the WotC website has me wondering if the designers of D&D are rethinking the trend in the last decade or so of thinking in terms of "roles" being codified as the role a character plays in combat.






> Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all.






Mark CMG said:


> How does this affect your own sense of the game?  Have your games always had "roles" tied to their combat role (regardless of edition)?  Does codifying "roles" as combat roles affect the way players approach the game?  How so, in your own experience?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Nov 21, 2011)

This would cause a lot less confusion if there was a separate term for combat roles as well as a class's social role.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 21, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> This would cause a lot less confusion if there was a separate term for combat roles as well as a class's social role.





It does on the surface seem to be a similar semantic dilemma.  (I've been having the same thought since they first decided to use the term "role" and waited for some time to see if they would divorce that from the overarching idea of "roleplaying" but I've not seen that design directive.)  Yet, as Rich Baker points out, there was a design plan to tie "role" to class and combat type, and the idea that what you "role"played was what you did in combat was what they had intended to codify, so I don't think it's quite the same discussion as regarding the multiple meanings of the word "level."  Hussar's posts above seem to indicate that is what stuck with the main players, as well.  It's a funny comic though.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Had a bad personal experience with that?



No. I don't even know if Encounters runs in Melbourne. I'm just going on my impression from this forum and from the WotC site. My sense of Encounters is that it is railroady (because the adventure _has_ to progress in a certain way) and that the players are able to have little or no longterm effect on the fiction (because the adventure _has_ to be pick-up-able on a week-by-week basis).

Assuming these impressions are right, they suggest that Encounters is a game in which the fiction makes almost no difference apart from providing a bit of colour to the overall experience, and perhaps affecting some points of tactical resolution (eg if the hindering terrain is a swamp rather than a sand pit, the GM might look more favourably on my PC's attempt to use a raft to help get over it).

Whereas I think the strengths of 4e are precisely that it supports non-railroady (but non-exploratory) play in which the fiction, and the players' effect upon the fiction, is central. Or to put it another way: if 4e has strengths, it is in introducing indie-RPG design sensibilities into an otherwise mainstream heroic fantasy RPG, whereas Encounters seems like a format which makes almost no room for those indie sensibilities to display themselves.



Mark CMG said:


> How about gameday and convention games?  Might be able to do that with little or no investment.



Sure. And - depending on how these are run - they might be better than my impression of Encounters.



Mark CMG said:


> Break out the core books from the various editions (easy enough to just check the first PHB and DMG from each one, I should think) that you have on your own shelf and you tell me.  Check out spells that are noncombat, check out rules for travel and the roles some classes would play in that, look toward uses for hirelings, look for rules regarding social status and class in some of the books, look for rules on territory development and strongholds, etc.  I'll leave it to you to tell me if some renditions of the rules are stronger than others for noncombat roles, and whether ot not it is tied to class.



My books aren't in front of me, so for me you've posed a test of memory rather than of comprehension. And the first thing that comes to my mind is the advice, in the XP section of Gygax's DMG, to rank each player's performance in each adventure from 1 (best) to 4 (worst) and then to generate an average, in order to work out how many weeks of training are needed by that player's PC to gain a level.

The grounds for those rankings spell out an implicit role for each class - the manner in which a player is expected to play them. As  I said I don't have my books in front of me, but my memory is that fighters are expected to take the front line and do tough things, clerics are expected to heal and provide support, thieves are expected to be stealthy and skullduggerous, and MUs are expected to apply spells and intellect to the solution of problems. Conversely, a fighter who cowers, a cleric who refuses to heal, or a thief or MU who behaves like a typical fighter will score poorly in the rankings, and have to spend a lot more gold to undertake his/her level training.

Again from memory, Gygax's roles are expressed primarily by reference to combat activity - fighting, healing, etc - although (particularly when it comes to thieves and MUs) the more generic notion of "resolving problems" is to the fore. I don't see a radical difference in this respect from 4e, as far as the content and scope of the roles are concerned. In the 4e PHB, for example, it is rangers, rogues, wizards and warlocks who have the greater share of non-combat utility powers, meaning that for them their mechanically-supported role extends beyond combat to "problems" more generally, just as Gygax suggested for thieves and MUs in his DMG.

The _are _two obvious differences from 4e, but they don't pertain to the content and scope of the roles. Rather, they are that (i) in 4e information about roles is provided to the player, not the GM, and (ii) in 4e it takes the form not of advice about criteria a player must satisfy in order to progress in the game, but rather advice about approaches a player might adopt in order to do well at/enjoy the game. I think both these differences are indicative of broader differences in tone and style between classic D&D and 4e. (Sometimes these differences are expressed using the phrase "player entitlement". Given that overall I'm a fan of these differences, though, that's not the phrase that I personally would use!)


----------



## Hussar (Nov 21, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Not as such.  Previous editions allowed for more mutable combat roles, and perhaps role was not necessarily merely a combat consideration.  As far as combat goes, in OD&D (and AD&D, I would venture, maybe even in 3.XE, though perhaps less so), a character might be stepping into combat for a few rounds then stepping back to support, possibly administering healing, by potion or spell, then pulling out a bow/sling/x-bow and helping in that manner.  Neverthless, the thread's real question might be moot for you, since the question that I'm asking as the OP is regarding how tightly "role" is tied to combat.  Perhaps you see no sense of "role" in RPGs outside of combat?




Hang on a second.  This example doesn't actually work.  Everything you just outlined is pretty heavily punished by the rules in any edition.

1.  Fighter steps out of combat - Pre-3e, every creature in melee combat with that character gets a free shot on him.  In 3e, he might be able to disengage without taking an AOO, but, he's not going too far.

2.  Heals.  Ok, fair enough.

3.  Pulls out a ranged weapon.  Pre-AD&D - cannot fire into melee at all.  AD&D - 50% chance of hitting allies when firing into melee, 3e, takes a -4 for firing into melee, possibly with an additional -4 because of cover (which his own allies might provide).

So, no, what you're talking about doesn't really happen very often.  It might once in a while, presuming that the bad guys can't just move forward with the fighter and keep him in melee, but, it's a pretty rare corner case example you've brought up.

Certainly not a very good example of how combat roles could change in combat.

And, you still didn't answer my question - how are any of your other examples actually tied to class.  Since all the things you listed exist in every edition, and none of them are tied to class, how does combat role have any impact?


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a second.  This example doesn't actually work.  Everything you just outlined is pretty heavily punished by the rules in any edition.





That has what to do with what?  The point being that a character can and did fulfill multiple combat roles quite easily, whether they began a particular combat in a role and moved to another of simply fulfilled the various roles from the beginning of a combat.  It makes no difference to me how you wish to slice it and it isn't the point of the thread, as I've tried to repeatedly point out to you despite your wishing to take it in that direction.

(For the record, stepping out of combat and risking one hit is often preferable to staying and taking many hits, healing you understood, and ranged can be taken against opposition which is also out of melee doing ranged or spells.)




Hussar said:


> And, you still didn't answer my question - how are any of your other examples actually tied to class.  Since all the things you listed exist in every edition, and none of them are tied to class, how does combat role have any impact?





Well, leaving aside that they really aren't all in all editions, or in some regards are less so in one edition than another, at least as far as the two primary books (PHB, DMG, and ignoring the 1st MM of each edition for obvious reasons), your question was regarding where there were rules that were types of noncombat roles that characters could perform.  Hence the point of the thread, which I would like for you to join rather than continue to try and derail, is . . . 



Mark CMG said:


> A recent quote from the "Rule of Three" article from Rich Baker on the WotC website has me wondering if the designers of D&D are rethinking the trend in the last decade or so of thinking in terms of "roles" being codified as the role a character plays in combat.






> Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all.






Mark CMG said:


> How does this affect your own sense of the game?  Have your games always had "roles" tied to their combat role (regardless of edition)?  Does codifying "roles" as combat roles affect the way players approach the game?  How so, in your own experience?





So, the point of the thread takes up the question of "roles" in roleplaying games and how the designers (Rich Baker, in this case) moved in the last decade toward codifying that aspect as it pertained to roles in combat and my related questions regarding if this is how some people, your own personal experience, mirrors this even before it was by design or if it was otherwise, again, for you personally.  Care to take a stab at the on-topic portion of this thread?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 21, 2011)

Well, AFAIC, roles in D&D have always been tied to the combat roles of the classes.  While it's been explicitly pointed out in 4e, it's something that has always existed and was always right there in the rules.

Saying that your character could hire hirelings in one edition doesn't change anything.  Nor does the idea that you could somehow switch your combat role from melee to ranged (which, btw, is not actually a combat role as defined by 4e - you can be a melee or ranged striker and quite often both.)

Take my current character - a human warlock in 4e.  He has the at will that lets him use his melee basic attack as a power (I forget the name) and also has Eyebite as an At will that lets him do ranged stuff quite nicely.  My character is constantly going from melee to ranged in every single combat.  

Yet, according to you, once a role is codified, I shouldn't be able to do that.  I'm a striker, so, I must only be doing ranged attacks.  But, that simply isn't true.  You can have a character that switches between combat roles quite easily.  While a character might be best at one thing, that doesn't mean he fails at everything else.

But, trying to drag combat roles into the larger picture doesn't really work either.  Combat roles are just that - combat roles.  Just because I'm a defender doesn't mean I can't engage in every other part of RP as well, if I so choose.  I can be the knowledge guy and possibly the face guy as well as the defender.

It's just that out of combat, there are no codified roles.  That's left entirely up to the player.  Pretty much the way it's always been.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Just because I'm a defender doesn't mean I can't engage in every other part of RP as well, if I so choose.  I can be the knowledge guy and possibly the face guy as well as the defender.
> 
> It's just that out of combat, there are no codified roles.  That's left entirely up to the player.  Pretty much the way it's always been.





So, you are saying that you agree with Rich Baker that "roles" are now codified as combat roles, and further that it is your belief that there was never any codification of roles combat or otherwise prior to the last decade but that the roles that were always implied were combat roles?  And you further believe that RPing is not affected by the codification in any respect?  Am I reading you right?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Take my current character - a human warlock in 4e.  He has the at will that lets him use his melee basic attack as a power (I forget the name) and also has Eyebite as an At will that lets him do ranged stuff quite nicely.  My character is constantly going from melee to ranged in every single combat.
> 
> Yet, according to you, once a role is codified, I shouldn't be able to do that.  I'm a striker, so, I must only be doing ranged attacks.  But, that simply isn't true.  You can have a character that switches between combat roles quite easily.  While a character might be best at one thing, that doesn't mean he fails at everything else.




Picking a striker character may be a loaded example - as long as you're slinging out spikes of damage, you're being a striker. Being able to switch between sub-roles of melee and missile attacker is easier (and yes, those are also roles worth looking at, not just the 4 broader ones in 4e). How well can a defender make that switch?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 21, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> So, you are saying that you agree with Rich Baker that "roles" are now codified as combat roles,




I would quibble with the "now" in that statement.  I think 4e defined combat roles as combat roles.  Previously, "roles" were never codified in any explicit way.


> and further that it is your belief that there was never any codification of roles combat or otherwise prior to the last decade but that the roles that were always implied were combat roles?




Yup, I'd agree there.


> And you further believe that RPing is not affected by the codification in any respect?  Am I reading you right?




Yes, I'd agree with that.  I have not seen any particular change in how people play going from one edition to another.  People who really want to RP will continue to do so and those who want to bash stuff with dice will also do so.



billd91 said:


> Picking a striker character may be a loaded example - as long as you're slinging out spikes of damage, you're being a striker. Being able to switch between sub-roles of melee and missile attacker is easier (and yes, those are also roles worth looking at, not just the 4 broader ones in 4e). How well can a defender make that switch?




Well, this is a bit off topic, since melee vs ranged aren't codified roles and this is a thread about codified roles.

I'm not much of a 4e rules guru, and the only defender I played was a more controllery fighter (lots of pushing/pulling and AoE effects).  The best bet, IMO, would be a Paladin for this sort of thing.  Lots of Paladin powers work at range, or are decent AOE effects, and his marking powers work at range as well.  Admittedly, it would be fairly short range, but in a dungeon setting, that wouldn't matter too terribly much.

But, this one I'll grant you.  A defender that can switch between melee and ranged is not an easy thing to build.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Picking a striker character may be a loaded example - as long as you're slinging out spikes of damage, you're being a striker. Being able to switch between sub-roles of melee and missile attacker is easier (and yes, those are also roles worth looking at, not just the 4 broader ones in 4e). How well can a defender make that switch?



One of the PCs in my game is a dwarf polearm fighter - so he is mostly a melee controller with reach attacks, lots of forced movement, stopping opponents with OAs (including via Polearm Gamble), etc. Up until recently his ranged defending has been limited to charge + mark, but he has now got some items/abilities that will let him immobilise targets he hits with a melee basic attack, and to use at-wills (like Footwork Lure, which he uses to knock enemies prone through an item/feat combo) in place of melee basic attacks. So his ranged defending/controlling is about to get better.

(He also carries a +1 longbow for longer ranged combat, but very rarely uses it. He has recently acquired Whelm, a +3 dwarven thrower artefact, but I don't except him to do much throwing of it either.)



Hussar said:


> Lots of Paladin powers work at range, or are decent AOE effects, and his marking powers work at range as well.



The paladin in my game uses a mixture of melee, close and ranged attacks, including a couple of close bursts/blasts that mark all targets (via Divine Sanction).

The sorcerer in my game uses a mix of ranged and close attacks, and has recently acquired an at-will power that can also be used as a melee basic attack. (His weapon is a +3 wyrmtooth dagger). The only PCs who, left to their own devices, would never enter within melee range are the wizard and the archer.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 21, 2011)

In keeping with the above, allow me to ask a few questions about the level of roleplaying outside of combat in the games some of you experience . . .




Hussar said:


> (. . .) the only defender I played was a more controllery fighter (. . .)





What sorts of things did he do outside of combat?  What level was he?  Did he have a lot of background info that informed his in-game choices?




pemerton said:


> One of the PCs in my game is a dwarf polearm fighter (. . .)
> 
> The paladin in my game (. . .)
> 
> The sorcerer in my game (. . .)





Same questions, if I may.  What sorts of things do they do outside of combat?  What level are they?  Do they have a lot of background info that informs their in-game choices?


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2011)

A question to those who think that "combat roles" have an adverse effect on the play of the game:

Is your concern about the narrowness of build options for a given PC?

Or, is your concern about the labelling of a given PC as filling a given role?

I understand the first sort of concern, although personally don't share it - between feats, sub-classes, multi-classes and hybrid classes there are a range of options for building pretty nuanced PCs.

But I don't understand the second concern at all. I mean, once a suite of options for building PCs has been presented which means that, in practice, any PC built as a wizard is going to be pretty sucky at damage dealing, but quite good at battlefield control, what is wrong with pointing that out to the players of the game? (And likewise for the other classes?)

But maybe no one has the second sort of concern.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2011)

In the November 14 Rule-of-Three column, Rich Baker said:

I mentioned last week that the striker was essentially new to D&D in 4th Edition [...] The primary functions of the leader, defender, and controller revolve around damage mitigation … and the best damage mitigation of all is killing stuff before it attacks you [...] 4th Edition is, for better or worse, a striker's game.​This is interesting, but doesn't entirely fit my own experience (which undoubtedly is a hell of a lot narrow than Rich Baker's).

My game has two strikers. One is an archer ranger. His turns are quick - choose a target (or targets) and shoot. The other is a sorcerer. His turns are quick, too, but he has more immediate actions than the ranger and so gets to act more often.

On the other hand, the controller (wizard) and the melee controller (polearm fighter) have long turns. They choose between options, weigh pros and cons of shifting a target here or there, look for synergies with the other PCs etc. And when the wizard does something like Arcane Gate or conjures a Wall of Fire, it creates a visible effect on the table (we use red counters for walls of fire, and the player of the wizard uses a couple of his d6s as the markers for the Gate portals). And its effect on the combat is highly visible over multiple rounds.

I think to describe all this as "damage mitigation" is really a misdescription. It's like saying that, in a classic dungeon exploration, the player/PC who contributed to solving the puzzles, finding and opening the secret doors, disarming the traps on the chests, ect, were really just contributing to the ultimate act of putting the coins into the sacks! Yes, the strikers killing things is the culmination of combat, but it's not necessarily the bulk of, or even the focus of it.

And then there's the further question of whether killing things in combat is the main aim. In some of the combats I've run recently, a lot else has been at stake besides killing things.

A bit like my comment upthread about Encounters - I don't think Rich Baker, in the passage I quoted, is doing the best job he could of selling his game!


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> What sorts of things do they do outside of combat?  What level are they?  Do they have a lot of background info that informs their in-game choices?



The PCs in my game reached 14th level yesterday.

There is a melee controller dwarf polearm fighter, whose paragon path is Warpriest (of Moradin). Outside of combat, he is (at present) the party leader, at least as far as the external world is concerned: Lord Derrik, Lord of the Dwarfholme of the East. Explaining how this came about is a bit convoluted.

When the game started, I (as GM) gave instructions to each player to build a PC (i) with a loyalty/obligation/affiliation to someone or something external to him-/herself, and (ii) with a reason to be ready to fight goblins. Derrik's story (chosen by his player) was this: in the dwarfhold of the Eastern mountains, every young dwarf serves in the army. But you don't really graduate to higher ranks (or, alternatively, to a chance to muster out into civilian life) until you have killed your first goblin. Now in the many years of Derrik's service there were many fights with goblins, but for some reason or other Derrik was never there - he was running an errand for a more senior dwarf, doing latrine duty, or whatever. Eventually, after many years, and sick of being the butt of endless jokes, with the help of his mother he deserted the army and headed out to adventure in the outside world, and find goblins to fight there. Which ended up happening (in the second session of play, I think).

Anyway, about 8 or so levels and two years or so of play later, the PCs were travelling west through the mountains, trying to avoid gnoll pursuers while making their way to (what they hoped would be) a friendly city. En route, they came across an old wizard's villa that had become the house of some hags, and after a series of time-travelling and plane-shifting encounters, and resolving their differences with the hags, the PCs reached paragon tier. As they were about to depart the villa to continue west, some dwarves arrived at the villa. They explained that they had become lost while on patrol far from home, and had been attacked by hobgoblins. They had "retreated in good order" from the hobgoblins, who had not pursued. And then an angel of Moradin had come to them, and told them that a warpriest of Moradin, who would aid them, could be found in the foothills to the south. And the angel had left a holy symbol to be delivered to that warpriest. So the dwarves who could had travelled south, and thus come upon the villa.

When Derrik stepped forward, the leader of the dwarves recognised him. He expressed surprise to see Derrik there, but asked him where the warpriest was. When Derrik said that it was him, the leader laughed! At which point I told the player of Derrik that Derrik recognised the leader, and a number of the other dwarf NPCs also, from his time in the dwarven army - they had come in after him, but graduated ahead of him! Anyway, this back-and-forth went on for a bit - with the other players at the table throwing in the odd remark (on behalf of the NPCs) telling Derrik to get back to cleaning the latrines - until Derrik's player announced that he was using one of his close burst encounter powers with his halberd to knock all the dwarves over. I can't remember, now, how I resolved this - probably as an Initimdate check with a +2 bonus for expending the encounter power (as per the guidelines in DMG 2). But anyway it succeeded, and the dwarves were suitably cowed and impressed. And joined the party as Derrik's followers.

Now all but 2 of the dwarf NPCs got killed in the party's next encounter, which was a raid on a village by hobgoblins with a behemoth warbeast. Hobgoblins killed some of the dwarves, and the behemoth knocked over the house some of the more injured ones were sheltering in. But one of the survivors - named (by me) Gutboy Barrelhouse (as per the 1st ed DMG) - appointed himself Derrik's herald. Hence Derrik was announced as Lord Derrik when the party eventually arrived at the friendly city, and he has continued to act as the leader of the party in dealing with the rulers of the city. Given that he is not trained in any social skills, and has a 10 CHA, this has led to some interesting situations that turn on the tension between (i) Derrik, and the rest of the party (who quite like the arrangement), keeping him in his position as party leader, while (ii) allowing other members of the party, who are better at such things, to defuse/otherwise handle delicate social situations.

(More details here and here.)

I won't go into the same detail for the other PCs. There is a wizard/divine philosopher who once was in service to the Raven Queen, but now serves Erathis, Ioun and (more ambivalently, but still with enough dedication to have upset the Sword of Kas) Vecna. He is the party scholar and ritualist. He is also on a quest to restore the Sceptre of Erathis (the Rod of 7 Parts), which was given to him by Erathis herself after the character died but was sent back into life by the Raven Queen at Erathis's behest. The restoration of the Sceptre is part of his broader goal to restore civilisation (perhaps in the form of the older Empire of Nerath) and his own former town (where he was once a pastry chef) that was sacked and razed by orcs and other humanoids. He is also the only party member to have summarily executed prisoners - hobgoblins once, a devil-worshipping tiefling another time.

There is a tiefling paladin/questing knight in service to the Raven Queen. He sleeps standing up - this was specified as something he was practising from the first session of the game, but it was only yesterday that I learned that this was because his view is that only the dead lie horizontally! Out of combat he contributes seriousness, righteousness and a general absence of mirth. He is physically weak, but has a commanding presence and great spiritual fervour.

There is a drow chaos sorcerer/Demonskin Adept who is a member of a secret society of drow who serve Corellon, and are dedicated to undoing the sundering of the elves. Out of combat he contributes chicanery and mirth. He also skins any demons the PCs kill, to add to his rawhide demonskin accoutrements he wears as part of his Paragon Path. In yesterday' session he rescued from slavery the elven crafter who made his wyrmtooth dagger (who is also a member of the same society, and who had been captured by gnolls riding across the country to deliver the newly-crafted dagger to the PC). He (the drow PC) wants to set up some sort of Tower of High Sorcery, and I think want to recruit the crafter to this endeavour.

The fifth PC is an archer ranger/cleric. He is another devotee of the Raven Queen. Of all the PCs, he probably has the least developed background or goals. Out of combat, he is (as suits an elven ranger) the party guide and tracker.

Anyway, the two links above - to actual play reports of two non-combat sessions with this group - will give you more of an idea of the nitty gritty of non-combat action resolution with these guys, if you're interested. (And this thread describes how the group successfully negotiated with Kas and returned to him his sword - this was a mixed combat/non-combat encounter.)


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 21, 2011)

Thanks for all of the detail, pem.  I wish I could XP you again but maybe someone else will stand proxy for me.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Thanks for all of the detail, pem.  I wish I could XP you again but maybe someone else will stand proxy for me.



No worries. In case it wasn't obvious, I like to talk about my game!

Anyway, I think that 4e lends itself to being seen as two distinct "games" - the combat game, and the "real" game. My goal as a GM has been to marry these two games, using a range of techniques to make the "real" game speak to the combat game, and vice versa. The thread I linked to about the negotiations with Kas is one example of that. And I think that 4e has a whole lot of tools to support this (more than other versions of D&D, more than Rolemaster or Runequest).

But I think it is a mistake on WotC's part not to give more indication - in their rulebooks, in their web columns, etc - of how this can be done, and of how the tools that the designers have provided can be used. There are occasional hints and ideas in Chris Perkins' columns, but that's about as far as it goes.

EDIT: Another thought, which also relates to "roles as a straightjacket". In the story about Derrik, above, how did it come about that some dwarves came looking for the warpriest? Well, when the players took their paragon paths, Derrik didn't have a holy symbol. So I thought it would be good to get him one, now that he was a Warpriest. And so I came up with the idea of the injured dwarves being told of his location by an angel. It was only when I actually started running the scene that I decided to play up his background and have a bit of fun with it.

But by putting the player on the spot like this, I oblige him to respond with what he's got on his character sheet and between his ears. He doesn't get to choose whether or not the party "face" handles the encounter - if Derrik doesn't step up in some fashion or other, he's more-or-less conceding that he's still the latrine-cleaning nobody that he was when he left the dwarfhold to become an adventurer.

To generalise a bit: if you want your players to break out of their preferred roles, set up situations - whether in combat, or out of combat - that make them choose: step up to the challenge, even if you're not optimised for it, or let your PC take a hosing within the context of the fiction. My players tend to step up, because they're there to play the game. (And they like to try and turn the tables - to make the situation that was meant to _challenge_ them, become one that _serves_ them. When it comes to Derrik's "lordship", they've done this pretty well, even though I'm still trying as best I can to turn it back onto them again. All this is playing the game too.)


----------



## Bluenose (Nov 21, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Interesting but I am not sure that answers the question as to whether we are talking about a "role" in a larger sense or specifically a *combat* role.  For instance, a "Knight" in the game Pendragon, to choose one of your examples, has any number of potential combat styles but also, as a knight, has certain societal expectations tied to the role.  One could play such a character and focus on combat but the rules of the game draw up a much broader role than simply that of a combatant and, as such, the game supports roleplaying both in and out of combat quite well.




Well, in Pendragon all the characters are the same 'class' in combat terms and to a large degree the particular weapon they're best at doesn't make much difference - they're all going to have training as armoured melee fighters. In Runequest, characters will (usually; not true of an all Impala-rider game I played in) be more variable, with different 'classes'. In combat terms, some might be melee specialists, some missile specialists, and some will be best at casting. Most magic-specialists will be quite limited in the variety of things they're good at, too. If you're sensible and not carrying a geas, even if you're specialised in melee fighting you'll carry some sort of missile weapon and learn a little useful magic. But it's extremely unlikely that you'll be as capable in your secondary 'roles' as you are in your primary one - perhaps not quite impossible, but that will come at a price. Changing from melee-specialist to missile-specialist or magic-specialist or vice-versa would consume a huge amount of time, money and effort; and it might not even work. D&D is very generous in letting BAB transfer between weapons, compared to many other games, and for that matter in the range of magic available to nearly all specialist casters.


----------



## Ringlerun (Nov 21, 2011)

I have just read all the posts for this thread and i have come a conclusion.  I think its time for D&D to enter the world of point buy.

Combat roles and Archetypes can be kept.  Then stats, powers, feats and skills can be point bought.

This keeps the defined combat roles and allows players to fully customize their characters to suite play style.

Stats, powers, feats and skills will have point costs based on Archetype 

Just a thought.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, this is a bit off topic, since melee vs ranged aren't codified roles and this is a thread about codified roles.
> 
> I'm not much of a 4e rules guru, and the only defender I played was a more controllery fighter (lots of pushing/pulling and AoE effects).  The best bet, IMO, would be a Paladin for this sort of thing.  Lots of Paladin powers work at range, or are decent AOE effects, and his marking powers work at range as well.  Admittedly, it would be fairly short range, but in a dungeon setting, that wouldn't matter too terribly much.
> 
> But, this one I'll grant you.  A defender that can switch between melee and ranged is not an easy thing to build.




If that defender can't switch between melee and ranged, with credible powers for both, that shows how codified his role really is. That fighter  tends to be stuck at the front, melee weapon in hand, with weaker options for ranged attacks. In other games, with less codified roles, that fighter could have chosen to be a real killer with a bow.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2011)

billd91 said:


> In other games, with less codified roles, that fighter could have chosen to be a real killer with a bow.



In my last Rolemaster game, one of the PCs was a strong fighter with both sword(s) and bow. But, in Rolemaster, there are no options comparable to those open to a fighter in 4e - of marking (and thereby, whether we treat it as ingame or metagame, effectively granting the rest of the party +2 AC), and of stopping moving foes in their tracks (with OAs).

In 4e, I'd probably build the PC in question as an archer warlord, perhaps hybrided with fighter. He would be viable both in melee and at ranger, and would have reasonable AC and hit points, but wouldn't be able to control targets in the way that a 4e defender does. It is this control ability that you're paying for when you build a 4e fighter and therefore give up on ranged attacks as a strong component of your repertoire.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 21, 2011)

After discussion I've allowed Vyvyan Bastard back into the thread.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Nov 21, 2011)

Ringlerun said:


> I have just read all the posts for this thread and i have come a conclusion.  I think its time for D&D to enter the world of point buy.
> 
> Combat roles and Archetypes can be kept.  Then stats, powers, feats and skills can be point bought.
> 
> ...




I thought we did point buy in 3.5?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 21, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> I thought we did point buy in 3.5?




I believe he means the whole enchilada, not just base stats.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 21, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'd argue heavy armor with it's penalties and weight is more of a detriment than a bonus in 4e.  IMO, of course.




The only other bonus I can think of for heavy armor is that you have access to masterwork armor sooner (at +2 enhancement instead of +3). And there may be some skewing between magical armors, but I'm not about to tackle the entire list to figure that one out.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 21, 2011)

Tayne said:


> This is a well moderated forum if i've ever seen one.




Yes. The moderators here at ENWorld are the best I've seen. I want to apologize for letting my temper get the best of me earlier in the thread. I hope you and I can discuss things with more civility in the future.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 21, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Previous editions allowed for more mutable combat roles.






Hussar said:


> Hang on a second.  This example doesn't actually work.  Everything you just outlined is pretty heavily punished by the rules in any edition.






Mark CMG said:


> That has what to do with what?  The point being that a character can and did fulfill multiple combat roles quite easily, whether they began a particular combat in a role and moved to another of simply fulfilled the various roles from the beginning of a combat.




The point was that 4E characters can step out of their main combat role just as well as characters in previous editions. I'm sure we could find corner-case examples in different rulesets that would seem to contradict this statement, but overall it feels at our tables, like Talking Heads said, "same as it ever was."


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 21, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> In keeping with the above, allow me to ask a few questions about the level of roleplaying outside of combat in the games some of you experience . . .
> 
> What sorts of things did he do outside of combat?  What level was he?  Did he have a lot of background info that informed his in-game choices?
> 
> Same questions, if I may.  What sorts of things do they do outside of combat?  What level are they?  Do they have a lot of background info that informs their in-game choices?




Were these questions meant to give you insight to a particular edition? Because, IME, the questions will yield the same types of answers from the same people over the various editions (unless the person has changed their own style over time).

The same people who enjoyed having depth of character back in AD&D in my group still enjoy creating that depth now, myself included. Those who never have, still don't.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 21, 2011)

billd91 said:


> If that defender can't switch between melee and ranged, with credible powers for both, that shows how codified his role really is. That fighter  tends to be stuck at the front, melee weapon in hand, with weaker options for ranged attacks. In other games, with less codified roles, that fighter could have chosen to be a real killer with a bow.




That killer-with-a-bow-fighter in 4E can be a Ranger, Rogue, Warlord, etc. Because those who are killer with a bow tend to be lightly armored mobile warriors which fits the Striker role better IMO. I geuss the designers could create a ranged striker version for the Fighter, but I'm not sure it would differ enough from the other options currently available to warrant inclusion in the game.

I think ranged defender could be an interesting take for the Fighter. I'm having trouble envisioning what that would entail, but I'd be intrigued to see its implementation.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 21, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> That killer-with-a-bow-fighter in 4E can be a Ranger, Rogue, Warlord, etc. Because those who are killer with a bow tend to be lightly armored mobile warriors which fits the Striker role better IMO. I geuss the designers could create a ranged striker version for the Fighter, but I'm not sure it would differ enough from the other options currently available to warrant inclusion in the game.
> 
> I think ranged defender could be an interesting take for the Fighter. I'm having trouble envisioning what that would entail, but I'd be intrigued to see its implementation.




The Slayer is the killer-with-a-bow-fighter in 4e... he's a heavily armored, high hit point, striker build under the fighter class that uses Dex as a secondary and most/many of his powers can be used with ranged or melee weapons. He isn't a woodsman, he isn't lightly armored, he doesn't specialize in traps and thievery, and he doesn't provide support for other characters that hit harder then him... he is a warrior who kills things using the best weapon for the situation wearing the best armor he can afford and is tough as nails (compared to other strikers). 

See the problem with tying combat role to a class is that it's needlessly confining. The slayer is a facet of the fighter(martial warrior) archetype that couldn't have existed if all fighters were tied to the defender role. It's just a shame that it took 3 years to get a fighter who primarily... fights as opposed to defends... even though it's been possible in every other edition. 

The thing I find strange is the claim that permeton made that at this point, 3-4 years down the road we have the flexibility that this isn't a major problem... well no, it's not if you're willing to buy a ton of books, comb through a gigantic number of feats and kinda, sorta squint while ignoring the things that don't fit your concept and still be on the low end of effectiveness if that's not the role you should be tackling... and/or wait a couple years in the hopes (because it wasn't a sure thing) that the developers of the game would realize how silly hardcoding a combat role into a class/archetype really was. Looking at just PHB 1 vs. the first PHB of earlier editions 4e is alot more restrictive and confining because it went the route of hardcoding combat roles in the beginning. All IMO, of course.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 22, 2011)

billd91 said:


> If that defender can't switch between melee and ranged, with credible powers for both, that shows how codified his role really is. That fighter  tends to be stuck at the front, melee weapon in hand, with weaker options for ranged attacks. In other games, with less codified roles, that fighter could have chosen to be a real killer with a bow.




As I said, I'm not really the best person to answer this, my 4e experience is fairly limited.

But, in 3e, to be a "real killer with a bow" meant that my fighter wasn't much of a front line fighter.  If I'm burning bow related feats, at least until I get very high level, I don't have the extra feats to make me also great at melee combat.  

Competent, yes.  Sure.  But great?  Nope.

Earlier editions didn't really suffer from this, mostly because there simply weren't any build options to take.  Your guy would likely be a great bowman because he had a high dex/low strength and a magic bow.  If he was the reverse, high Str/low Dex, then he had a magic sword and a bow was something that got used in a pinch.

See, my experience is very different.  Characters have always tended to focus IME.  If I was building a brute force character in AD&D, I pumped up Str, then Con, and then whatever was left went into Dex.  Sure, I had a bow, but, that was an after thought, not a focus.

Then again, in AD&D, because monsters tended to be so much weaker relative to the PC's, it was easy to be a great melee and great ranged character.  A bow +1 meant that you could pump out 10-20% of any baddies hit points in a round when giants only have about 45 hit points.

But, there's more to it than simply combat role specification.  The inflation of the monsters, and the massive scaling back of the PC's relative to challenges has had a much larger impact IMO.  Characters specialized because they had the tools to do so, and doing so was rewarded by the system.

Codification of combat roles simply recognizes that fact, not emphasizes.  

After all, what defines a class?  If you look at classes in any edition, what do you see?  Hit Dice, weapons allowed, armor allowed.  Combat abilities out the wazoo with a dash of out of combat stuff for a few specific classes.  The character's Combat Role was defined out of the box all the way back at the beginning, the fighting man fights, the wizard is artillery and the cleric heals/provides support.  

The only real difference is that 4e split the "fight" role into "striker" and "defender" and then based character abilities on that.  Since characters are hardly limited to a single role as most abilities allow for a great deal of flexibility within that role and between roles (fighters are defender/strikers or controllers depending on what you take forex) codifying roles hasn't really changed anything.

------------

Mark CMG - I gotta go, but I haven't forgotten your question, I just wanted to answer this first.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 22, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The point was that 4E characters can step out of their main combat role just as well as characters in previous editions.





I think Rich Baker's statement about the last decaqde is fundamentally true, editions aside, and that it is harder to step from role to role without substantial loss of optimization.




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Were these questions meant to give you insight to a particular edition?





No.  This is not about edition.  *Please stop it.*  This is about individual's game experiences past and present.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 22, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I think Rich Baker's statement about the last decaqde is fundamentally true, editions aside, and that it is harder to step from role to role without substantial loss of optimization.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'd point out that it's the growth of the ability of players to actually choose particular routes of optimization that has changed.  Pre-3e, there really wasn't a whole lot of choice in optimization that any player could make.  Magic items were the purview of the DM, so, it was the DM who might be making that choice of your role - giving the fighter a Vorpal Sword generally means that that fighter is going to try to use it on as many things as he can.  He'd certainly be more effective in melee combat than in ranged.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Codification of combat roles simply recognizes that fact, not emphasizes.




I would say codification of combat roles forces that fact.

A group or even a single player had the ability to choose to play an optimization game in which the cost was enforced specialization or to not play the optimization game and not be forced into role specialization... now that choice no longer exists. You have had your role specialization explicitly built into your class... and the class optimized for said combat role.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> (. . .) giving the fighter a Vorpal Sword (. . .)





A group finds a magic item (sword or otherwise) and they decide who gets it.  There might be a number of choices who should use it (though I admit fewer with some items then with others).  It also doesn't limit the user of the item from trading it to another in the group if they decide roles should switch.  If we think of things in terms of Rich Baker's premise that the last decade has codified roles moreso than before, and think of if your example and my own additional analysis in this post pertains to it, then what more can we say along those lines?


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 22, 2011)

Imaro said:


> 1. See the problem with tying combat role to a class is that it's needlessly confining.  2. The slayer is a facet of the fighter(martial warrior) archetype that couldn't have existed if all fighters were tied to the defender role.  3. It's just a shame that it took 3 years to get a fighter who primarily... fights as opposed to defends... even though it's been possible in every other edition.




1. I don't think it's _needlessly_ confining.  The need that they are satisfying here is the need to understand how your character is going to play in combat.  They could have done it differently (entries under weapon and armour choice, for example), but that doesn't mean that tying role to class doesn't satisfy a need.

2. That's true.

3. I don't think it's a _shame._  When designing 3E they decided to make caster level important, and thus the old "elf" was difficult to play until certain prestige classes came out.  There's nothing wrong with that; the game works fine - there are lots of choices to be made - even without that archetype in the game.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 22, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I would say codification of combat roles forces that fact.
> 
> A group or even a single player had the ability to choose to play an optimization game in which the cost was enforced specialization or to not play the optimization game and not be forced into role specialization... now that choice no longer exists. You have had your role specialization explicitly built into your class... and the class optimized for said combat role.




See, that's only true if you presume two things:

1.  Combat role specialization is so laser beam focused that it cannot allow for any other choices.

2.  Characters who do not laser beam focus cannot operate within the game.

To me, neither of these are true.  For one, the class powers are broad enough that while a character might be a defender or a striker, there is a LOT of overlap between the roles.  For a second, the math is not so tightly wound that a single plus will gimp your character.

I know that people talk about Weapon Mastery feats as being a big deal.  But, to me, a +3 spread over thirty levels is not a big deal.  The difference between one character with the +3 and one without will not matter in the larger scheme of things.  There are just too many other factors for a small bonus like this to make a dramatic difference.

The problem is, people want class to matter.  Class is just a handy shorthand for getting whatever character you want.  At least it has been since 3e when so many more character building options were added.  Being a "fighter" doesn't really mean anything.  It's just a mechanical shorthand for someone who gets lots of hit points and can use the big weapons and doesn't get access to spells.

Class =/= archetype.  And, outside of a few classes like the paladin, never really did.  My thief could fill a broad range of archetypes.  Look at the 2e Complete Thief's Handbook for about two dozen different thief archetypes we can build with just a Thief class.  Same for any other class as well.

If you want someone who can switch between melee and ranged and does good damage, take a striker with certain builds.  Decide what you want to do, then pick the class that fits that concept.  It's a bit backwards from what went on before where we generally picked a class and then altered the class to fit a concept.

But the end result is largely the same.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Nov 22, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I believe he means the whole enchilada, not just base stats.




What I meant what that 3.5 could be considered point buy-ish.  You really can determine many different things about your characters with easier multi-classing, many different classes, skill points, magic item choices, feats, etc.  It's not quite point buy but it's it's the same general idea.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 22, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The Slayer is the killer-with-a-bow-fighter in 4e... he's a *heavily armored*, high hit point, striker build under the fighter class that uses *Dex as a secondary* and most/many of his powers can be used with ranged or melee weapons.




My unfamiliarity with Essentials continues... 

Regardless, the Slayer has a valid trade-off to achieve this flexibility. First, he is worse with either melee or ranged attacks depending on ability scores. Alternatively he can be slightly worse with each by equalizing Str and Dex. Second, if he focuses on or equalizes Dex (assuming ability score synergy with race) he would do a disservice to himself to wear heavy armor, thus becoming the lightly-armored mobile warrior. Third, he loses the encounter power capability the Power Strike provides with melee. Fourth, he'd be better off using a heavy thrown weapon like the Weaponmaster Fighter.

He definately makes a decent secondary archer, but doesn't reach the mastery of the Archer Ranger. IMO it seems like stubbornness to insist upon a class named Fighter that equlas the master archer class, the Ranger, if that's what people are truly calling for, when the only barrier is story elements that the system encourages players to change to their tastes.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 22, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> No.  This is not about edition.  *Please stop it.*  This is about individual's game experiences past and present.




It was just a question. My answer applied to all editions, so I'm not sure what you're asking me to stop. I honestly wasn't sure because you focused the questions on two characters from a single edition. I'm not clear how that's a past and present question.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 22, 2011)

Something that has been tickling in my mind that finally came out as I was doing laundry.  

People have been equating Combat Role with melee vs ranged and then saying how some characters could switch between the two.  Sure, I might buy that, but, that's not really changing combat roles is it?  If the fighter switches from a longsword to a bow, he's still doing essentially the same thing - hitting things with pointy bits in an attempt to kill them, by and large, one at a time.

However, at no time can a fighter ever take over the other roles.  A fighter cannot become a support character.  He can't heal.  He can't buff.  He cannot help anyone do anything particularly.  The fighter fights.  End of story.  That's his combat role.  Sure, he steps back and shoots a bow twice a round for 2d6 damage, but that makes him pretty poor artillery compared to the wizard standing beside him who's dropping a fireball for 10D6 damage on fifteen different opponents in the same round.

And the same works in reverse.  Give a wizard a sword and armor and put him in the front line and he dies.  He can't use the sword, can't cast spells in armor (or can with great difficulty in 3e) and doesn't have enough HP to survive.

Clerics?  Well, they get a bit of both.  They can stand on the front line, but, they're going to be sucking hind mammery (sorry, didn't know the T word would hit the filter - is that actually rude?) behind the 18/63 Str fighter who's dishing out twice or three times as much damage on average.  They can stand back, but, pre-3e, their offensive capabilities with spells are seriously limited.  So, they turtle up and tank and then provide healing afterwards.

Note, none of this means that this is all those classes do and that they do this every single time.  I'm painting with a fairly broad brush.  But, the mechanics of the classes does define their combat roles pretty strongly.  You can't switch between roles very easily.  Multiclassing does allow some degree of it, although that comes with its own problems and issues as well.

But, at the end of the day, the classes were always pre-defined into fairly specific combat roles.  Fighters fight, clerics heal and provide support and magic users are artillery.  This isn't anything new at all.  This was recognized thirty years ago.  Again, as I said before, the primary difference now is that 4e has added a fourth option of splitting fighter into defender and striker.  Before, fighter (and fighter types) were really a bit of both but really, not all that great at either one.  4e simply recognized what was already there.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> However, at no time can a fighter ever take over the other roles.  A fighter cannot become a support character.  He can't heal.  He can't buff.  He cannot help anyone do anything particularly.  The fighter fights.  End of story.





I've DMed a group that would have their fighter carry a lot of potions because he could step in and heal with them and take a hit while doing so.  (He was also the least likely to becomed encumbered by the stores of minor items they had collected.)




Hussar said:


> Give a wizard a sword and armor and put him in the front line and he dies.  He can't use the sword, can't cast spells in armor (or can with great difficulty in 3e) and doesn't have enough HP to survive.





With the right protection spells, a wizard can stand up in the front line if necessary, but of course you're not discussing if a wizard can fill another role, you're discussing if the best role for him is somewhere else and if the rules of some systems make it so suboptimal to fill another role that it is beyond worth trying.  That's seems to be precisely Rich Baker's point.




Hussar said:


> Clerics?  Well, they get a bit of both.  They can stand on the front line, but, they're going to be sucking hind mammery (. . .)





I played in a group that had no fighters and used three clerics (brothers) act as the front line of melee defense quite effectively.  It was a sort of religion vs religion campaign where our temple was often at odds with other temples.


But, again, you seem to be arguing both sides of Rich Baker's premise in alternate posts.  Is it that you are seeing his point?


----------



## Tayne (Nov 22, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Yes. The moderators here at ENWorld are the best I've seen. I want to apologize for letting my temper get the best of me earlier in the thread. I hope you and I can discuss things with more civility in the future.




It's all good bro. E-hugs.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 22, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> This is not about edition.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This is about individual's game experiences past and present.



This post does talk about editions - and experiences with them - but I hope that it doesn't cross the line that you've got in mind for your thread.



Hussar said:


> But, in 3e, to be a "real killer with a bow" meant that my fighter wasn't much of a front line fighter.  If I'm burning bow related feats, at least until I get very high level, I don't have the extra feats to make me also great at melee combat.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Earlier editions didn't really suffer from this, mostly because there simply weren't any build options to take.



Actually, as soon as UA introduced weapon specialisation, it became possible to build your fighter as a melee combatant or ranged combatant - although going ranged was harder, because it required DEX to boost your attacks but you still wanted STR to boost your XP.



Imaro said:


> A group or even a single player had the ability to choose to play an optimization game in which the cost was enforced specialization or to not play the optimization game and not be forced into role specialization... now that choice no longer exists. You have had your role specialization explicitly built into your class... and the class optimized for said combat role.



I don't think that 4e pushes as hard on the optimisation front as you do. The wizard in my game is far from optimised - he has two arcane familiar feats, Deep Sage and Skill Training (Dungeoneering). He's as much a scholar and ritualist as a controller. In combat, it's not uncommon for him to plink away with Magic Missiles (a very poor man's striker).

But anyway, to say your class is optimised for a certain role, and thus "forces" you into specialisation, is only to say that build choices are made at the class-selection point, rather than the class-feature-selection point.

Which takes me to:



Imaro said:


> The thing I find strange is the claim that permeton made that at this point, 3-4 years down the road we have the flexibility that this isn't a major problem... well no, it's not if you're willing to buy a ton of books, comb through a gigantic number of feats and kinda, sorta squint while ignoring the things that don't fit your concept and still be on the low end of effectiveness if that's not the role you should be tackling... and/or wait a couple years in the hopes (because it wasn't a sure thing) that the developers of the game would realize how silly hardcoding a combat role into a class/archetype really was. Looking at just PHB 1 vs. the first PHB of earlier editions 4e is alot more restrictive and confining because it went the route of hardcoding combat roles in the beginning.



A different way of looking at it - which echoes what I and other said _way_ upthread, that the impact of roles is more on the designer side than the player side - is this: while the 4e PHB is more narrow in the range of options it offers than are some other PHBs, it delivers a more focused game with tighter play.

I know that's not a universal experience, but it is certainly the experience of me and my group. The game's combat resolution is a sophisticated and elegant machine, and it's moving parts are the PC and encounter build elements that the designers have given us! Without the tight, focused design of the 4e classes, they wouldn't deliver this payoff in play.

I think for those who want a different sort of play experience - in particular, one where the relationship between build and action resolution is looser than 4e (perhaps certain styles of classic D&D, and even moreso I think 2nd ed AD&D) - can expect to find that 4e is not the game for them.

But other editions have also had features of the rules that (for better or worse) aimed at delivering the play experience that that editions authors thought was worth having. And to that end, I thought I'd quote a bit of Gygax's DMG (pp 61, 86):

Combat is a common pursuit in the vast majority of adventures, and the participants in the campgin deserve a chance to exercise intelligent choices during such confrontations. . .

The gaining of sufficient experience points is necessary to indicate that a character is _eligible_ to gain a level of expereince, but the actual award is a matter for you, the DM, to decide.

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Breifly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance . . . 

Clerics wh refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ingore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pul their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating.​
This very strongly suggests that role, at least as Gygax conceived of it, flows not from the player - as many have posted upthread - but from the build, namely, the choice of class plus alignment (of far greater mechanical importance in AD&D play than in 4e play).

Presumably, though, many players - all those who played charitable NG thieves, for example, or cowardly and treacherous fighters - just ignored these guidelines (or hoped that their GMs would). The same players, playing 4e, are presumably capable of doing comparably imaginative things: the GM building combat encounters that will reward players for breaking from role expectation, or letting the player of the fighter take a STR bow attack as one of his/her at will powers.

We seem to have ended up in a situation where at least some people don't want the experience that the designers have built the game to deliver, and yet seem strangely reluctant to depart from that design.

Likewise with the comment that 4e produces combat-centric play. Plenty of people ran AD&D games with less combat than the DMG (as quoted above) seems to envisage. Why would they become incapable of doing so when sitting down at a 4e table?

I guess that, despite my differing from him earlier in this post about when fighters encountered build rules (UA rather than 3E), I ultimately agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: the game designers have always had expectations about roles (combat and otherwise); they have build those expecations into the game in various ways (in AD&D especially via the alignment and advancement mechanics, in 4e via the PC build rules); and there is plenty of scope to at least tweak the rules, and thereby the expectations, while leaving the bulk of the game intact.

Which is not to say that the game will play the same. A game in which fighters have STR archery at-wills might play a bit differently from standard 4e. But then, a game without alignment will play pretty differently from standard AD&D. That was why, back in the day, at least some of us were very enthusiastic about Dragon articles that would give us advice on how to run alignment-free D&D!


----------



## billd91 (Nov 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Something that has been tickling in my mind that finally came out as I was doing laundry.
> 
> People have been equating Combat Role with melee vs ranged and then saying how some characters could switch between the two.  Sure, I might buy that, but, that's not really changing combat roles is it?  If the fighter switches from a longsword to a bow, he's still doing essentially the same thing - hitting things with pointy bits in an attempt to kill them, by and large, one at a time.
> 
> ...




Painting with a broad brush is right. I get the impression that some people aren't getting that there are roles different from the 4 that 4e solidified in the rules. Melee and ranged combat focuses *are* different roles and come with different expectations (and I would say that mounted combatant is yet another role). And contrary to some popular conceptions around optimizer boards, it was quite possible to be competent with both in 1e, 2e, and 3x/PF. You may not have been able to maximize both easily, but that's a question of super-competency not competency and the game doesn't require super-competency.

I'd also say that, on the spellcaster side, ally booster, healer, artillery, utility, and enemy manipulation are all different roles as well. 

For my money, if the character uses a significantly different strategy, he's probably playing a different role. How much does a game focus classes into any of these roles? How does that compare to other games? How much should be flexible? How much can a player change and under what circumstances? How well does that map to role playing a reasonable character rather than a token on a board?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My unfamiliarity with Essentials continues...
> 
> Regardless, the Slayer has a valid trade-off to achieve this flexibility. First, he is worse with either melee or ranged attacks depending on ability scores. Alternatively he can be slightly worse with each by equalizing Str and Dex. Second, if he focuses on or equalizes Dex (assuming ability score synergy with race) he would do a disservice to himself to wear heavy armor, thus becoming the lightly-armored mobile warrior. Third, he loses the encounter power capability the Power Strike provides with melee. Fourth, he'd be better off using a heavy thrown weapon like the Weaponmaster Fighter.




Again, I think it's safe to dispell the notion that anyone is asking for everything with no trade-offs. That said...

The slayer is worse with either melee wepaons or ranged weapons... but comparitively speaking he is still one of the best classes at using both. 

As a half-orc, he gets a bonus to both Str and Dex thus he doesn't gimp either one. However with the ability to wear heavy armors, he can focus more on strength if he wants to and keep dex just high enough that his Weapon Talent class feature, and powers like Poised Assault give him bonuses that still elevate him to damn good to hit as an archer.

His Heroic Slayer class feature gives him extra damage on ranged and melee weapons... 

Powers like Mobile Blade, Sudden Sprint and Line Breaker take care of mobility. 

Single Out can give you combat advantage on ranged opponents, again making up for a focus on strength and melee.

Quick Swap allows him to easily switch between melee and ranged weapons...

And as to why he would use heavy armor... well Armored Mobility is a pretty good reason. 

Now I'll give you the power strike point... but he wouldn't be a fighter that only fights with a bow, again the slayer is the warrior who can adapt between styles depending on what is needed at the moment not an archer.




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> He definately makes a decent secondary archer, but doesn't reach the mastery of the Archer Ranger. IMO it seems like stubbornness to insist upon a class named Fighter that equlas the master archer class, the Ranger, if that's what people are truly calling for, when the only barrier is story elements that the system encourages players to change to their tastes.




While he may not be the penultimate archer I would say he is much more than a "decent" archer with the added durability and toughness that the ranger is missing when he goes into melee.


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 22, 2011)

billd91 said:


> For my money, if the character uses a significantly different strategy, he's probably playing a different role.




I would agree. So what is the point of slotting classes into pre-defined roles? Let the players play their characters in any role they can (with that classes given abilities/skills.)



billd91 said:


> How much does a game focus classes into any of these roles?




That seems to be the argument here...or...not "argument" but general discussion. Some think certain editions focus it more than is necessary or wanted by the players. Some think the amount of role-focus is fine...or even preferable. It comes down to a player-by-player, group-by-group opinion. Which makes no side of the discussion "correct" because we're all talking about what we would (or do) prefer/like better in our games/from the rules.  This debate has no objective "ending."



billd91 said:


> How does that compare to other games? How much should be flexible? How much can a player change and under what circumstances? How well does  that map to role playing a reasonable character rather than a token on a  board?




We'd be here til the end of time and still not have a consensus comparing opinions. To my mind, this supports my position that the developers shouldn't bother trying to define class roles one way or the other. IMO, the more they try to codify it, the more players they will squeeze out/disagree/dislike the system. Making something different (i.e. defining/redefining rules/mechanics for combat roles) for the sake of being different [than the last edition] is not a good enough reason. Developers need to learn to leave well-enough alone...leave it to the players'/groups' discretion and imagination.

To paraphrase Moldvay, D&D doesn't have rules so much as rule suggestions...and what's wrong with that?

--Steel Dragons


----------



## Hussar (Nov 22, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I've DMed a group that would have their fighter carry a lot of potions because he could step in and heal with them and take a hit while doing so.  (He was also the least likely to becomed encumbered by the stores of minor items they had collected.)
> /snip




Sorry, what edition are you talking about?  That will make something of a difference.  Because if you're playing 1e, where are you getting all these potions from?  Unless the DM is tailoring the campaign to suit that group, you certainly can't rely on being able to do that.  

And, of course you can tailor a campaign (cleric vs cleric campaign) to pretty much anything.  But, that's going a bit far abroad.  If I have to completely revamp what I use as a DM to customize the game to suit the choices of the player, that would tend to mean that the game isn't really supporting that style of play.

Not that you cannot do that, but, it's gets harder and harder out of the box.

-------------

Let's try a little thought experiment.

Create an D&D character with 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste.  You roll and get one 18, and the other 5 rolls are 14 or less.  Now, you try to make a character with those roles.  

When you make the fighter, where does that 18 go?  I'm fairly willing to bet that the vast majority of players out there put that 18 in Str.  Its certainly the most mechanically rewarded thing to do - you gain that all important percentile strength in AD&D (+5-10% to hit and double your average damage) and +10% xp reward.

Now, once you've put that 18 in Strength, what's that character going to do in combat?  Stand back and shoot a bow?  Not likely.  He's far and away more effective getting into the mix and laying the boots to something.  

Put the 18 in Dex, and he loses that percentile strength, making him not a whole lot better than the cleric in melee combat, he's not strong enough to wear the heaviest armors without incurring encumbrance penalties although that's offset by a decent Dex bonus and he's still only averaging less damage per round than the strength fighter at 7 points per round with two hits.  

Now, move forward to Unearthed Arcana and add in things like double weapon specialization.  Sure, you could use a bow, but, good grief, why would you bother?  +3 to hit and damage, with 3/2 attacks at 1st level.  Now our melee fighter is leaving our bow fighter a long way in the dust.

2e doesn't make it any better.  Our fighter still specializes, but, now he takes two weapon fighting and he's averaging about 30 points of damage every two rounds (18/XX strength+weapon specs longsword and proficiency short sword - 1st round 1d8+5+1d6+3 damage, 2nd round 2d8+10+1d6+3=about 30-35 points of damage per 2 rounds at 1st level).

Still think fighters weren't melee focused from the get go?  Really?

Sure, you could pick up a bow.  But, now we're getting into mounted combat?  Really?  How many horses do you bring into the dungeon?  Again, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the overwhelming majority of attacks made by fighter characters are dismounted melee attacks.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't think that 4e pushes as hard on the optimisation front as you do. The wizard in my game is far from optimised - he has two arcane familiar feats, Deep Sage and Skill Training (Dungeoneering). He's as much a scholar and ritualist as a controller. In combat, it's not uncommon for him to plink away with Magic Missiles (a very poor man's striker).




I'm not sure what you bringing up things outside combat role has to do with what I am discussing. When I said optimization, I was speaking to the inherent optimization that the building of a class for a specific *combat *role enforces upon that class. Things like the fighter's mark, the rogues backstab, or the wizards minion killer powers. The fact that your Wizard "plinks" away with magic missile and that you even recognize this as suboptimal and a "Very poor man's striker" supports my point.




pemerton said:


> But anyway, to say your class is optimised for a certain role, and thus "forces" you into specialisation, is only to say that build choices are made at the class-selection point, rather than the class-feature-selection point.




Which is a much broader and rather all-encompassing level than previous editions forced it at... thus the loss of flexibility and adaptability for classes.





pemerton said:


> A different way of looking at it - which echoes what I and other said _way_ upthread, that the impact of roles is more on the designer side than the player side - is this: while the 4e PHB is more narrow in the range of options it offers than are some other PHBs, it delivers a more focused game with tighter play.
> 
> 
> I know that's not a universal experience, but it is certainly the experience of me and my group. The game's combat resolution is a sophisticated and elegant machine, and it's moving parts are the PC and encounter build elements that the designers have given us! Without the tight, focused design of the 4e classes, they wouldn't deliver this payoff in play.




So will this all break down now as builds that don't share the same combat role as their class (Slayer, Blackguard, etc.) are introduced... or even moreso builds like the berserker that allow one to switch combat role in the middle of combat? Somehow I doubt it and that's why I have a problem seeing these two things as intricately connected as you seem to be making them out to be. 




pemerton said:


> I think for those who want a different sort of play experience - in particular, one where the relationship between build and action resolution is looser than 4e (perhaps certain styles of classic D&D, and even moreso I think 2nd ed AD&D) - can expect to find that 4e is not the game for them.




I would disagree, 4e is definitely moving in that direction. The problem is that because it adopted this design paradigm in the beginning... it will take alot more time, books and alot more money for 4e to accomodate that playstyle than in previous editions.




pemerton said:


> But other editions have also had features of the rules that (for better or worse) aimed at delivering the play experience that that editions authors thought was worth having. And to that end, I thought I'd quote a bit of Gygax's DMG (pp 61, 86):
> Combat is a common pursuit in the vast majority of adventures, and the participants in the campgin deserve a chance to exercise intelligent choices during such confrontations. . .
> 
> The gaining of sufficient experience points is necessary to indicate that a character is _eligible_ to gain a level of expereince, but the actual award is a matter for you, the DM, to decide.
> ...




But this is adventure role, as in the role a PC plays in the overall adventure structure. A thief is suppose to be sneaky, sly and stealthy... how does that equate to "do tons of damage"? Magic-users should for the most part use magic... how does that equate that they should "kill minions and control the battlefield"? These are more archetypes (as in archetypical roles) than anything to do with how they should fight.

I also disagree with the point your last paragraph makes, the fact that this was discussed and brought up means that there was at least some room for players to do what they wanted and that "role" wasn't enforced by class structure but instead was enforced by the DM's concept of it and what he felt fit the behavior of certain archetypes.




pemerton said:


> Presumably, though, many players - all those who played charitable NG thieves, for example, or cowardly and treacherous fighters - just ignored these guidelines (or hoped that their GMs would). The same players, playing 4e, are presumably capable of doing comparably imaginative things: the GM building combat encounters that will reward players for breaking from role expectation, or letting the player of the fighter take a STR bow attack as one of his/her at will powers.
> 
> We seem to have ended up in a situation where at least some people don't want the experience that the designers have built the game to deliver, and yet seem strangely reluctant to depart from that design.
> 
> ...




So your answer is houserule it. Well that seems no better, and alot more work, than play a different game. To each his own though. 

I'm curious... the designers have gone on record as basically stating the same thing I am claiming here about 4e's combat roles... The very people who design and developed the game recognize this as a problem. Yet you don't see it? 

The game is moving into an area where combat role is not hardcoded to class... but instead at the lower level of build selection (and with some classes like the Berserker not hardcoded at all). I honestly think it's a step in the right direction... maybe just too little too late though.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Nov 22, 2011)

Note that having "class skills' in any shape or form, is pushing certain roles--i.e. if you want to be nature boy, you better get a druid or ranger to start with, or be prepared to lose options elsewhere. To the extent that abilities are key to certain skills, this is also indirectly reinforced--though so haphazardly in the games where it matters, the effect is somewhat muted. 

On the class/combat role front being determinative, my experience is that this is less driven by rules than by the campaign style. Certainly, in 1st ed, with no options to speak of, you'd need house rules to allow certain morphing away from the expectations. (For example, we mistakenly allowed wizards to use short bows, but not long bows or crossbows in Basic, and liked the effect so much that we sometimes kept it as a house rule.) Even then, you could do a bit with magic items.

However, given some options in the rules, they only matter if the campaign will allow them to happen. If the campaign is heavy on the fighter being "the guy" that holds the line, all the time, then he will get the best armor and melee weapons the group will find, and will be expected to spend his options on doing that. He won't be using a crossbow much or a bag of tricks or spending a feat on Nature training or any other diversion. If the campaign backs away from that a bit, then the fighter will still mainly be holding the line and/or smacking things that try to cross it, but his diversions will be whatever interests that player and/or fit in his conception of the character.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, what edition are you talking about? That will make something of a difference. Because if you're playing 1e, where are you getting all these potions from? Unless the DM is tailoring the campaign to suit that group, you certainly can't rely on being able to do that.
> 
> And, of course you can tailor a campaign (cleric vs cleric campaign) to pretty much anything. But, that's going a bit far abroad. If I have to completely revamp what I use as a DM to customize the game to suit the choices of the player, that would tend to mean that the game isn't really supporting that style of play.
> 
> ...




The thing I find hillarious about this is that you just made a striker... not a defender.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, what edition are you talking about?  That will make something of a difference.  Because if you're playing 1e, where are you getting all these potions from?  Unless the DM is tailoring the campaign to suit that group, you certainly can't rely on being able to do that.
> 
> And, of course you can tailor a campaign (cleric vs cleric campaign) to pretty much anything.  But, that's going a bit far abroad.  If I have to completely revamp what I use as a DM to customize the game to suit the choices of the player, that would tend to mean that the game isn't really supporting that style of play.
> 
> ...




As far as 3e goes -

elf fighter 20 dex 14 str rapid shot, point blank shot, weapon specialization, compond bow - weapon finessed rapier for backup.

eventually you will multiclass that but it's a good base. They practically hit you over the head with that build. Buddy of mine did it and outstruck everybody. It was like having flurry of blows at a full BAB, forget about it.

In pathfinder I do something similar - I add quick draw to the mix and throw weapons to negate the need for a compound bow. when I need a magic launching system, there are spear launchers for that. That build allows me to be super flexible. I can switch to reach weapons or specialized combat maneuver weapons at will.

Are there better powergaming builds out there? Of course there are. But when you start powergaming to the exclusion of your own enjoyment you've already lost.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, what edition are you talking about?  That will make something of a difference.  Because if you're playing 1e, where are you getting all these potions from?  Unless the DM is tailoring the campaign to suit that group, you certainly can't rely on being able to do that.
> 
> And, of course you can tailor a campaign (cleric vs cleric campaign) to pretty much anything.  But, that's going a bit far abroad.  If I have to completely revamp what I use as a DM to customize the game to suit the choices of the player, that would tend to mean that the game isn't really supporting that style of play.
> 
> Not that you cannot do that, but, it's gets harder and harder out of the box.





To my mind, that only raises the question of what the game can do out of the box by design and what the game assumes it will support.  (Just a look at the 1E [since you mention that edition] random treasure tables potions are fairly common when magic is included.  I'll leave it to those who regularly play 1E to feel free to comment on how frequently they are available in modules.)  So, what you again seem to be saying is that in your experience Rich Baker's premise is correct that the last decade of design is less supportive of role-switching.




Hussar said:


> Let's try a little thought experiment.
> 
> Create an D&D character with 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste.  You roll and get one 18, and the other 5 rolls are 14 or less.  Now, you try to make a character with those roles.
> 
> ...





You seem to want to focus on a single class and suggest if you use a particular manner of character creation that supports your premise and under the conditions of playstyle (dungeons over outdoors, while trying to steer away from ranged and mounted combats) there is an optimal way to play that class toward a particular role.  Given the narrow parameters you accept for your premise, it is difficult to discuss.  


However, if we discuss this with Rich Baker's assertion being the only consideration and realize that in the last decade systems have moved further toward creating the mindset you seem to embrace then it's not hard to understand how he arrives at the conclusion.  As part of your thought experiement, take a look with fresh eyes at the number of things you take for granted in your example, from the method of ability score generation, the environments the characters will find themselves in, etc. and it seems to support Rich Baker's point.


Let me ask, are you assuming there are a certain number of players?  Are you assuming that certain character classes will need to be represented and in certain numbers for a given group?  Your use of the word "tailored" above seems to suggest your premise(s) includes design mindset ideals of the last decade or so.  These are assumptions also made in design over about the last decade or so.  It's not uncommon prior to the last decade or so for groups to be larger, sometimes much larger, than 3-5 players and for campaigns.  While one player might wish to optimize for melee combat if they had an 18 to put into one of their ability scores, there might be several (or more) fighters in a group and given that many campaigns spent as much time out of dungeons as in, or even rarely went into dungeons, ranged and mounted combat were of greater importance.  But you sweep all of that aside as if they are not even a consideration for your thought experiment and that, again, seems to support Rich Baker's premise regarding how "roles" have become codified in the last decade or so.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Let's try a little thought experiment.
> 
> Create an D&D character with 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste.  You roll and get one 18, and the other 5 rolls are 14 or less.  Now, you try to make a character with those roles.
> 
> ...




Is this codifying in a particular role? Or is it just dangling a very nice carrot in front of you that you can't pass it up? How does that track with a cleric who gets ahold of gauntlets of ogre power?

Now another thought experiment. Suppose you didn't roll an 18 (only a 1.6% chance after all) and the highest score you got was a 17? That melee carrot isn't quite as appealing compared to the ranged options. Now how much does the class determine your role between the fighting style options?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 22, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The thing I find hillarious about this is that you just made a striker... not a defender.




Not too surprising since previous editions provided no mechanical class ability to defend. All you really had was tactical positioning. Someone mentioned upthread that there was something similar to OA in 1E, but I don't even remember playing with that rule. So basically they redefined the fighter into multiple classes. I don't really understand peoples' hangup on the naming convention, but obviously it is an issue for some.



Tayne said:


> As far as 3e goes -
> 
> elf fighter 20 dex 14 str rapid shot, point blank shot, weapon specialization, compond bow - weapon finessed rapier for backup.




And what armor was best for this elven fighter? Light or Heavy?



Mark CMG said:


> So, what you again seem to be saying is that in your experience Rich Baker's premise is correct that the last decade of design is less supportive of role-switching.




With the example of the potion-administering fighter? No. I think the post-AD&D supports that more by suggesting characters be able to purchase magical items more freely. 

Outside of that specicfic example: Recently in my own game the defender stepped out of his role to use the Heal skill on the fallen leader to revive him instead of just swinging his sword. Many fighters can be built for effective battlefield control. And many fighters, before the advent of the Slayer, fulfilled the role of striker through weapon and feat choices. Most of the classes had secondary roles that they were competent in from the start of the edition. 




Mark CMG said:


> Let me ask, are you assuming there are a certain number of players?  Are you assuming that certain character classes will need to be represented and in certain numbers for a given group?  Your use of the word "tailored" above seems to suggest your premise(s) includes design mindset ideals of the last decade or so.  These are assumptions also made in design over about the last decade or so.  It's not uncommon prior to the last decade or so for groups to be larger, sometimes much larger, than 3-5 players and for campaigns.  While one player might wish to optimize for melee combat if they had an 18 to put into one of their ability scores, there might be several (or more) fighters in a group and given that many campaigns spent as much time out of dungeons as in, or even rarely went into dungeons, ranged and mounted combat were of greater importance.  But you sweep all of that aside as if they are not even a consideration for your thought experiment and that, again, seems to support Rich Baker's premise regarding how "roles" have become codified in the last decade or so.




In my group its was always deemed that someone "had" to play a thief and another a cleric, as those were the only two classes that could, respectively, find/disarm/unlock and heal. Currently one character might spot the traps, another disarms/unlocks (not always a rogue, last time it was the warlock), and any leader can heal without "forcing" the player into cleric. Our campaigns seem to spend as much time in and out o dungeons as they always have. My experience has definitely been in the camp of the roles always having existed in one form or another.



billd91 said:


> Is this codifying in a particular role? Or is it just dangling a very nice carrot in front of you that you can't pass it up? How does that track with a cleric who gets ahold of gauntlets of ogre power?




This is definitely a change from prior editions. If you've chosen to build a cleric that relies on ranged attacks, finding a powerful melee weapon will not appeal to the character and would most likely end up in the hands of another character, magic items are certainly more tailored to specific users (which I'm not the biggest fan of either). But again, this seems to be an example of roles changing based on items found, similar to Mark's example of the potion-administering fighter. It's not really based on the choice of the player but instead the whim of the DM or luck of random treasure tables.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The fact that your Wizard "plinks" away with magic missile and that you even recognize this as suboptimal and a "Very poor man's striker" supports my point.



How so? Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but I thought your point was that 4e players are coerced into a narrow range of activities. I have a player who does not feel coerced in this way.



Imaro said:


> Which is a much broader and rather all-encompassing level than previous editions forced it at... thus the loss of flexibility and adaptability for classes.



I'm still unclear - are you talking about adaptability in build, or in play? If you're talking about adaptability in build, I agree but don't care - it's no skin of my nose whether the important build choices are made after choosing a "class" or by choosing a "class".

If you mean adaptability in play, I don't think 4e play is as narrow as you contend - witness the wizard PC I mention above, or the drow sorcerer who from time-to-time holds the front line. Nor do I think that earlier editions in play were as broad as you contend - anything from weapon proficiency choice, to equipment options, to spell choices made by other members of the party, operated to narrow the viable range of options for any given PC.



Imaro said:


> So will this all break down now as builds that don't share the same combat role as their class (Slayer, Blackguard, etc.) are introduced... or even moreso builds like the berserker that allow one to switch combat role in the middle of combat? Somehow I doubt it



I agree, although some builds - like the Binder Warlock - just seem ill-conceived. But these sub-classes are mostly just more classes with some overlapping utility powers. They are still focused builds - a Slayer can't defend anymore than a PHB Fighter can strike.

I've got nothing against the lists getting longer. If the focus of each element on the list gets lost, though, then quality play _will_ be undermined.



Imaro said:


> The game is moving into an area where combat role is not hardcoded to class... but instead at the lower level of build selection (and with some classes like the Berserker not hardcoded at all). I honestly think it's a step in the right direction



Whereas I don't see this as any different in substance, other than marginal things like sharing utility powers and the like. I mean, suppose Slayer had been a seperate class, with the overlapping utility powers duplicated in its power list. The PC build options would be identical. The game would play identically. Making it a sub-class rather than a class has no effect except the efficiency gains from utility power and feat sharing. It doesn't provide any more flexibility in terms of building or playing your PC.



Imaro said:


> the designers have gone on record as basically stating the same thing I am claiming here about 4e's combat roles... The very people who design and developed the game recognize this as a problem. Yet you don't see it?



The problem I've taken them to be concerned about is the "wall of powers" design - to which sub-classes are one solution. Are they concerned about having produced PC build rules that guarantee PCs with focused rather than generic expertise, thereby making a distinctive contribution to the tactical combat aspect of the game? I haven't seen that concern expressed, but maybe I've missed it.



Imaro said:


> the fact that this was discussed and brought up means that there was at least some room for players to do what they wanted and that "role" wasn't enforced by class structure but instead was enforced by the DM's concept of it and what he felt fit the behavior of certain archetypes.



Well, that's one way of describing a game where (i) the aim of play is, in part at least, to gain level, and (ii) the GM has unilateral control over the sort of play that will earn those levels. I would say - if the GM is applying the rules of the book, and you play a cowardly fighter or a charitable thief, then you're hosed. (Although you may not _know_ that you're hosed for some time, depending how "gotcha" your GM's approach is.)

I don't see this as any less coercive than a ruleset that says - here's one thing you can do pretty well (namely, raise the effective AC of your allies by marking), here's one other thing you don't do very well (shoot arrows), now choose which one you want to have your PC do.



Imaro said:


> So your answer is houserule it. Well that seems no better, and alot more work, than play a different game. To each his own though.



Well, to make a cowardly fighter, or a charitable rogue, viable in AD&D a group had to houserule - that is, the GM had to ignore the rules on level training.

Introducing a STR archery at will for a fighter PC strikes me as houseruling at the same level of difficulty ie none.

Letting an archer-ranger wear chain armour rather than Hide (perhaps via a free feat, perhaps with the feat granted in lieu of the Nature skill) strikes me as another houserule at the same level of difficulty. (And if your archer-ranger takes the two-weapon build rather than the archer build in order to get Toughness for free, the only thing you're giving up is the opportunity to take Battlefield Archer when you get to 11th level.)

Or build your armoured archer as a warlord.

I'm just not seeing these tremendous obstacles in the way of these various mooted character concepts.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 23, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But again, this seems to be an example of roles changing based on items found, similar to Mark's example of the potion-administering fighter. It's not really based on the choice of the player but instead the whim of the DM or luck of random treasure tables.




That is, until you realize that it's *the players* who decide how to use those items and not the DM or the random tables. Healing items - give them to the cleric and nobody gets to change roles. Give them to someone else who can use them, now you've got player choice deciding who is playing what roles.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 23, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And what armor was best for this elven fighter? Light or Heavy?




Light, what with the high max dex on light armor and all

Can't wait to see where you're going with this.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 23, 2011)

billd91 said:


> That is, until you realize that it's *the players* who decide how to use those items and not the DM or the random tables. Healing items - give them to the cleric and nobody gets to change roles. Give them to someone else who can use them, now you've got player choice deciding who is playing what roles.




Based on the examples given by MarkCMG, how do you think this has changed over time? Do other editions take the decision out of the players' hands and put it into the hands of the DM? Or are items merely a carrot on a stick for those who could best use them?



Tayne said:


> Light, what with the high max dex on light armor and all
> 
> Can't wait to see where you're going with this.




I agree with you that this was a common bow fighter build in 3E. Do you believe that this concept has disappeared in the lastest edition?


----------



## Tayne (Nov 23, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I agree with you that this was a common bow fighter build in 3E. Do you believe that this concept has disappeared in the lastest edition?



If I can jump ahead a few steps, are you saying classes AREN'T actually tied inextricably from the roles they've been assigned?

If so, Rich Baker disagrees... (see below)


----------



## Imaro (Nov 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The problem I've taken them to be concerned about is the "wall of powers" design - to which sub-classes are one solution. Are they concerned about having produced PC build rules that guarantee PCs with focused rather than generic expertise, thereby making a distinctive contribution to the tactical combat aspect of the game? I haven't seen that concern expressed, but maybe I've missed it.




I take it you don't read rule of 3 then...

*In the last Rule of Three, you talked a little about roles existing in earlier editions but being codified in 4E. How do you think having these roles has affected the game? Is there anything you would change or anything you've learned from this design choice? *

...One more lesson learned: It's harder to customize a character or play against type when the class is built to serve a specific role. If you want to build a wizard who behaves like a striker by putting out a ton of damage on a single target, you can't really do it; you need to build a warlock instead. Similarly, if you want to build an axe-throwing fighter, you'll find that the fighter offers darned few ranged weapon powers; it's hard to make the fighter into a character who fights well at range. You have to create that character by figuring out which class makes that concept work (slayer or ranger, perhaps) and call yourself an axe fighter while using the chassis provided by a class in the "proper" role.* Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all.*

Now is this the part where you tell us that even the designers and developers of the game are confused about their thoughts and 4e because of presentation or something like that?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 23, 2011)

Tayne said:


> If I can jump ahead a few steps, are you saying classes AREN'T actually tied inextricably from the roles they've been assigned?




No, I was not speaking to that subject. I wanted to know if you believe the elven archer character you gave an example of exists or does not exist in the current ruleset. Other than the class name changing from Fighter to Ranger, some fluff regarding nature warrior that the system suggests you re-envision to your needs, and two bonus skills over the Fighter, what has changed from your example of the elven fighter archer?

Fighter Skill choices: Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Streetwise (Cha).

Ranger Skill choices: Acrobatics (Dex), Athletics (Str), Dungeoneering (Wis), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Nature (Wis), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dex).

The ranger does lose Intimidate over his previous edition counterpart. He also loses access to Streetwise, which the previous edition fighter did not have as a class skill. He picks up access to Perception ove his previous edition counterpart, which is useful for ranged combatants. And even if you hate the notion of forced Dungeoneering or Nature you can safely ignore the chosen skill in protest and still be one up on the fighter.

The ranger also loses some durability in the form of lower hit points, which is mitigated by not being on the front line. It also mirrors your example of your elven archer fighter whose hit points suffer from low Constitution.

Has the archetype you describe changed to the point where you believe it no longer exists in the current system?

As to your inferred question: No, I believe there is overlap in the roles. You choose a concept at character creation that decides what your main role in combat will be. But situations, feats chosen, powers chosen, and magic items found or bought, can all help you fill other roles.


----------



## Tayne (Nov 23, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> No, I was not speaking to that subject. I wanted to know if you believe the elven archer character you gave an example of exists or does not exist in the current ruleset. Other than the class name changing from Fighter to Ranger, some fluff regarding nature warrior that the system suggests you re-envision to your needs, and two bonus skills over the Fighter, what has changed from your example of the elven fighter archer?
> 
> Fighter Skill choices: Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Streetwise (Cha).
> 
> ...




So you're asking me if I think archers still exist in 4E?

Yeah, I'm sure archers exist in 4E.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> ... it's hard to make the fighter into a character who fights well at range. You have to create that character by figuring out which class makes that concept work (slayer or ranger, perhaps) and call yourself an axe fighter while using the chassis provided by a class in the "proper" role.




I see this argument often, and I always wonder, "So what?"

"What's in a name?  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."  Who cares whether the class name is specifically F-I-G-H-T-E-R?  Does it do what you want?  You can fight, you can uses axes, you can toss them around effectively and impressively? Yes?  Then what's the issue?  

There's a legitimate issue in that sometimes the thing you want to do isn't represented by any current class.   But that you cannot make a thing that happens to be named in the rules as "fighter" that does what you want I think is a weak critique indeed.  

There's a second-order critique that folks who are just starting out will have their ideas kind of pigeon-holed for a while, I suppose.  That's a theoretical problem that I haven't seen be a major issue in practice, myself - I find gamers to be far too free-willed and creative to be stuck in ruts for long.  I'd like to see someone present more than anecdote that it is a major issue with the design.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I see this argument often, and I always wonder, "So what?"
> 
> "What's in a name?  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."  Who cares whether the class name is specifically F-I-G-H-T-E-R?  Does it do what you want?  Yes?  Then what's the issue?
> 
> ...




Because maybe he doesn't want to be a ranger? Maybe the paladin doesn't want to be an avenger?

Sure, you can reskin, but that's about as satisfying an answer as house-ruling other design issues you don't agree with. Individuals can and should do it, but nobody really likes messageboarders recommending it when the issue is raised as a reason the game doesn't agree with us.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 23, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Because maybe he doesn't want to be a ranger? Maybe the paladin doesn't want to be an avenger?
> 
> Sure, you can reskin, but that's about as satisfying an answer as house-ruling other design issues you don't agree with. Individuals can and should do it, but nobody really likes messageboarders recommending it when the issue is raised as a reason the game doesn't agree with us.




My point would be that there is a major difference between reskinning and house-ruling. Reskinning is a creative process that I believe should be imbraced. In past editions I had to imagine my character as a nordic barbarian, in the current edition I might have to imagine my ranger as a fighter archer. Often, as long as you are not changing fundamental truths about the setting or creating story elements that don't fit the ton of the game, a player should not, IMO, be cut off creatively from making the character concept he wants within the rules.

House-ruling changes the rules of the game and should only occur with approval from the DM. Changing Magic Missile to key its attack and damage off of another statistic holds rules ramifications. Changing your character's magic missiles to rabid pink bunny rabbits has no effect of the rules (although obviously many would balk at the tone).

Me deciding that my 3E Barbarian is actually a noble-born city-dweller who summons the strength of his dragon-blood heritage does not change any rules related to the 3E Barbarian, but it gives me the concept I envision for my character. This is not hyperbole or a thought exercise, this is a real-world example of what I'm referring to.

It's frustrating for those of us who suggest it too. I honestly don't understand why when someone says "I can't do X with my character" and another person suggests a plausible alternative that people react so negatively. I understand that this is most likely one issue out of many that you do not prefer the system that I do, but I do enjoy positing solutions to the problem even if I know in the bigger pictre that you most likely have other reasons you've decided to play another system. I'm not trying to convert anyone and never would, but I can focus on solutions to particular problems. If nothing else I'm sharing my ideas that maybe someelse can poach no matter what system they play. I've certainly picked up on ideas from ENWorlders who play various editions and games.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I'd like to see someone present more than anecdote that it is a major issue with the design.






Rich Baker brought it up in his column as problematic.  Building your "role" right out of the box, rather than waiting until a class is released that is designed to it, seems like an objective they are exploring.  This thread is for the discussion of that and people are welcome to discuss it annecdotally, theoretically, or any way they please that doesn't violate board policies, no matter whether you think their opinions are "legitimate" or "weak" or any other pejorative you wish to toss around.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I see this argument often, and I always wonder, "So what?"
> 
> "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Who cares whether the class name is specifically F-I-G-H-T-E-R? Does it do what you want? You can fight, you can uses axes, you can toss them around effectively and impressively? Yes? Then what's the issue?




It's not just a name though. There are weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, skills, powers, class abilities, hit points, healing surges, etc. all tied up in "class".




Umbran said:


> There's a legitimate issue in that sometimes the thing you want to do isn't represented by any current class. But that you cannot make a thing that happens to be named in the rules as "fighter" that does what you want I think is a weak critique indeed.




You are definitely entitled to your opinion... though I think it's a pretty strong critique if you were able to do this in previous editions of D&D... moreso it was a strong enough ctritique to be brought up and admitted in a Rule of Three article. But YMMV of course. 



Umbran said:


> There's a second-order critique that folks who are just starting out will have their ideas kind of pigeon-holed for a while, I suppose. That's a theoretical problem that I haven't seen be a major issue in practice, myself - I find gamers to be far too free-willed and creative to be stuck in ruts for long. I'd like to see someone present more than anecdote that it is a major issue with the design.




How can someone present more than anecdote? We're all dealing in anecdotes... now again there is the admission of the 4e developers/designers that this is a problem in Rule of Three but beyond people's anedotal evidence and the designer/developers commentary... what more can be provided to pass youre test?


----------



## Mallus (Nov 23, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Because maybe he doesn't want to be a ranger? Maybe the paladin doesn't want to be an avenger?



Maybe I don't want to game with people so persnickety so as to get hung up on the label used for their package of mechanical abilities. Wait, change that to "definitely". 



> Sure, you can reskin, but that's about as satisfying an answer as house-ruling other design issues you don't agree with.



It's a house rule to call something in the game's fiction by a different name than the one used in the rule books? 

So calling a fighter something other than fighter, say "person-at-arms", or "armiger" or "brigand", or "bravo", or "sell-sword" is a faux pas? Doesn't this imply the RAW nomenclature should apply to all campaign settings, and not just as metagame terms, but used throughout the in-game fiction as well?

Otherwise, what's the big deal using Avergers to represent a order of paladins, or as a specific member of a paladin order?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 23, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My point would be that there is a major difference between reskinning and house-ruling. Reskinning is a creative process that I believe should be imbraced. In past editions I had to imagine my character as a nordic barbarian, in the current edition I might have to imagine my ranger as a fighter archer. Often, as long as you are not changing fundamental truths about the setting or creating story elements that don't fit the ton of the game, a player should not, IMO, be cut off creatively from making the character concept he wants within the rules.




See this is where I'm getting a little confused... 

Imagining your "character" as a nordic barbarian vs. making a ranger when what you want is a character with the hit points, healing surges and skills of a fighter isn't just a matter of reskinning, it has real mechanical effects outside of your combat role. Again there is a lot tied up in class and by attaching combat role to it in 4e they just added one more thing your class dictates... which means less flexibility and less customization. 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> House-ruling changes the rules of the game and *should only occur with approval from the DM*. Changing Magic Missile to key its attack and damage off of another statistic holds rules ramifications. Changing your character's magic missiles to rabid pink bunny rabbits has no effect of the rules (although obviously many would balk at the tone).




Emphasis mine: This is why I find permeton's houserule it all solution unsatisfactory.

As to the rest of this paragraph... we are very much talking houseruling because reskinning different classes doesn't give you other things tied up in them. If I'm looking to make a fighter class archer then I am very much looking to create an archer that has greater durability, wider range of armor, no woodland skills or associations, fighter skills, etc.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Me deciding that my 3E Barbarian is actually a noble-born city-dweller who summons the strength of his dragon-blood heritage does not change any rules related to the 3E Barbarian, but it gives me the concept I envision for my character. This is not hyperbole or a thought exercise, this is a real-world example of what I'm referring to.




So wait, your "noble-born", "city-dweller" has the following as class skills...
Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str). 

I guess you could squint really hard and come up with some reason he's missing alot of the skills most people would consider trademarks of being born in the city or as a noble... though it's definitely not the skill set I would have pictured for him... Diplomacy, Knowledge(anything), Sense Motive, Speak Language, Profession. Of course since 3.x is a little more flexible picking a different class to represent him won't necessarily dictate your combat role as well.  Which is the point that seems to be getting lost in the archer vs. melee fighter debate.  It's not about weapon, but about combat role.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It's frustrating for those of us who suggest it too. I honestly don't understand why when someone says "I can't do X with my character" and another person suggests a plausible alternative that people react so negatively. I understand that this is most likely one issue out of many that you do not prefer the system that I do, but I do enjoy positing solutions to the problem even if I know in the bigger pictre that you most likely have other reasons you've decided to play another system. I'm not trying to convert anyone and never would, but I can focus on solutions to particular problems. If nothing else I'm sharing my ideas that maybe someelse can poach no matter what system they play. I've certainly picked up on ideas from ENWorlders who play various editions and games.




Because what you consider "plausible" isn't to some people... why is that so hard to understand. Your Barbarian above is not, IMO, a plausible solution for creating a city-dweller, noble-born, character... no matter how much you "reskin" the Barbarian. The ranger, IMO, is not a plausible hard-as-nails, mercenary archer who grew up in the tent towns of a major city. No matter how much you reskin him. They have actual mechanics that work against the concept.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Maybe I don't want to game with people so persnickety so as to get hung up on the label used for their package of mechanical abilities. Wait, change that to "definitely".




Who in this thread asked you to?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> It's a house rule to call something in the game's fiction by a different name than the one used in the rule books?




That's in no way what he stated... he stated that it's as satisfying an answer as telling someone to houserule it.



Mallus said:


> So calling a fighter something other than fighter, say "person-at-arms", or "armiger" or "brigand", or "bravo", or "sell-sword" is a faux pas? Doesn't this imply the RAW nomenclature should apply to all campaign settings, and not just as metagame terms, but used throughout the in-game fiction as well?




Who claimed this?



Mallus said:


> Otherwise, what's the big deal using Avergers to represent a order of paladins, or as a specific member of a paladin order?




Because an Avenger doesn't wear heavy armor, has less hit points and healing surges than a Paladin, different weapon and armor proficiencies, different skills, no lay on hands, etc, etc.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Who in this thread asked you to?



Heh... perhaps I was being a little snarky. I'll rephrase.

What is the tangible benefit of maintaining a direct correspondence between a metagame class term and its name within the game narrative?

Can a DM rename paladins "Chevaliers du Orlais" in their homebrew?

If so, can they use Avengers to represent (some or all) of them?

What about swashbucklers? Should they be fighters? Rogues? Their own distinct class?

How much does nomenclature matter? Why does it matter? 

Feel free to answer any of this. But if you're going to respond with snark or wit, at least try to _funny_.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Heh... perhaps I was being a little snarky. I'll rephrase.
> 
> What is the tangible benefit of maintaining a direct correspondence between a metagame class term and its name within the game narrative?
> 
> ...




I'll try to _funny_...


----------



## Mallus (Nov 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> That's in no way what he stated... he stated that it's as satisfying an answer as telling someone to houserule it.



If you aren't willing to be a flexible when it comes to the rules presented, you're bound to meet with dissatisfaction. 



> Who claimed this?



Is this kerfluffle about using a _ranger_ to represent a _fighter good with a bow_? ie an argument about terminology? If not, my apologies. 



> Because an Avenger doesn't wear heavy armor, has less hit points and healing surges than a Paladin, different weapon and armor proficiencies, different skills, no lay on hands, etc, etc.



You're focusing on the mechanics, I'm focusing on the fiction. 

Yes, they're mechanically different. But they're thematically --fictionally-- quite similar (both holy warriors). So I don't see the difficulty in using the Avenger class to represent a paladin. Or a ranger to represent a longbow fighter.

Classes aren't _things_ in my settings (a "knight" be a fighter or a paladin, class-wise. A "wizard" could be an invoker). They're simply provide mechanical descriptors for the fiction. They don't override it.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 23, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'll try to _funny_...



See? It's easy. I did it by accident!


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> If you aren't willing to be a flexible when it comes to the rules presented, you're bound to meet with dissatisfaction.





Rich Baker brings up the discussion point in the article regarding the inflexibility in the rules themselves and the dissatisfaction that engenders but you're contending that the problem is the inflexibility not of the rules but of the consumer of the rules that spawns the dissatisfaction?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Rich Baker brings up the discussion point in the article regarding the inflexibility in the rules themselves and the dissatisfaction that engenders but you're contending that the problem is the inflexibility not of the rules but of the consumer of the rules that spawns the dissatisfaction?




I'm not Mallus, but, yes, I'd say 100% yes.  It's some people's entrenched ideas and completely unwillingness to entertain any change from those ideas that is causing the problem.

As Mallus said, does it really matter if you "archer fighter" is classed as a ranger?  I'd say no.  The concept is "guy who uses a bow".  Classing him as a fighter, putting him in plate mail and giving him all these melee combat abilities doesn't really speak to that archetype.

My problem with Rich Baker's ideas is that this is something new.  Players have always found a combat role for their character, and that combat role was generally hard wired into the class.  Bill91 brought up the role of mounted warrior.  Now, D&D never really has had a mounted warrior class, although the AD&D Cavalier does come pretty close.  But, in any edition of the game, making a mounted warrior is ridiculously easy.  Take any class that can use either a bow or a lance (or both) and stick him on a horse.

He's a mounted warrior.  In 3e, you might up that focus with feats, in 4e, there is a single feat for gaining focus on mounted combat.  AD&D, AFAIK, didn't actually really have anything for mounted warriors.

But, then again, is "mounted warrior" a role in the sense of 4e's definition of role?  Not really.  That's not what the roles mean.  Role, in the 4e definition of it, simply outlines what a given class is best at in combat.  A striker does lots of damage but is a glass cannon.  Defender is a tank.

Tayne above talks about an elf archer as something he could easily build and be very effective in 3e.  I agree.  (note, in my own example that he goes off of, I was speaking to earlier editions)  But, in 4e, that exact, identical character is now called a ranger, because the defender role was never particularly mechanically supported.  

Does it matter that the elf archer's class is ranger instead of fighter?  How does it make any difference?


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'm not Mallus, but, yes, I'd say 100% yes.  It's some people's entrenched ideas and completely unwillingness to entertain any change from those ideas that is causing the problem.
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> My problem with Rich Baker's ideas is that this is something new. Players have always found a combat role for their character, and that combat role was generally hard wired into the class.





It seems like Rich Baker is suggesting something new, something much more freeform in building characters, that has never been a part of D&D (and it seems a 180 from the last decade, which naturally stems from his premise).  Is it your contention that people arguing against divorcing "role" from character build to a more freeform approach are the problem?  Or are you saying that people arguing against the people arguing against the change are the problem?  I may not be understanding your position.


----------



## mxyzplk (Nov 24, 2011)

As this interminable thread clearly shows, roles have had the same effect that alignments have had on D&D - largely negative.  Sure, they could be used as loose descriptions and not straitjackets.  But by their nature they generate these arguments about "what is X" and "is person Y really a X" and "you're not playing a X right" and "you are class Z so you must be a X..." It's all BS. In practice it is used as prescriptive, not descriptive, mechanic.  So much time and effort has been wasted on the pointless arguing about alignment for 4 editions and roles for 1, let's just stop it.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 24, 2011)

Mallus said:


> It's a house rule to call something in the game's fiction by a different name than the one used in the rule books?
> 
> So calling a fighter something other than fighter, say "person-at-arms", or "armiger" or "brigand", or "bravo", or "sell-sword" is a faux pas? Doesn't this imply the RAW nomenclature should apply to all campaign settings, and not just as metagame terms, but used throughout the in-game fiction as well?
> 
> Otherwise, what's the big deal using Avergers to represent a order of paladins, or as a specific member of a paladin order?




Calling it by another name a house rule? Depends. Words have meaning. There are a lot of players out there for whom "paladin" has a meaning utterly incompatible with the 4e conception of the avenger.

But it's usually not just the name. What else do you usually have to change? Class skills? Description? And why are we focusing our characters around combat roles in the first place? The ranger had always been a lot more than a combat archetype. Why is it now relegated to a 'striker' combat archetype?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 24, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Calling it by another name a house rule? Depends. Words have meaning. There are a lot of players out there for whom "paladin" has a meaning utterly incompatible with the 4e conception of the avenger.
> 
> But it's usually not just the name. What else do you usually have to change? Class skills? Description? And why are we focusing our characters around combat roles in the first place? The ranger had always been a lot more than a combat archetype. Why is it now relegated to a 'striker' combat archetype?




Because it's not?

A ranger's role in combat is striker.  That's what role means in 4e.  Combat only.  However, everything that you could do with a ranger outside of combat, you can still do in 4e.  All the nature bunny stuff and woodsy stuff is still there.

However, as this thread shows, people equate combat role with character archtype, which is simply a misreading of how 4e actually defines role.

----------

MarkCMG - the above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  The problem isn't that the roles have been codified.  In my mind, that's simply recognizing what has always been there.  The problem is, people read, "striker" and presume that that's the sum total of the character.  

But, that's their fault.  Perhaps it could be explained better, but, honestly, I don't think so.  I mean, page 15 of the 4e PHB says this:



			
				4e PHB P 15 said:
			
		

> Each character class specializes in one of four basic functions *in combat*: control and area offense, defense, healing and support and focused offense.  The roles embodied by these funcitons are controller, defender, leader and striker. (bold and underline mine)




How much more plain can they put it?  Nothing in that says the slightest about what the character does outside of combat.  The only thing that role entails is what the character does best in combat.  Note, that it's also not the only thing it can do in combat, just what it's best at.

The problem isn't a case of wanting more freeform character generation (in which case earlier editions are FAR more guilty of limitations on what your character can be) nor is it arguing against change.

The entire problem stems from a misreading of what role actually means.  Role defines your specialization in combat.  That is the long and the short of it.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Throughout this thread, people have tried to conflate role with archetype and they are not the same thing in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 24, 2011)

mxyzplk said:


> As this interminable thread clearly shows, roles have had the same effect that alignments have had on D&D - largely negative.  Sure, they could be used as loose descriptions and not straitjackets.  But by their nature they generate these arguments about "what is X" and "is person Y really a X" and "you're not playing a X right" and "you are class Z so you must be a X..." It's all BS. In practice it is used as prescriptive, not descriptive, mechanic.  So much time and effort has been wasted on the pointless arguing about alignment for 4 editions and roles for 1, let's just stop it.




I would point out there there is a significant difference between the alignment debates and this one.

In the alignment debates, the disagreement is fueled almost entirely because the game designers are trying to define the indefinable - what is good and evil.  The definitions that we do have are vague, easily interpreted multiple ways and often self contradictory which quickly leads to all sorts of disagreement.

OTOH, in this case, we have a clear definition of Role given that people can point to and make concrete statements about.  The difference here is that people are ignoring that actual defined terms in favour of their own ideas which aren't actually linked to the defined terms.  Archetype and role are not the same thing, at least, not as 4e defines combat role.

It's that mistake that is fueling this discussion.


----------



## LurkAway (Nov 24, 2011)

Umbran said:


> "What's in a name?  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."



What's in a name like "Shakespeare"? Or is it just the name of an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?



> Who cares whether the class name is specifically F-I-G-H-T-E-R?  Does it do what you want?  You can fight, you can uses axes, you can toss them around effectively and impressively? Yes?  Then what's the issue?
> 
> There's a legitimate issue in that sometimes the thing you want to do isn't represented by any current class.   But that you cannot make a thing that happens to be named in the rules as "fighter" that does what you want I think is a weak critique indeed.
> 
> There's a second-order critique that folks who are just starting out will have their ideas kind of pigeon-holed for a while, I suppose.  That's a theoretical problem that I haven't seen be a major issue in practice, myself - I find gamers to be far too free-willed and creative to be stuck in ruts for long.  I'd like to see someone present more than anecdote that it is a major issue with the design.



My two cents:

Terms are evocative, there's no way getting around it.

For example, vampires mean garlic and no reflection and fear of  sunlight. So then a new vampire series comes out and the author must  face the fact that somebody, somewhere is going to wonder why my  vampires sparkle in sunlight. Thus the author wisely throws in a fluff  explanation that fear of sunlight is just a half-true old  wives' tale. (I googled that, BTW, I swear I didn't read any of them).

To ignore all that is to be ignorant of meanings attached to words.

I think "healing surges" (vs just "surges"), "bloodied" and other bits  of terminology in 4E, including some class titles, seem to me to be  naive of the meanings they can evoke vs what the rule actually  encompass. Can you really blame somebody for being thrown off by a term like "healing" surge, when it can easily and frequently be fluffed as renewed confidence?

Since Basic D&D, I always thought that classes could translate  somewhat into the fiction. A Thief was a thief (in a dungeon), a Fighter  was some sort of warrior (in a dungeon), a Magic User was a boring  generic word to describe a mage/wizard (in a dungeon). So the terminology  itself may not exactly appear in-game (not "Hello, I'm Bob, the  Fighter), but the meaning of the word did carry over. And I think this  extended all the way to 3E.

BTW, class titles are also inconsistent in their meanings. Arguably, a Cleric and a Warlock actually mean something tangible in the fiction, but an Avenger is only a metagame term?

You can educate the older gamers that a 4E class name is  not necessarily an in-game concept that should straightjacket your roleplaying, but why naively fault those gamers for  attaching valid meanings to words. Those meanings were true in D&D, are still  true in various systems, and might be true in D&D again one day.


----------



## Hassassin (Nov 24, 2011)

Maybe the classes should be named generically, like "Ranged Striker Class" and "Arcane Controller Class". Then the player could pick a class or classes and apply the label they want to their character.

Just thinking aloud here...


----------



## Imaro (Nov 24, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Heh... perhaps I was being a little snarky. I'll rephrase.




Yeah, you kinda were... for no reason. 



Mallus said:


> What is the tangible benefit of maintaining a direct correspondence between a metagame class term and its name within the game narrative?




Well for most people it easily serves as shorthand for an overarching and high level character concept... I wanna play a holy warrior in shining armor... paladin. I want to play a hunter or tracker... Ranger. A wielder of arcane spells and knowledge... Wizard. A stealthy thief and ne'er do well... rogue. And so on.

I guess my question to you is why have these names even been used and why do they have specific fiction attached to them in the game books if all they are suppose to be are packages of abilities? It seems if they are to be flavor neutral... you wouldn't attach specific narratives to the classes. As an example the narrative for a warlock is different from that of a wizard... so why do this if really all a warlock is suppose to be is a "striker" wizard? Why include the narrative of him having made a pact with some entity instead of learning from spellbooks... why include specifc beings that he can make pacts with... and so on if he's just a package of arcane striker abilities? Recent editions (at least from BECMI onward)the books have never supported the classes being just a grouping of abilities with no attached narrative or fiction.



Mallus said:


> Can a DM rename paladins "Chevaliers du Orlais" in their homebrew?




I don't see why not... though I would still tell PC's that this is an order of paladins since that in and of itself sets up on a high level what this oprder is about. Or would you just present this name and not explain what type of class they are composed of?



Mallus said:


> If so, can they use Avengers to represent (some or all) of them?




If it's all of them...then I would argue that they are an order of avengers and it's actually misleading to claim they are paladins... isn't it? 

Stealthy, lightly armored, holy assasins are the picture that the narrative in the book and the class abilities of the avenger paint. I know if you told me they were an order of paladins or even holy warriors as opposed to holy assasins...I think I would be expecting one thing (expectations I would argue are backed up by the fiction in the gamebooks as well as the mechanics) and would be irritated when I finally realized that none of that applied and I should have instead been reading the avenger entry as opposed to the paladin or even cleric entry.

A mixed order, on the other hand... I would read over both and pick the archetype that most closely fit my concept, either holy warrior or holy assasin. 

Of course the problem here is what we have been discussing... I'm not just picking the archetype that matches my concept best... I also have to deal with combat role being specifically attached to the archetype. So I can't enjoy the gameplay of a striker but want to play the heavily armored holy knight that strides forth and cuts down his enemies. Instead in picking that archetype I've also made the choice that my gameplay in combat will be defending, not striking. 



Mallus said:


> What about swashbucklers? Should they be fighters? Rogues? Their own distinct class?




In 3.5 there was a swashbuckler class...



Mallus said:


> How much does nomenclature matter? Why does it matter?




I would say it matters as much as the game makes it matter... and the fact that specific narratives and fiction are attached to classes in D&D... has made it pretty important. Now if there was just a name and a listing of abilities I could somewhat understand your argument (and I have games that do this), but D&D has never been like that, there has always been story and narrative as well as defining mechanics attached to class. You can change that if you want, but then you are going against the baseline expectations of the game set in the PHB. Nothing wrong with that at all if that's your thing but I think you then need to inform your players on what the chnage is to the fiction and narrative (and class mechanics if you change that as well) otherwise they come to the table with the expectations that have been set by the books. 



Mallus said:


> Feel free to answer any of this. But if you're going to respond with snark or wit, at least try to _funny_.




Don't see the point of snark.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 24, 2011)

But, Imaro, when some people will simply ignore the stated definitions of terms in favor of whatever they feel like a word should mean, does that mean we should simply abandon any attempt to break away from particular connotations?

I mean, isn't this just the old warlord debates with a funny moustache and a new pair of glasses?  "Oh noes, we can't have warlords in the game because warlord has real world meanings and people will be so confused" was essentially how the argument went.  Never minding that the meanings of words like Druid and Paladin are many, MANY miles away from the D&D classes that have those names.  Never mind the poor Monk.  Isn't a Monk someone who lives in a cloister and copies scrolls for a living?  Since when do monks become ninja's?  

See, selectively picking and choosing definitions of words is fun and easy.  But, at the end of the day, do we really want to cater to people who refuse to actually take the word in context and use the provided definitions?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, Imaro, when some people will simply ignore the stated definitions of terms in favor of whatever they feel like a word should mean, does that mean we should simply abandon any attempt to break away from particular connotations?
> 
> I mean, isn't this just the old warlord debates with a funny moustache and a new pair of glasses? "Oh noes, we can't have warlords in the game because warlord has real world meanings and people will be so confused" was essentially how the argument went. Never minding that the meanings of words like Druid and Paladin are many, MANY miles away from the D&D classes that have those names. Never mind the poor Monk. Isn't a Monk someone who lives in a cloister and copies scrolls for a living? Since when do monks become ninja's?
> 
> See, selectively picking and choosing definitions of words is fun and easy. But, at the end of the day, do we really want to cater to people who refuse to actually take the word in context and use the provided definitions?





Okay, I'm lost. I am talking about the definitions, narratives, and fiction in the D&D game books. This isn't the same as the Warlord argument you are talking about. These are the descriptions and fiction that the designers and developers attached to the classes in the 4e books. 

I thinK I'm having a disconnect here... there are posters like pemerton, who claim that this narrative fiction is important and what makes D&D 4e such a great narrative game... and then there are posters like you claiming these same fiction and story bits attached to classes are meaningless wastes of words and have nothing to do with the class and what it represents. Which one is it?

EDIT: You see the problem that most are arguing is that combat role as a gameplay element shouldn't be hardcoded into these classes since they do in fact come with fiction, narrative and story in the game (along with specific class mechanics).


----------



## Imaro (Nov 24, 2011)

To further clarify what I mean...

Description of Warlock...



			
				4th edition PHB 1; said:
			
		

> Warlocks channel arcane might wrested from primeval
> entities. They commune with infernal intelligences
> and fey spirits, scour enemies with potent blasts of
> eldritch power, and bedevil foes with hexing curses.
> ...





Now the description of a Wizard...


			
				4th edition PHB 1; said:
			
		

> Wizards are scions of arcane magic. Wizards tap the
> true power that permeates the cosmos, research esoteric
> rituals that can alter time and space, and hurl
> balls of fire that incinerate massed foes. Wizards wield
> ...




These appear, in my mind at least, to be totally different archetypes. Reading this a warlock doesn't seem like a "striker wizard", it appears to be a totally different archetype. The question is... from the description of a warlock or wizard, why should one be confined to the striker role and the other be confined to the controller role? Nothing in these archetypes seems specifically geared towards combat role and in fact I could see arguments that these archetypes could encompass all of the combat roles. So why is it that because I want to play a pact-damned, magic wielding, repentant... I also have to be a striker?  This is the fundamental argument being discussed here.

Now again, I readily admit that 4e is *finally* moving away from this and I personally think it's...

1. Something that should have never been hardcoded to class in the first place, and...

2. A good thing.


----------



## LurkAway (Nov 24, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Okay, I'm lost. I am talking about the definitions, narratives, and fiction in the D&D game books. This isn't the same as the Warlord argument you are talking about. These are the descriptions and fiction that the designers and developers attached to the classes in the 4e books.
> <snip>
> EDIT: You see the problem that most are arguing is that combat role as a gameplay element shouldn't be hardcoded into these classes since they do in fact come with fiction, narrative and story in the game (along with specific class mechanics).



Help! I'm confused too.

There are Warlords (class) who aren't warlords (military commanders).

There are warlords (military commanders) who aren't Warlords (class).

You could have a divine warlord (cleric commander) or a martial warlord (martial commander) but you can only have a Martial Warlord.

You can have a charismatic fighter roleplayed as leader of the party, but he's a Fighter (defender) and not a Warlord (leader).

For me, a Warlord class = fighter + leader combat role IS one example of hardwiring and conflating fictional training/background with metagame combat role, isn't it?

I think the "true" class is just a Fighter, based on fictional positioning of martial/combat training. Then warlords, brawlers, knights, etc. are just sub-classes/builds/themes based on ficitional background, fighting style and specialized abilities.


----------



## LurkAway (Nov 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Never mind the poor Monk.  Isn't a Monk someone who lives in a cloister and copies scrolls for a living?  Since when do monks become ninja's?



I think you're confusing something.

Merging the Shaolin monk with the medieval western monk and coining the fantasy concept a "monk" in the fiction is one thing.

It has already been decided what a monk is in D&D fiction. That's not the relevant issue, I don't think.

Deciding how to model the fictional monk as a class in the rules, and hardwiring a Monk class to have a certain combat role, is another thing.

Because then, if you have a Monk striker class and a *separate* Monk defender class, then one is called a Monk class and the other is called something else (Iron Body Monk or something?) even though they're both monks. Whereas they could have both been put under a single class (Monk) with 2 possible combat roles based on whatever martial arts style the character was trained in.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Because it's not?
> 
> A ranger's role in combat is striker.  That's what role means in 4e.  Combat only.  However, everything that you could do with a ranger outside of combat, you can still do in 4e.  All the nature bunny stuff and woodsy stuff is still there.
> 
> ...




I think the 'misreading' you're seeing is one of the problems we have with 4e. You've got over-defined and limiting combat roles bundled with skill and setting role archetypes when a looser connection would be more satisfying.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 26, 2011)

Imaro said:


> To further clarify what I mean...
> 
> Description of Warlock...
> 
> ...




You are 100% right.  Because combat role =/= archetype.  They are two completely different things.  100% divorced from each other.  Striker is SOLELY AND PURELY what a character does best in combat.  Nothing more.  You and others are the ones trying to tie the combat role with archetype and ignoring the fact that role is actually specifically defined and that definition DOES NOT INCLUDE ARCHETYPE.

So, you have a warlock that is a scholarly type.  But, when the gloves come off, his best options are to deal lots of damage to a single target.  You can have a wizard with a scholarly bent.  When the gloves come off, he blasts lots of things for a little bit of damage.

The problem here is that you keep conflating two completely separate things.  Thus, everyone wants a "monk" that is two different things, instead of simply picking the class that best fits your character concept, regardless of whatever the name is (because the name doesn't actually mean anything and never really did) and go from there.

But, sure, if you insist that role=archetype, then 4e will constantly have problems for you.  Not surprising considering that you are misreading what roles actually are.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> You are 100% right. Because combat role =/= archetype. They are two completely different things. 100% divorced from each other. Striker is SOLELY AND PURELY what a character does best in combat. Nothing more. You and others are the ones trying to tie the combat role with archetype and ignoring the fact that role is actually specifically defined and that definition DOES NOT INCLUDE ARCHETYPE.




No one is claiming combat role includes archetype, in fact the hard coding of combat role to an archetype is the very thing we are arguing against. I feel like you really are misreading the entire argument being placed forth. 



Hussar said:


> So, you have a warlock that is a scholarly type. But, when the gloves come off, his best options are to deal lots of damage to a single target. You can have a wizard with a scholarly bent. When the gloves come off, he blasts lots of things for a little bit of damage.




Yep, and yet by the fluff and class abilities wizard and warlock are not interchangeable as archetypes. They encompass different fiction, different skills, different proficiencies, different class abilities, etc. 

As an example... any wizard I create will be a scholar as pertains to arcane lore. It is presented that way in the fiction of the class (how the wizard learns and casts magic) and it is presented that way through the mechanics ( if you are a Wizard you will always have Arcana trained, you will have a spell book with spells, etc.). 

The Warlock on the other hand accomodates the practitioner who gained his power through a pact with a powerful being. This is presented that way in the fiction and in the mechanics...He has a pact, has no actual spells in a spellbook, and he may or may not have learned anything about arcane lore (Arcana is an optional skill for him).

This is just a very simple example of a pretty big difference in the two archetypes these classes represent, there are alot more when you get into skills available, weapon/armor proficiencies/implements/etc. I don't really understand how you see them as the same archetype with just a differing combat role... they clearly aren't... and after reading that Rule-of-3 article, I would say the developer/designers of 4e agree... at least to a certain point with my argument.




Hussar said:


> The problem here is that you keep conflating two completely separate things. Thus, everyone wants a "monk" that is two different things, instead of simply picking the class that best fits your character concept, regardless of whatever the name is (because the name doesn't actually mean anything and never really did) and go from there.




No what we want is for our combat role not to be dependant upon the archetype/class we choose. What I am saying is that I want the archetype of a monk as presented in the fiction and non-combat rules of the game and be able to pick the combat role I want for said archetype. There's no reason a monk should be a striker only... A monk could be a controller, a defender, or even a leader if combat role wasn't so explicitely tied to the monk archetype/class in 4e. 



Hussar said:


> But, sure, if you insist that role=archetype, then 4e will constantly have problems for you. Not surprising considering that you are misreading what roles actually are.




What are you talking about by role? If you mean combat role, then I will contend that I have never claimed combat role = archetype... So I would argue that you have been misreading the argument being placed forth from the beginning and that maybe you should re-read what has been posted so far to get a better grasp of what is being discussed.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 27, 2011)

Imaro said:


> No one is claiming combat role includes archetype, in fact the hard coding of combat role to an archetype is the very thing we are arguing against. I feel like you really are misreading the entire argument being placed forth.




If combat role, as you claim, is hard wired to an archetype, then how can an archetype not include a combat role?

My argument is, combat role has nothing whatsoever to do with archetype.

A warlock could include fifteen different kinds of archetypes - lone wolf, scholar, mad scientist, member of a coven, etc.  How he operates best in combat has nothing to do with that archetype.

Let's spin it around then.  How does dealing lots of damage (plus status effects since we're talking about a warlock) have anything to do with the fact that I'm a dabbler in mystic arts, making pacts with out planar beings?



> Yep, and yet by the fluff and class abilities wizard and warlock are not interchangeable as archetypes. They encompass different fiction, different skills, different proficiencies, different class abilities, etc.
> 
> As an example... any wizard I create will be a scholar as pertains to arcane lore. It is presented that way in the fiction of the class (how the wizard learns and casts magic) and it is presented that way through the mechanics ( if you are a Wizard you will always have Arcana trained, you will have a spell book with spells, etc.).




Yet, my warlock can have arcana trained as well.  And, pouring over grimoires is hardly solely a wizard archetype.  After all, warlocks are "armed with esoteric secrets and dangerous lore".  So, I can make a warlock the fits pretty much any wizard archetype you want to name.

And vice versa.  Why can't a wizard fit any warlock archetype?  After all, both are "wizards" in the traditional sense of the word - users of magic.  Any wizard archetype you want to come up with can be done with a warlock.



> The Warlock on the other hand accomodates the practitioner who gained his power through a pact with a powerful being. This is presented that way in the fiction and in the mechanics...He has a pact, has no actual spells in a spellbook, and he may or may not have learned anything about arcane lore (Arcana is an optional skill for him).
> 
> This is just a very simple example of a pretty big difference in the two archetypes these classes represent, there are alot more when you get into skills available, weapon/armor proficiencies/implements/etc. I don't really understand how you see them as the same archetype with just a differing combat role... they clearly aren't... and after reading that Rule-of-3 article, I would say the developer/designers of 4e agree... at least to a certain point with my argument.




I would point out that Arcana is an option for a wizard as well.  He doesn't gain it as a bonus feat.  In fact, you don't even need arcana to be a wizard.  You get Ritual Casting as a bonus feat, but, rituals don't need Arcana to be used.  

Again, we see how misreading the rules actually leads to false premises.

Skill wise, there is some variation, and there should be, these are different classes after all.  But, it would be pretty easy to make a warlock or a wizard with the same skill set.

Weapon and armor differences?  Hrm, warlocks can use leather and wizards get orbs.  Yeah, seeing that huge gulf of difference there.

My point is, any "wizard archetype" (by this I mean caster of magic that isn't a priest, not the class) can be filled pretty interchangeably by warlock or wizard.  But, in combat, these two characters will play out very differently.



> No what we want is for our combat role not to be dependant upon the archetype/class we choose. What I am saying is that I want the archetype of a monk as presented in the fiction and non-combat rules of the game and be able to pick the combat role I want for said archetype. There's no reason a monk should be a striker only... A monk could be a controller, a defender, or even a leader if combat role wasn't so explicitely tied to the monk archetype/class in 4e.




And, right there, you're tying archetype to role again, despite the fact that these two things are not connected in any way.



> What are you talking about by role? If you mean combat role, then I will contend that I have never claimed combat role = archetype... So I would argue that you have been misreading the argument being placed forth from the beginning and that maybe you should re-read what has been posted so far to get a better grasp of what is being discussed.



[/quote]

Yeah, I gotta admit I'm pretty confused.  Apparently role is quantum in that it can be both connected and not connected to archetype at the same time, and only becomes a problem when observed by certain observers.

Which is it?  Is Role (the 4e defined term) a purely combat role, (again as the PHB distinctly defines the term) or has 4e indelibly linked combat Role to archetype?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 27, 2011)

&TLDR

I think the basic problem we're having here is a miscommunication on the word "archetype".  To me, an archetype is not "Sword and Board Fighter".  That's an in game concept that really doesn't tell me anything very much about the character.  To me, an archetype tells me what the character _is_, not particularly how he does things.

So, the fighter archetype could be, Mercenary, Man Without a Name, Defender of the Weak, Pit Fighter/Gladiator, Knight, etc.  Now, Sword and Board Fighter could fit with any of those archetypes.  All S&B Fighter tells me is what he does in combat.  Replace S&B Fighter with Defender and it's the same thing.

Same with "Dude with Bow".  That's not an archetype.  That could encompass many, many different archetypes from Robin Hood to Iroquois Warrior.  Are we actually going to say that Robin Hood and Iroquois Warrior are the same archetype?  ((Note, bow user might not actually fit for Iroquios Warrior, it's just an example, run with it. Insert stone age warrior of choice if it makes you happier.))

People keep trying to tie combat role ((bow user, weapon dude)) to archetype and they just aren't the same thing.  Granted, certain archetypes will likely have certain combat roles, Knight, for example, is likely heavy armored tank - probably a defender, but, that's just the knock on effect from the archetype.

Lots of archetypes have very little to do with what they do in combat.  I'd argue that very few true archetypes have anything to do with combat.  It's the conflation of the two that is causing the problem.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 27, 2011)

What's the problem, exactly, with divorcing combat role from being encoded into classes? Because I _think_ that's a question some people are trying to ask.

When I play a Fighter, why is "Defender" already encoded? When I play a Wizard, why is "controller" already encoded?

Why shouldn't I be able to pick "Fighter" and then "Defender", just like I can pick "Fighter" and then "Sword and Board" as my primary style? Why can't I pick "Fighter" and then "Striker" and then "Bow and Arrow" as my primary style?

I mean, the PHB could have "Example Wizard: Controller" in the book. It could have "Example Fighter: Defender" in the book. It could say that the party functions best with one of each role present.

What I guess I'm missing is _what_ exactly is objectionable about having pools of "Defender Powers" and "Controller Powers" separate to choose from. Just like pools of "Arcane Powers" and "Martial Exploits" or the like. You could have the Combat Role pools be inside the Power Source pools. That is, you'd have pools of Arcane Powers, with four sections: Striker, Defender, Controller, and Leader. So, as a Wizard (Arcane Power Source), you could choose your Combat Role, and then choose an appropriate power from the Arcane [Combat Role chosen] pool for your level. And you'd get to choose a power outside your Combat Role (if you want) once every four levels, or something, letting you dip into Striker or Leader or something.

Or, heck, don't even force someone to choose a Combat Role. If they want to pick all Striker powers, go for it. If they want to pick all Controller powers, awesome. If they want to mix and match, great. Maybe that's a complexity dial option right there: at base they're set, but if you want to mix and match (more complex, harder to balance), then go for it.

I just don't get the problem with it in a theoretical sense. You could then give classes certain base options to help define them: god-related, nature-related, martial-related, etc. Something to mirror the Power Sources, perhaps. Then, in expansions and splat books, give out actual classes. This wouldn't be new material (as in, you could always build them yourself), but it'd be work you wouldn't have to do as a GM or player, and you could modify it on the fly pretty easily (like a really easily house-ruled class or ability, as you know what "equivalents" are). I guess you could do the same in the core book: here's the "Cleric: he's a Divine Leader with the _Cure Light Wounds_ power" or the like.

Just my thoughts on it. I think that's an easier setup for the Powers approach, personally. I don't get the objection to separating combat role from class, but maybe I'm missing something obvious. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Nov 27, 2011)

Because, JamesonCourage, the second you do that, you've just exploded the number of elements you need for each class.

For example, take something as simple as hit dice.  Now, if you make your figher a controller, then he has low hit points and poor armor.  Is he still a "fighter"?  What is a "fighter"?

Or, flip it around and make the wizard a defender.  Now your wizard has high hit points, wears heavy armor and uses the best weapons.  How is he a wizard?

Class and role are indelibly linked.  Fighters are mostly defenders with a heavy dose of striker thrown in.  Is that really all that different from how fighters have always been presented?

If you divorce class from role, then what's left of class?  After all, all the mechanical aspects, which generally revolve around combat, are linked to combat role.  

Or, putting it another way, once you strip away hit dice, armor and weapons from a fighter class, what's left?

But this is all considerably orthagonal to the link that people are making between role and archetype.  Combat roles and archetypes are only tenuously linked, typically through the medium of class.  My fighter is a noble knight out to right wrongs (archetype) and does so using defender powers in combat (combat role). 

Although, thinking about it, I suppose it's six of one, half dozen of the other.  Do you switch out role or class name?  Does it matter at the end of the day?  Archer Dude works best as a ranger, which is a striker.  Now, striker and Archer Dude fit pretty well together - fast, lightly armored, doing lots of damage to one (or a small number of) target.  

I'd argue that it's a lot easier to switch out the name fighter for ranger than it is to switch out the roles.  Because, as I said, once you strip out all combat mechanics from a class, what's left?  And, again, that's not edition specific.  You strip out the combat mechanics of a fighter in any edition and there isn't much left.  At best you've got a couple of non-weapon proficiencies and possibly followers at high level, or a very small selection of skills.

Neither of those things scream fighter to me.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Because, JamesonCourage, the second you do that, you've just exploded the number of elements you need for each class.
> 
> For example, take something as simple as hit dice.  Now, if you make your figher a controller, then he has low hit points and poor armor.  Is he still a "fighter"?  What is a "fighter"?



I feel I addressed this:


JamesonCourage said:


> I mean, the PHB could have "Example Wizard: Controller" in the book. It could have "Example Fighter: Defender" in the book.



You wouldn't necessarily even have to associate armor type with Combat Role. I don't know why you would. Just give powers that reflect that combat role when using, you know, a power from that combat role.



Hussar said:


> Or, flip it around and make the wizard a defender.  Now your wizard has high hit points, wears heavy armor and uses the best weapons.  How is he a wizard?



Don't give him the best armor and best weapons? Give him no armor, make him good at dodging, and let him kick ass with a staff or spells. As far as HP goes, in 4e, HP represents a lot more than physical toughness, so flavor-wise he's extra loaded on things like quick defensive wards, luck, skill, and the like.



Hussar said:


> Class and role are indelibly linked.  Fighters are mostly defenders with a heavy dose of striker thrown in.  Is that really all that different from how fighters have always been presented?



To my mind, yes. I've made AC/meatshield style Fighters before. I've made heavy-damage style Fighters before (not Char OP level, or close, but good enough for my games). I've made controller-style fighters before (like pemerton's player, with the reach weapon). I got to choose my focus, and I liked the option, but what a potential 5e could do by opening having pools of powers would blow all past editions away in terms of options. I'd much prefer that than 4e's or 3.X's way of handling it. After all, my RPG is point-buy.



Hussar said:


> If you divorce class from role, then what's left of class?  After all, all the mechanical aspects, which generally revolve around combat, are linked to combat role.
> 
> Or, putting it another way, once you strip away hit dice, armor and weapons from a fighter class, what's left?



It's a new edition, and if 4e was any indication, feel free to go wild and throw conventions out the window. Throw in some new features. Focus on non-combat stuff. Don't have a "Fighter" except as something other than an extended example? Instead, have a "choose your Power Source, Combat Role, and Theme" style of game? As far as I can tell from pemerton, Rangers aren't even nature-themed so much anymore. I mean, their powers might be (I assume they're Primal?), but their class features don't sound like they're tracking-based, or nature-based, or the like. Focus on that?



Hussar said:


> But this is all considerably orthagonal to the link that people are making between role and archetype.  Combat roles and archetypes are only tenuously linked, typically through the medium of class.  My fighter is a noble knight out to right wrongs (archetype) and does so using defender powers in combat (combat role).



I really don't feel like I was talking about this.



Hussar said:


> Although, thinking about it, I suppose it's six of one, half dozen of the other.  Do you switch out role or class name?  Does it matter at the end of the day?  Archer Dude works best as a ranger, which is a striker.  Now, striker and Archer Dude fit pretty well together - fast, lightly armored, doing lots of damage to one (or a small number of) target.
> 
> I'd argue that it's a lot easier to switch out the name fighter for ranger than it is to switch out the roles.  Because, as I said, once you strip out all combat mechanics from a class, what's left?  And, again, that's not edition specific.  You strip out the combat mechanics of a fighter in any edition and there isn't much left.  At best you've got a couple of non-weapon proficiencies and possibly followers at high level, or a very small selection of skills.
> 
> Neither of those things scream fighter to me.



Yes, but you're choosing the most combat-oriented class in the game. Literally, the guy labeled _Fighter_. Take away all the combat abilities from my Bard and I'm feeling okay. Same for my Rogue. Or Ranger. Or Wizard. The Fighter is the most extreme example you can really name, and while the extreme ends should be considered, I really don't think they should be used as the primary example that exemplifies what I'm proposing.

Especially since I proposed something along the lines of "why not use classes as examples?" I mean, then just build the Fighter as a heavily armored, high HP Martial Defender. Just use the same building blocks that everyone else gets. It saves people work and makes for convenient traditional classes, shows how the game is supposed to work, and lets people swap out powers at their whim. Right?

As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Nov 27, 2011)

Take out all combat related elements of any class, and there really isn't a whole lot left.  

Strip out all the combat stuff from the description of rogue and what's left?  Skill points.  That's it.  Big bag of skill points.  Sure, it's fun to have lots of skill points, but, at the end of the day, that's not exactly much to hang a character on.

Even 3e bard has most of his abilities tied to combat.  Sure, there's the Lore ability, but, a number of the singing abilities are combat related.  And the spell list is still 2/3rds combat related as well.  Strip out the combat stuff and you have a guy that plays an instrument and knows things about old stuff.  A bit more there, and certainly more than the fighter, but, again, not a heck of a lot.

All the classes are like this.  It makes sense, D&D devotes most of its mechanics to combat so the classes reflect this.  If you strip out all the combat elements of a class, I'd argue that most classes just fall apart.  The only reason the casters might not is because the spell system is probably the second most mechanically supported system in the game, behind combat.

But any of the non casters?  Strip out all the combat stuff from a ranger and you got a guy with a dog.  Paladin?  You've got an annoying guy with a horse.   

But, in any case, I'd much rather leave combat role tied to class and then simply pick the class that best fits the character I have in mind.  But, that's just me.  I've always played like that.  I've never made a class first and then tried to shoehorn it into an archetype.

To each his own I guess.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 27, 2011)

I would argue that bards and rogues in previous editions were defined more by their non-combat abilities than combat abilities (and rogues being skill monkeys were precisely why I played them a good deal of the time). These were both classes that shined outside of combat.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> If combat role, as you claim, is hard wired to an archetype, then how can an archetype not include a combat role?




Because archetypes exist outside of 4e (previous editions, literature, media,etc.) or are you now claiming 4e created the archetypes it draws on for it's classes as well?



Hussar said:


> My argument is, combat role has nothing whatsoever to do with archetype.




And my argument is that in 4e they are very much linked since a combat role is hardcoded into the classes which in turn represent archetypes.



Hussar said:


> A warlock could include fifteen different kinds of archetypes - lone wolf, scholar, mad scientist, member of a coven, etc. How he operates best in combat has nothing to do with that archetype.




The "concepts" you present aren't fantasy archetypes as I understand them, if anything I would consider these closer to the builds in 4e.

Archetypes are suppose to be more overarching concepts that exist universally across many cultures, IMO "mad scientists" and "lone wolf" don't fall into this category... 



Hussar said:


> Let's spin it around then. How does dealing lots of damage (plus status effects since we're talking about a warlock) have anything to do with the fact that I'm a dabbler in mystic arts, making pacts with out planar beings?




In 4e if you want to be a dabbler in mystic arts that makes pacts with planar beings... your combat role will be striker. How do you not see this connection? It's attaching, what should be, an unrelated game construct to archetype and people in this thread are saying the game would be better served if they were kept seperate.




Hussar said:


> Yet, my warlock can have arcana trained as well. And, pouring over grimoires is hardly solely a wizard archetype. After all, warlocks are "armed with esoteric secrets and dangerous lore". So, I can make a warlock the fits pretty much any wizard archetype you want to name.




Your warlock *can*, but doesn't have to. The fact of the matter is that the warlock archetype throughout literature has encompased the unlearned and unintiated as well as those who are learned in occult knowledge. The thing is the wizard archetype isn't generally known for being bound to a pact... Merlin, Gandalf, Milamber, Harry Potter,etc. aren't beholden to some extra planar being for knowledge or power. So no, I would argue that the warlock doesn't fit many/most/almost all of the well known wizards in literature and media by dint that he is beholden to (as opposed to commanding) a powerful entity for his power.



Hussar said:


> And vice versa. Why can't a wizard fit any warlock archetype? After all, both are "wizards" in the traditional sense of the word - users of magic. Any wizard archetype you want to come up with can be done with a warlock.




See my answer above and reverse it. The wizard in 4e doesn't have a pact and isn't bound to a being for his knowledge or power. He has books and tomes and his own intelligence. He can't be the unlearned or uninitiated whose made a deal with the devil since contrary to what you posted below... all wizards have arcana trained... unless we're back to houseruling. 




Hussar said:


> I would point out that Arcana is an option for a wizard as well. He doesn't gain it as a bonus feat. In fact, you don't even need arcana to be a wizard. You get Ritual Casting as a bonus feat, but, rituals don't need Arcana to be used.
> 
> Again, we see how misreading the rules actually leads to false premises.




Wait a minute... I'm misreading the rules? Really?? First, Arcana is a skill not a feat, secondly...

PHB 1 (pg. 156) Arcana is automatically trained for wizards... HotFL (pg. 193) again Arcana is automatically trained for mages... is there some eratta I'm missing or are you just totally misreading the rules here and it's leading to a false premise?



Hussar said:


> Skill wise, there is some variation, and there should be, these are different classes after all. But, it would be pretty easy to make a warlock or a wizard with the same skill set.




Uhm... what? 

Wizard skills...Arcana(trained), Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, History, Insight, Nature, Religion

Warlock Skills...Arcana, Bluff, History, Insight, Intimidate, Religion, Streetwise, Thievery

So they have 3 skills that overlap. It is much easier to make a learned scholarly type (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History,Nature, Religion) with the wizard and much easier to make an unlearned, unintiated type (Bluff, Insight, Intimidate, Streetwise, Thievery) with the warlock skill list. 



Hussar said:


> Weapon and armor differences? Hrm, warlocks can use leather and wizards get orbs. Yeah, seeing that huge gulf of difference there.




So you don't see the fact that Warlocks actually have the time to learn to use armor, and a wider range of weapons as a difference ( in game terms that's at least two feats for a wizard right there). Really? I think you are purposefully downplaying the differences... especially when you add them all up.



Hussar said:


> My point is, any "wizard archetype" (by this I mean caster of magic that isn't a priest, not the class) can be filled pretty interchangeably by warlock or wizard. But, in combat, these two characters will play out very differently.




And I just showed they can't, at least not without houseruling, or expending unnecessary resources.... the classes have non-combat features (the very things that tie the classes to the archetypes they are based on) that allow for very different play outside of combat. 

Now if you're defining the wizard archetype as "any caster of magic that isnt a priest" then I think you've went so wide and so broad as to make the archetype meaningless (even though I've shown above that mechanically there is a difference in the archetypes these classes represent). 

It's like saying user of divine power... well that's the paladin, avenger, invoker and cleric and they're all the same because they all use divine energy. Or all primal power wielders... and so on.




Hussar said:


> And, right there, you're tying archetype to role again, despite the fact that these two things are not connected in any way.




In 4e they are very much connected. The archetype I choose to play dictates the combat role I will be taking (which most are arguinng it shouldn't). I've shown above how the warlock and wizard archetypes are different, and there's no questioning the fact that the one I pick will determine my combat role... what's left to prove? 



Hussar said:


> Yeah, I gotta admit I'm pretty confused. Apparently role is quantum in that it can be both connected and not connected to archetype at the same time, and only becomes a problem when observed by certain observers.




Are you being purposefully obtuse, and I'm seriously asking this because if so I'll quit wasting my time responding to you. Archetypes weren't created in D&D 4e... however in 4e they have tied combat role to archetypes... it's really pretty simple.



Hussar said:


> Which is it? Is Role (the 4e defined term) a purely combat role, (again as the PHB distinctly defines the term) or has 4e indelibly linked combat Role to archetype?




I never argued it wasn't a combat role... I have, and still do, argue that combat role is linked to the archetypes used in the game. You realize both of these things can be true and is exactly what many people are saying they don't like. There's some kind of disconnect here and I'm not really sure how to explain it so that you get it.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Take out all combat related elements of any class, and there really isn't a whole lot left.
> 
> Strip out all the combat stuff from the description of rogue and what's left?  Skill points.  That's it.  Big bag of skill points.  Sure, it's fun to have lots of skill points, but, at the end of the day, that's not exactly much to hang a character on.



To sum up my thoughts: our mileage has varied so drastically I'm not sure where to begin. Maybe that says it all.



> Even 3e bard has most of his abilities tied to combat.  Sure, there's the Lore ability, but, a number of the singing abilities are combat related.  And the spell list is still 2/3rds combat related as well.  Strip out the combat stuff and you have a guy that plays an instrument and knows things about old stuff.  A bit more there, and certainly more than the fighter, but, again, not a heck of a lot.



And I'm advocating letting classes have this. Maybe even in spades. Give people options based on Themes and Classes to build their class abilities. Or two distinct trees: Theme abilities, and then Class abilities. I don't care how you divide it. The 3e monk is filled with stuff that is useful outside of combat, and if these are options (not set in stone) for a class, and they don't get rid of combat abilities, it seems like a great addition to me. Same goes for the first few levels of druid, for example. Grab these types of abilities and throw them in as options, just like powers.



> But, in any case, I'd much rather leave combat role tied to class and then simply pick the class that best fits the character I have in mind.  But, that's just me.  I've always played like that.  I've never made a class first and then tried to shoehorn it into an archetype.
> 
> To each his own I guess.



Hey, more power to your play style being supported. I'm all for people having their preferences, and getting to play a game that helps support it. As always, play what you like


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> See this is where I'm getting a little confused...
> 
> Imagining your "character" as a nordic barbarian vs. making a ranger when what you want is a character with the hit points, healing surges and skills of a fighter isn't just a matter of reskinning, it has real mechanical effects outside of your combat role. Again there is a lot tied up in class and by attaching combat role to it in 4e they just added one more thing your class dictates... which means less flexibility and less customization.
> 
> As to the rest of this paragraph... we are very much talking houseruling because reskinning different classes doesn't give you other things tied up in them. If I'm looking to make a fighter class archer then I am very much looking to create an archer that has greater durability, wider range of armor, no woodland skills or associations, fighter skills, etc.




And this is where I'm confused. You've said repeatedly that you aren't looking for your concept without trade-offs. Yet now you're asking for a ranged striker with high hit points and healing surges? Where's the trade-off?



Imaro said:


> So wait, your "noble-born", "city-dweller" has the following as class skills...
> Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).




Yep. You'd also have to look to the Sorcerer class skill list if you recall my sharing of the full concept upthread.



Imaro said:


> I guess you could squint really hard and come up with some reason he's missing alot of the skills most people would consider trademarks of being born in the city or as a noble... though it's definitely not the skill set I would have pictured for him... Diplomacy, Knowledge(anything), Sense Motive, Speak Language, Profession. Of course since 3.x is a little more flexible picking a different class to represent him won't necessarily dictate your combat role as well.  Which is the point that seems to be getting lost in the archer vs. melee fighter debate.  It's not about weapon, but about combat role.




Wow, you really stereotype your characters then, huh? _Every_ noble should be skilled in Diplomacy? Really? Even a hot-tempered, dragon-blooded young minor noble's son? One who left the security of his family to become an adventurer of all things? None of your nobles have ever eschewed their studies? All of them are perfect little students? None of them are "jocks" that explored their advanced physical nature by taking up rock-climbing, swimming, etc? None of them participated in the "sport" of hunting and learned a thing or two about being out in the wild?

This is why I feel that you are pigeon-holing concepts by class name and are unwilling to picture something outside the stereotypical box.



Imaro said:


> Because what you consider "plausible" isn't to some people... why is that so hard to understand. Your Barbarian above is not, IMO, a plausible solution for creating a city-dweller, noble-born, character... no matter how much you "reskin" the Barbarian. The ranger, IMO, is not a plausible hard-as-nails, mercenary archer who grew up in the tent towns of a major city. No matter how much you reskin him. They have actual mechanics that work against the concept.




IMO, you have too narrow an idea of what a noble-born city-dweller can be. Maybe in Clicheland I would feel restrcited to fit your concept, but the class combination fit my character concept quite well, as does the 4E Ranger as the Archer Fighter.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 28, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And this is where I'm confused. You've said repeatedly that you aren't looking for your concept without trade-offs. Yet now you're asking for a ranged striker with high hit points and healing surges? Where's the trade-off?




Same place they were in 3e - by focusing on his archery with choices in feats and gear, he's not focusing on his melee combat feats and gear. *That's* a trade off. The same would be true in 4e if the fighter had access to decent ranged powers as well as melee powers - by choosing a ranged power over a melee power, he's making a trade off. I don't see where the source of confusion on this is.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 28, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And this is where I'm confused. You've said repeatedly that you aren't looking for your concept without trade-offs. Yet now you're asking for a ranged striker with high hit points and healing surges? Where's the trade-off?




Oh... you mean like the avenger or the slayer? There are strikers with high hit points and a greater number of healing surges than the average striker... so I'm kind of lost on your overall point.





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Yep. You'd also have to look to the Sorcerer class skill list if you recall my sharing of the full concept upthread.




You said you were re-skinning the 3e Barbarian class.  





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Wow, you really stereotype your characters then, huh? _Every_ noble should be skilled in Diplomacy? Really? Even a hot-tempered, dragon-blooded young minor noble's son? One who left the security of his family to become an adventurer of all things? None of your nobles have ever eschewed their studies? All of them are perfect little students? None of them are "jocks" that explored their advanced physical nature by taking up rock-climbing, swimming, etc? None of them participated in the "sport" of hunting and learned a thing or two about being out in the wild?




Lol... wow, so you made a noble-born, city dweller that isn't one...ok. I guess I can reskin my 3e fighter as a wizard too... he just has no spells and no magical knowledge whatsoever. I'm going to call bull on this and assume you know why.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This is why I feel that you are pigeon-holing concepts by class name and are unwilling to picture something outside the stereotypical box.




Uhmm, no I'm going with the actual concept you presented. Now if you had said noble born, city dweller who eschewed all things most nobles and all things most city dwellers would know and learn (which kinda defeats the purpose of him being noble-born and a city dweller) then yeah I could see what you just presented... but that's not what you posted.





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> IMO, you have too narrow an idea of what a noble-born city-dweller can be. Maybe in Clicheland I would feel restrcited to fit your concept, but the class combination fit my character concept quite well, as does the 4E Ranger as the Archer Fighter.




And IMO, you didn't fulfill your original concept, you pulled a bait and switch which really is a disingenuous way of arguing... IMO this sums up what you just tried to pull...

Hey I'm can reskin a fighter as a wizard...

But he doesn't have magic, know spells or have any idea about arcane lore...

Your concept of a wizard is too narrow... he's a wizard that failed at magic because he was lifting weights, studied weapons and armor and forgot what little arcane lore he knew from his brief apprenticeship and became a master warrior...

So he's a fighter...

No he's a wizard...

Uhm, ok...

Plain and simple this argument is bull.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I guess my question to you is why have these names even been used and why do they have specific fiction attached to them in the game books if all they are suppose to be are packages of abilities? It seems if they are to be flavor neutral... you wouldn't attach specific narratives to the classes. As an example the narrative for a warlock is different from that of a wizard... so why do this if really all a warlock is suppose to be is a "striker" wizard? Why include the narrative of him having made a pact with some entity instead of learning from spellbooks... why include specifc beings that he can make pacts with... and so on if he's just a package of arcane striker abilities? Recent editions (at least from BECMI onward)the books have never supported the classes being just a grouping of abilities with no attached narrative or fiction.
> 
> I don't see why not... though I would still tell PC's that this is an order of paladins since that in and of itself sets up on a high level what this oprder is about. Or would you just present this name and not explain what type of class they are composed of?




The fiction is attached to give a feel for a typical member of that class. Someone above noted that maybe we should have class names like "Ranged Striker." I think this would be a mistake, as much of the feel of the game would be lost. I also agree with you over the point of a group of NPCs being an order of Avengers vs. an order of Paladins as I think some transparency on the part of the DM is necessary so the players have a common base of what to expect. But I diverge from your opinion when it comes to player characters. As DM, I want you to be able to play the concept you want. To achieve that I'm willing to reskin any class you need to make your concept work. In the example of the order of paladins, if your concept fit avenger better and fit the order of paladins, I would not force you to be a paladin. Why do PCs get special treatment? Because they are just that...special. Your character may be the one lone example of a member of the order that chooses a different approach to doing the works of the order. In game we'll figure out how those choices affect the story.



Imaro said:


> In 3.5 there was a swashbuckler class...




There was also a samurai class. 

Are you advocating a multitude of classes?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 28, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Wow, you really stereotype your characters then, huh? _Every_ noble should be skilled in Diplomacy? Really? Even a hot-tempered, dragon-blooded young minor noble's son? One who left the security of his family to become an adventurer of all things? None of your nobles have ever eschewed their studies? All of them are perfect little students? None of them are "jocks" that explored their advanced physical nature by taking up rock-climbing, swimming, etc? None of them participated in the "sport" of hunting and learned a thing or two about being out in the wild?
> 
> This is why I feel that you are pigeon-holing concepts by class name and are unwilling to picture something outside the stereotypical box.




None of this has anything to do with being perfect little students. What is has to do with is a dissonance between the roles the class plays for the character that 4e has exacerbated. Since class determines access to initial skills (every other skill coming at the cost of a feat later on) AND combat role, you get elements that don't match when you try to simply look at class as nothing but a way to pick your combat role. You want to play a noble who goes berserk? Fine, but where is there any indication in your barbarian class skills that you've got the skills a noble most likely would have had access to since birth? Gotta pay for those with feats. You're stuck with something that's not as good a fit as it could have been had the combat roles been a looser fit to begin with.

D&D has, more traditionally, provided a looser fit for the combat role allowing the player to decide whether they're geared up to be a tank, an artillerist, a healer, a skirmisher, or a neutralizer. Most classes could pick from more than one of those roles even if they didn't really have access to them all. Some could remake that choice on a daily basis.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The question is... from the description of a warlock or wizard, why should one be confined to the striker role and the other be confined to the controller role?




The answer is... they're not. The warlock has many options within the class that makes him a decent controller. The wizard has many options within the class that make him a decent striker. Other choices through hybridization can offer defender warlocks and leader warlocks. And new options come out regularly. Is the issue really that they didn't cater specifically to your tastes? Or do you have a concrete solution that would have allowed choice of combat role?

I do believe that these roles have always existed in the game. It was just that there wasn't much mechanical support allowing characters to fulfill some of these roles well. I think the codified roles helped the developers enter this new territory and define what goals they should have. Has there been a learning curve? Of course, but I think they are doing a great job of expanding into new design territory.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 28, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The answer is... they're not. The warlock has many options within the class that makes him a decent controller. The wizard has many options within the class that make him a decent striker. Other choices through hybridization can offer defender warlocks and leader warlocks. And new options come out regularly. Is the issue really that they didn't cater specifically to your tastes? Or do you have a concrete solution that would have allowed choice of combat role?




Contrary to your belief... Yeah, for the most part they are. I mean if I want to be a sub-par controller then yeah I can play a warlock and try to do controllery things... or if I want a sub-par striker I can play a wizard and do strikery things... but then a sub-optimal choice isn't really a choice is it? At least that was the philosophy behind 4e in the beginning.

Hybrids bring in a whole host of other issues I don't even want to go into and can royally screw you if you don't know what you are doing when building them. Furthermore even a well built hybrid can have gameplay issues that the designers/developers are aware of and discuss in PHB 3.  Along with again, the problem of having to dillute or change one's concept in order to get out of a specific combat role.

My suggestion awhile back was to have different combat roles based upon build and power selection. Something 4e is just now starting to do, cotrary to the cries of that doing exactly this will ruin the game. My only problem with some of these builds is that they are so narrow, yet the only way to break out of the over-arching class combat role. In other words don't make the only striker paladin a blackguard (which has a ton of specific story fluff, conotations and flavored mechanics to go along with it.).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The "concepts" you present aren't fantasy archetypes as I understand them, if anything I would consider these closer to the builds in 4e.
> 
> Archetypes are suppose to be more overarching concepts that exist universally across many cultures, IMO "mad scientists" and "lone wolf" don't fall into this category...




What you call 'archetype' I call 'build.' Sword-and-board is a build option by my definition. You don't read stories about King Arthur and think 'sword-and-board,' you think 'shining knight.' You don't read stories about Conan and think 'two-handed weapon fighter,' you thnk 'lone wolf' or some other appropriate descriptive term.



Imaro said:


> In 4e if you want to be a dabbler in mystic arts that makes pacts with planar beings... your combat role will be striker. How do you not see this connection?




Because I have no problem saying that the concept for my Wizard, Swordmage, or Bard is that they gained access to the knowledge they wield by making a pact with planar beings if that is the character concept I wish to play.



Imaro said:


> See my answer above and reverse it. The wizard in 4e doesn't have a pact and isn't bound to a being for his knowledge or power. He has books and tomes and his own intelligence. He can't be the unlearned or uninitiated whose made a deal with the devil.




Patently untrue. Make a wizard, write your backstory with a pact. Now you have the same fluff as a warlock. There's probably even mechanical support in the form of Backgrounds and Themes available if you wish to take it further.




Imaro said:


> So you don't see the fact that Warlocks actually have the time to learn to use armor, and a wider range of weapons as a difference ( in game terms that's at least two feats for a wizard right there). Really? I think you are purposefully downplaying the differences... especially when you add them all up.




These are mechanical trade-offs, not impossible barriers to achieving the archetype you wish.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 28, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Same place they were in 3e - by focusing on his archery with choices in feats and gear, he's not focusing on his melee combat feats and gear. *That's* a trade off. The same would be true in 4e if the fighter had access to decent ranged powers as well as melee powers - by choosing a ranged power over a melee power, he's making a trade off. I don't see where the source of confusion on this is.




Caveat: We have to come from the common ground of using default point-buy for stats in both systems or it's apples and oranges.

A 3E Fighter that focused on ranged combat needed to boost his Dex to be effective. If he did not, then the trade-off is that he is less effective as a ranged attacker.

A 3E Fighter that focused on ranged combat would then need to sacrifice either Str or Con. The trade-off for sacrificing Str is that he is much worse in melee. The trade-off for sacrificing Con is lower hit points.

Besides all that, check out the Fighter (Slayer) for the ranged option Fighter that you are calling for. The game is meant to expand from its base. The designers decided that Ranger filled the need for the archer in the original books and didn't include the build you call for until later in the game. Much like the designers of 3E included the sorcerer in the original book, but didn't include warlocks until later. You may disagree with when they decided to include it, but I'm sure others would have been equally dissatisfied if the classes they enjoy had been pushed out of the original books.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 28, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> What you call 'archetype' I call 'build.' Sword-and-board is a build option by my definition. You don't read stories about King Arthur and think 'sword-and-board,' you think 'shining knight.' You don't read stories about Conan and think 'two-handed weapon fighter,' you thnk 'lone wolf' or some other appropriate descriptive term.




What *class* is called sword and board??? There is however a class called knight.





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Because I have no problem saying that the concept for my Wizard, Swordmage, or Bard is that they gained access to the knowledge they wield by making a pact with planar beings if that is the character concept I wish to play.




Yet in those classes there are no mechanics to back your characters pact claim up. However the Warlock class (because it is based on this very archetype) does have the mechanics that fit my concept to a tee... so why should the concept of pact-bound arcane wielder be tied up with striker thus forcing me (if I want mechanical weight to the fluff composing my concept) to play a striker? You see you and many others keep dancing aound this question... don't tell me to squint really hard, ignore the fact that I have no mechanical weight to my concept, and many of my abilities and skills won't fit it... tell me why the concept of the wielder of magic gained through a pact with an other-worldly being should be tied to the striker combat role?? 




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Patently untrue. Make a wizard, write your backstory with a pact. Now you have the same fluff as a warlock. There's probably even mechanical support in the form of Backgrounds and Themes available if you wish to take it further.




Again mechanical weight matters and you keep ignoring that fact. That's why your 3e barbarian not-city dwelling (but city dwelling), not-noble born (but noble born) character is a mess. Because the classes are based on fantasy archetypes and those archetypes set up what are and aren't class abilities, skills, etc. for particular classes. 





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> These are mechanical trade-offs, not impossible barriers to achieving the archetype you wish.




No one said it was impossible... you're character will just be less and less effective, compared to others in the party. You loose gameplay power for story power which kinda sucks when it would be a simple matter not to tie class to combat role..


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Oh... you mean like the avenger or the slayer? There are strikers with high hit points and a greater number of healing surges than the average striker... so I'm kind of lost on your overall point.




Those classes have other trade-offs compared to the average striker. 



Imaro said:


> You said you were re-skinning the 3e Barbarian class.




No. I presented the idea originally way back in the thread as a Barbarian/Sorecer. My point was that people got stuck upon the name Barbarian and tried to pigeon-hole my concept, much like you are doing now. 



Imaro said:


> Lol... wow, so you made a noble-born, city dweller that isn't one...ok. I guess I can reskin my 3e fighter as a wizard too... he just has no spells and no magical knowledge whatsoever. I'm going to call bull on this and assume you know why.




He was born in and grew up in a city. City-dweller? Check.
His father is a minor noble. Noble-born? Check.

With some effort I _could_ reskin a 3E fighter as a wizard. Picture a "90-pound weakling" that somehow hefts that sword and shield as if he were a massive brute. And when people mock the puny man in the tin can, he displays a battle cunning that no one expected. See, he focused his studies on the martial aspects of magic because he was sick and tired of being picked on. His "spells" allow him to pull off amazing feats that no ordinary man could. Think "Chuck" meets the middle ages. Instead of a technological Intersect, he employs a magical version.



Imaro said:


> Uhmm, no I'm going with the actual concept you presented. Now if you had said noble born, city dweller who eschewed all things most nobles and all things most city dwellers would know and learn (which kinda defeats the purpose of him being noble-born and a city dweller) then yeah I could see what you just presented... but that's not what you posted.




That's why I used the word stereotype. You have a predjudiced pigeon-holed view of what someone who lives in a city, born to a noble is. 



Imaro said:


> And IMO, you didn't fulfill your original concept, you pulled a bait and switch which really is a disingenuous way of arguing... IMO this sums up what you just tried to pull...




You based your side of the argument on assumptions. You know what happens when you assume.



Imaro said:


> So he's a fighter...
> 
> No he's a wizard...
> 
> ...




You are continuing to conflate concept with class.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Contrary to your belief...




I speak from practice, not belief.



Imaro said:


> Yeah, for the most part they are. I mean if I want to be a sub-par controller then yeah I can play a warlock and try to do controllery things... or if I want a sub-par striker I can play a wizard and do strikery things... but then a sub-optimal choice isn't really a choice is it? At least that was the philosophy behind 4e in the beginning.




You've obviously never seen the "Pew-Pew" wizard. And my control warlock was not a sub-par controller. He gave up a bit of his striker capability as a trade-off to focus on control.



Imaro said:


> My suggestion awhile back was to have different combat roles based upon build and power selection. Something 4e is just now starting to do, cotrary to the cries of that doing exactly this will ruin the game. My only problem with some of these builds is that they are so narrow, yet the only way to break out of the over-arching class combat role. In other words don't make the only striker paladin a blackguard (which has a ton of specific story fluff, conotations and flavored mechanics to go along with it.).




To be clear, I don't think your ideas will ruin the game. And I welcome expansion of the game in new directions. My issue is that people seem to be saying that the game should have catered to everyone's concepts straight out of the gate. I believe that the designers needed to enter this new design paradigm slowly, with more restrictions until they and the player base got used to the concept and discovered new ways to use it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> What *class* is called sword and board??? There is however a class called knight.




I didn't mention *class*, I was specifically talking about *concept*. I don't *need* a class called _knight_ to play a knight. Never have, never will.



Imaro said:


> Yet in those classes there are no mechanics to back your characters pact claim up.




So what if there wassn't? And there is in the form of Backgrounds and Themes.



Imaro said:


> However the Warlock class (because it is based on this very archetype) does have the mechanics that fit my concept to a tee...




Like? Maybe if you named what you think mechanically represents a pact I'd buy your argument.



Imaro said:


> so why should the concept of pact-bound arcane wielder be tied up with striker thus forcing me (if I want mechanical weight to the fluff composing my concept) to play a striker?




It doesn't. Unless you are talking specific mechanics that one class gets over another. But there are mechanical choices for a wizard that support the concept, just not the specific ones from the warlock class.



Imaro said:


> You see you and many others keep dancing aound this question... don't tell me to squint really hard, ignore the fact that I have no mechanical weight to my concept, and many of my abilities and skills won't fit it... tell me why the concept of the wielder of magic gained through a pact with an other-worldly being should be tied to the striker combat role??




No one is dancing around the question. I am answering it honestly, you just don't like the answer. It's fine if you don't, but claiming that I'm not answering your question is disingenuous.



Imaro said:


> Again mechanical weight matters and you keep ignoring that fact. That's why your 3e barbarian not-city dwelling (but city dwelling), not-noble born (but noble born) character is a mess. Because the classes are based on fantasy archetypes and those archetypes set up what are and aren't class abilities, skills, etc. for particular classes.




I'm not ignoring it. I made choices with my character. But you seem determined to inextricably tie my class choice to *your* concept. Why should the designers of 4E not tie class to combat role if you are unwilling to untether class from stereotypical background concepts?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 28, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Those classes have other trade-offs compared to the average striker.




So you agree it's possible for a striker to have the thingsa I listed...with other trade-offs. 





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> No. I presented the idea originally way back in the thread as a Barbarian/Sorecer. My point was that people got stuck upon the name Barbarian and tried to pigeon-hole my concept, much like you are doing now.




Really? When you addressed me you spoke about re-skinning a barbarian. I'm sorry I didn't go back into the thread to find the particular example you were speaking of... or maybe you should have clarified.





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> He was born in and grew up in a city. City-dweller? Check.
> His father is a minor noble. Noble-born? Check.




*sigh* again... no mechanical weight.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> With some effort I _could_ reskin a 3E fighter as a wizard. Picture a "90-pound weakling" that somehow hefts that sword and shield as if he were a massive brute. And when people mock the puny man in the tin can, he displays a battle cunning that no one expected. See, he focused his studies on the martial aspects of magic because he was sick and tired of being picked on. His "spells" allow him to pull off amazing feats that no ordinary man could. Think "Chuck" meets the middle ages. Instead of a technological Intersect, he employs a magical version.




Are we really at this point in the argument, where word games rule the day? Will his abilities detec as magic if someone casts the spell on him?





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> That's why I used the word stereotype. You have a predjudiced pigeon-holed view of what someone who lives in a city, born to a noble is.




Well then I guess as a concept it's meaningless, since the way you've presented it it can mean any and everything. I mean he grew up in this city... does he even have a knowledge skill to represent this... let me guess he was never allowed into the actual city or some other bull.





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You based your side of the argument on assumptions. You know what happens when you assume.




Yep, I assumed you were discussing openly, honestly and in good faith. I was wrong.





Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You are continuing to conflate concept with class.




Nope...I'm tying class to fantasy archetypes. I'm not really into word games, purposeful misdirection or any of the other tactics you seem ready and willing to pull out in order to "win" this argument so I think I'll step away now and discuss with posters who are more genuine in their arguments and methods.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 28, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> With some effort I _could_ reskin a 3E fighter as a wizard. Picture a "90-pound weakling" that somehow hefts that sword and shield as if he were a massive brute. And when people mock the puny man in the tin can, he displays a battle cunning that no one expected. See, he focused his studies on the martial aspects of magic because he was sick and tired of being picked on. His "spells" allow him to pull off amazing feats that no ordinary man could.



Well, 3.X might be a bad edition to use as an example. What, mechanically, represents this?

Are their verbal and somatic components? No? Good spells, since their really aren't (m)any like that. I mean, if the character has his tongue numbed, or his hands were full (say, sword and board, bow, or a greatsword) he can still fight, I assume. But, okay, that takes care of that problem, conceptually, though it's stretching it already.

Does Detect Magic pick it up? Well, if the spells are all reactive instantaneous actions (for opportunity attacks) with no verbal or somatic components, I guess that Detect Magic would never pick it up. I mean, even Quicken Spell (spell level +4) is limited to once per round as a free action. So, that problem is taken care of, but now it's basically unbelievable when compared to the internal consistency of the world (comparing it to other spells and feats).

Does he ever run out of spells? Well, if the spells function like a Reserve Feat, then maybe he could do it indefinitely. I mean, he doesn't need to actually have the feat, and more importantly, _he doesn't need to actually have a spell in reserve_, but I guess that makes it work. You've now squarely pushed into overpoweringly new territory from a mechanical standpoint, unless you're dismissing internal consistency based on the mechanics of the game.

Does it stop functioning in an antimagic field? I mean, if he walks into one, I assume he'll keep his base attack, so the spells seem to work there, too. So, spells that ignore antimagic fields and the like. Again, not much else in the world(s) works this way (artifacts, I guess?), so it's very powerful in the fiction.

Does he still need to prepare from a spell book? Well, wizards can get the Spell Mastery feat, which lets them prepare spells without the book. I guess while you don't have the feat, you could fluff it as being the case, though your character also doesn't need to prepare for one hour per day, and can't learn any new spells, and is probably much less intelligent than the average wizard (if you want to use point buy and he's keeping his Str and Con high).

You basically have a "wizard" who casts unlimited spells (with no power to draw upon, even if he wanted to switch it up, like all Wizards can), they can't be detected because they're all instantaneous, they have no verbal or somatic components, they can be cast on anyone's turn at any time as he needs them, they are immune to being suppressed to an antimagic field, and they don't need to be in a spell book, and he doesn't need to prepare for an hour per day, nor can he learn or prepare other spells.

From an internal consistency standpoint, that's a problem. When people look at the game to give them information about the world (like the Kobold's Shifty power), then things that buck hard against that consistency are more likely to be singled out. Your wizard example is a perfect representation of that. I would never allow that to fly in a 3.X game back in the day, for the reasons stated above.

Sure, it's doable, and yes, you can make exceptions, but in my campaign, that means it now has a place in the world. Arbitrarily deciding where those limitations begin and end for balance is something I'd rather avoid, as doing so in this case is going to stretch my groups suspension of disbelief dramatically. (And no, not all decisions a GM makes is arbitrary.)

There's nothing wrong with doing it if the group is cool with it and you have fun. But, I think there's definitely valid objections to be raised. As always, though, play what you like


----------



## Mallus (Nov 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Yeah, you kinda were... for no reason.



Low blood sugar? Too much Gawker?  



> Well for most people it easily serves as shorthand for an overarching and high level character concept... I wanna play a holy warrior in shining armor... paladin. I want to play a hunter or tracker... Ranger.



The relationship between class and high level character concept isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be, regardless of edition. 

For example, a "holy warrior" could be cleric, or a fighter/cleric, too, A ranger could be anything from a hunter (as you say), to an archer or two-weapon fighter, to AD&D's heavily-armored tank with pets (and a fireball or two, if they're high enough level). 



> I guess my question to you is why have these names even been used and why do they have specific fiction attached to them in the game books if all they are suppose to be are packages of abilities?



My answer is: most classes _don't_ really have specific fiction attached to them (though a few come close, like the paladin and monk).

For example, in older editions like AD&D and 2e, the _fighter_ class could represent anything from a knight to a highwayman to a dashing court swashbuckler. These are all very different roles in terms of the fiction, but modeled using the same class mechanics.  

In 3e, with it's more liberal multiclassing rules, it was common to have a single character archetype represented using a mixture of classes and PrC's. Frankly, it was the 3e framework that put the nail in the coffin of classes-as-archtypes, in favor of classes as packages of abilities which players combined to create their (potentially archetypal) characters. 

I mean, the sheer (eventual) number of 3e classes/PrC's is a good indication they were no longer meant to represent a small number of universal archetypes. 



> It seems if they are to be flavor neutral... you wouldn't attach specific narratives to the classes.



In most cases, the designer's _didn't_. And sometimes they used multiple classes to model a single character -- consider the write-ups for some of the classic fantasy fiction heroes in the old Deities and Demigods; Conan, The Grey Mouser, et al. 



> Or would you just present this name and not explain what type of class they are composed of?



I'd describe it as a militant religious order, and mention some of the abilities its noteworthy members are known to use. 



> If it's all of them...then I would argue that they are an order of avengers and it's actually misleading to claim they are paladins... isn't it?



Nope.

I think "avenger" sounds kinda dumb, while "paladin" is a lovely word. Ergo, I have no problem using "paladin" to refer a wide variety a holy wide variety of holy warriors, not just ones who have the exact abilities of the PHB class. And while I like the Avenger mechanics, I'm feel no obligation to use the term in the setting fiction and this hasn't caused any confusion in my group. 

Back on the 2e era, you had the option to use specialty priests, which could have wildly divergent granted powers, spell lists, permissible arms and armors. Yet they were still all "priests".

In the 4e era, our campaign had a character who, mechanically, was a Dwarven Avenger. In the game fiction, he was a Communist revolutionary empowered by something called "dialectical materialism", and claimed his 'powers' where just reason cutting through the bogus, bourgeoisie delusions that permeated his world.  

(I mention him to illustrate how a certain... _flexibility_ with regard to tying the character fiction to actual mechanics can be useful. We'd _still_ be waiting for WotC --or for that matter, anyone who wasn't us-- to publish an official philosophically-powered Communist revolutionary class). 



> In 3.5 there was a swashbuckler class...



Eventually. And it wasn't very good. And it certainly didn't stop 3e players from mixing other classes together in order to create an archetypal swashbuckler. For instance, dipping into Ranger for the two-weapon feats, or Rogue for Sneak Attack.

BTW... Monte did a much better job at a playable, single-classed swashbuckler with AE's Unfettered. 



> I would say it matters as much as the game makes it matter... and the fact that specific narratives and fiction are attached to classes in D&D... has made it pretty important. Now if there was just a name and a listing of abilities I could somewhat understand your argument (and I have games that do this), but D&D has never been like that, there has always been story and narrative as well as defining mechanics attached to class.



I'd say this analysis is simply wrong. In pre-3e D&D, you had single classes representing multiple character concepts --unless you'd like to claim that "knight", "pirate", and "swashbuckler" are the _same_ fictional archetype-- and in 3e/Pathfinder, you frequently have multiple classes combined in service of a single concept/archetype. The most you can say is certain classes had more... expected fictions associated with them. 

The tight correlation between metagame _class_ and in-game fiction is something you're reading into the rules, not out of. Heck, the 2e class write-ups explicitly list several different kinds archetypal character each individual class can be used for. Both Conan and _Hercules_ are fighters... do they strike you as the same guy, fiction-wise? 

I'm not trying to critique preferences here, but your description of how D&D has functioned with regard to the relationship between _class_ and _concept_ throughout the editions is inaccurate.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Low blood sugar? Too much Gawker?




Okay, maybe there was a reason...  




Mallus said:


> The relationship between class and high level character concept isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be, regardless of edition.
> 
> For example, a "holy warrior" could be cleric, or a fighter/cleric, too, A ranger could be anything from a hunter (as you say), to an archer or two-weapon fighter, to AD&D's heavily-armored tank with pets (and a fireball or two, if they're high enough level).




A cleric could be if he worshipped a god connected to warriors in some way but he could just as easily be a scholar if he worships Ioun, or a trickster if he worships Coyote. That said... 

In all honesty I would, for the purposes of this discussion, refine the paladin archetype to be that of holy knight... since paladins (even in 4e) are suppose to be martial combatants imbued with divine power who hold themselves to higher ideals. So you are correct their archetype isn't holy warrior, while in a more general sense that probably is the archetype of the cleric where warrior is not taken literally but in a more spiritual sense.

Now, let's compare two examples of class descriptions from 4e...

The Ranger
...As a ranger, you possess almost supernaturally keen
senses and a deep appreciation for untamed wilderness.
With your knowledge of the natural world, you
are able to track enemies through nearly any landscape,
using the smallest clue to set your course, even
sometimes the calls and songs of beasts and birds.
Your severe demeanor promises a deadly conclusion to
any enemy you hunt.

The Fighter
Regardless of your level of skill and the specific
weapons you eventually master, your motivations
determine who you defend and who you slay. You
could be a noble champion who pledges your blade
to gallant causes, a calculating mercenary who cares
more for the clink of gold than praise, a homeless
prince on the run from assassins, or a blood-loving
thug looking for the next good fight.

Now, honestly... you don't see a difference in these two descriptions? Honestly? IMO, the fighter would seem to be a much broader archetype than the Ranger as presented here... and if I wasn't into the whole woodland and nature thing I wouldn't want to be a ranger just to be a competent or even good archer.



Mallus said:


> My answer is: most classes _don't_ really have specific fiction attached to them (though a few come close, like the paladin and monk).




I think my example of the wizard and warlock as well as the ranger above show that at least in the more recent editions, this isn't true. There is an archetype very much implied in the narrative surrounding classes...



Mallus said:


> For example, in older editions like AD&D and 2e, the _fighter_ class could represent anything from a knight to a highwayman to a dashing court swashbuckler. These are all very different roles in terms of the fiction, but modeled using the same class mechanics.




A highwayman is not an archetype, neither is a swashbuckler... they are more specific concepts of particular archetypes... Even the knight is not really an actual archetype because he's a specific concept (culturally based) within the warrior archetype.

I'm not really familiar with AD&D but I would assume this was because we had more general mechanics, but it's only a natural evolution that as the game mechanics (skills, kits, feats, abilities, etc.) used to represent specific concepts became more precise and less general... the classes that represent the archetypes would become less encompassing and more precise (sometimes bordering on concepts in and of themselves). 

One AD&D example I am aware of is kits... you could only take certain kits if you were of a certain class... this definitely argues for classes representing more than just generic packages of abilities. These kits were a way of customizing a general archetype into a more specific concept under it and were rarely generic in their benefits.



Mallus said:


> In 3e, with it's more liberal multiclassing rules, it was common to have a single character archetype represented using a mixture of classes and PrC's. Frankly, it was the 3e framework that put the nail in the coffin of classes-as-archtypes, in favor of classes as packages of abilities which players combined to create their (potentially archetypal) characters.




I think you're talking about more specific concepts here as opposed to higher level archetypes. I would also argue that PrC's were in no way archetypical or intended to be but instead were suppose to be used by the DM to customize concepts that existed in his particular campaign.



Mallus said:


> I mean, the sheer (eventual) number of 3e classes/PrC's is a good indication they were no longer meant to represent a small number of universal archetypes.




I agree, they were created to represent more and more specific concepts of archetypes by giving you more specific mechanics as I said above... and this is even more apparent in things like PrC's, builds, backgrounds, etc. The classes however are still the overarching, high-level archetypes that your character is under. 



Mallus said:


> In most cases, the designer's _didn't_. And sometimes they used multiple classes to model a single character -- consider the write-ups for some of the classic fantasy fiction heroes in the old Deities and Demigods; Conan, The Grey Mouser, et al.




A character is not an archetype... there is no Conan archetype, or Mouser archetype... what they are is a variation on a particular archetype... maybe even two or more archetypes combined... because the totality of a character does not equal archetype and I have never claimed it did.



Mallus said:


> I'd describe it as a militant religious order, and mention some of the abilities its noteworthy members are known to use.




Fair enough... though you originally claimed they were an order of paladins. If you did just that and I was in your camapign I would assume they were all paladins... 

Just as a side note... you do realize in sourcebooks of nearly every edition they did exactly the opposite of this... there were actual orders of paladins, or rangers and characters had to be of that class to join.



Mallus said:


> Nope.
> 
> I think "avenger" sounds kinda dumb, while "paladin" is a lovely word. Ergo, I have no problem using "paladin" to refer a wide variety a holy wide variety of holy warriors, not just ones who have the exact abilities of the PHB class. And while I like the Avenger mechanics, I'm feel no obligation to use the term in the setting fiction and this hasn't caused any confusion in my group.




Uhmm, I was talking about on a meta game level. Earlier in your post you stated that they were an order of paladins you were renamming... well apparently if there are avengers this isn't true. 



Mallus said:


> Back on the 2e era, you had the option to use specialty priests, which could have wildly divergent granted powers, spell lists, permissible arms and armors. Yet they were still all "priests".




I'm not sure what your point is here... you were free to create holy warriors of varying faiths, and like in the real world and literature, they had differing armaments, beliefs, knowledge, etc. You took an archetype (the holy warrior) and through customization made it a more specific concept.



Mallus said:


> In the 4e era, our campaign had a character who, mechanically, was a Dwarven Avenger. In the game fiction, he was a Communist revolutionary empowered by something called "dialectical materialism", and claimed his 'powers' where just reason cutting through the bogus, bourgeoisie delusions that permeated his world.
> 
> (I mention him to illustrate how a certain... _flexibility_ with regard to tying the character fiction to actual mechanics can be useful. We'd _still_ be waiting for WotC --or for that matter, anyone who wasn't us-- to publish an official philosophically-powered Communist revolutionary class).




I'm not sure what this has to do with our larger discussion. His concept apparently still used the holy assasin archetype... the trappings and specific concept still fit under that unbrella and then he refined his concept through selection of abilities and fictional trappings... what does this have to do with attaching combat role to the archetypes in the game?



Mallus said:


> Eventually. And it wasn't very good. And it certainly didn't stop 3e players from mixing other classes together in order to create an archetypal swashbuckler. For instance, dipping into Ranger for the two-weapon feats, or Rogue for Sneak Attack.
> 
> BTW... Monte did a much better job at a playable, single-classed swashbuckler with AE's Unfettered.




All of this is irrelevant, since the question was about how to represent a swashbuckler in 3.5... there was a swashbuckler class plain and simple. this is of course ignoring the fact that the swashbuckler isn't an archetype in and of itself either.




Mallus said:


> I'd say this analysis is simply wrong. In pre-3e D&D, you had single classes representing multiple character concepts --unless you'd like to claim that "knight", "pirate", and "swashbuckler" are the _same_ fictional archetype-- and in 3e/Pathfinder, you frequently have multiple classes combined in service of a single concept/archetype. The most you can say is certain classes had more... expected fictions associated with them.




A character concept =/= archetype. 



Mallus said:


> The tight correlation between metagame _class_ and in-game fiction is something you're reading into the rules, not out of. Heck, the 2e class write-ups explicitly list several different kinds archetypal character each individual class can be used for. Both Conan and _Hercules_ are fighters... do they strike you as the same guy, fiction-wise?




I've provided enough examples from the current edition that you're either willfully ignoring them or have made up your mind and are not open to the possibility... either way I'm not going to keep posting examples.

Again Conan and Hercules aren't the same guy but they fall under the warrior archetype (though some would argue Conan is mixture of the warrior and rogue archetype). You keep missing the fact that archetypes are not the sum of a character... they never have been they are the overarching umbrella(s) that characters fall under. 



Mallus said:


> I'm not trying to critique preferences here, but your description of how D&D has functioned with regard to the relationship between _class_ and _concept_ throughout the editions is inaccurate.




No it's just not how you chose to look at it... and for some reason you assume that because you didn't look at it that way... it's not that way that anyone else ore even the majority of D&D players have or did. I honestly think you are wrong.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 28, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Rich Baker brings up the discussion point in the article regarding the inflexibility in the rules themselves and the dissatisfaction that engenders but you're contending that the problem is the inflexibility not of the rules but of the consumer of the rules that spawns the dissatisfaction?



I'm suggesting class-based games work better if your willing to be flexible when it comes to the relationship between mechanical class and character concept. This shouldn't be controversial post-3e, where most of player base seemed comfortable with building character concepts out of several (if not many) different base classes/PrC's.

I don't recall people griping about having to dip into ranger to build a PC who was primarily conceived as a archer-warrior (sans woodlands trappings), or mighty warriors who had a bit of rogue or monk in them... 



billd91 said:


> Words have meaning.



Words can have more than one meaning, and multiple words can have roughly the same meaning. 



> There are a lot of players out there for whom "paladin" has a meaning utterly incompatible with the 4e conception of the avenger.



I'm sure some would also say: hey, they're both holy warriors, close enough. But I concede some people would have a problem.

Do you suppose as many would complain about an archery-specialized fighter being build using the ranger class? If so, why weren't they complaining when 3e broke away from class-as-archetype? 

Granted, I'm coming at this from a certain perspective. I homebrew exclusively, which means I'm accustomed to slapping my own narrative gloss over whatever mechanics work well (enough). In our 4e campaign, the undead bureaucrat/detective was originally built as a rogue, but was rebuilt as a assassin when that class came out, because the mechanics fit the PC better, and the Pope of our homemade semi-false religion was an Invoker, not Cleric.   

Neither of this mechanical redefinitions have a negative impact on the characters; they remained well-written and well-played. 



> The ranger had always been a lot more than a combat archetype.



Sometimes. 

In AD&D they were frequently heavily-armored tanks with pets, and eventually, two kinds of magic spells (ie, they sure weren't Aragorn, and they strained the wise tracker-woodsman model with their penchant for traipsing around in plate mail).

In 2e they became duel-wielders (and lost the M-U spells).

In 3e, they became base stock for archer builds (sometimes swashbucklers).

A 4e ranger can be a lot more too, if the player fleshes out of the PC with good characterization. Conversely, nothing stops AD&D & 2e rangers from being nothing more than fighting machines.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 28, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I'm suggesting class-based games work better if your willing to be flexible when it comes to the relationship between mechanical class and character concept. This shouldn't be controversial post-3e, where most of player base seemed comfortable with building character concepts out of several (if not many) different base classes/PrC's.
> 
> I don't recall people griping about having to dip into ranger to build a PC who was primarily conceived as a archer-warrior (sans woodlands trappings), or mighty warriors who had a bit of rogue or monk in them...





Rich Baker brought up the situation and says, "Role insulation helps to guide players into building effective characters, but it also limits creativity. It'd be nice to give players more control over which role their characters were filling, or even if they were filling a role at all."  Though you don't personally recall any gripes along those lines, apparently the D&D design team is seeing the split of the player base, the rise of other systems, incuding retro systems, and the chatter they see on the Internet as signs that the player base has become increasingly uncomfortable with the limits on creativity that their designs have engendered by tying rols to class and whatnot.  Your opinion is certainly valid, in that you don't recognize the same problems as others are seeing, but let me ask more specifically if you can think of any ways in which roles might be more tied to roleplaying rather than mechanics and allow builds to follow concepts rather than for players to choose a build based on finding one as close as they can to the concept they have in mind?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> So you agree it's possible for a striker to have the thingsa I listed...with other trade-offs.




Yes. I'm not against expanding the game in any of the directions you've presented. But I enjoy finding ways to use the tools I have at hand to accomplish what I want until a viable alternative is presented. 



Imaro said:


> Really? When you addressed me you spoke about re-skinning a barbarian. I'm sorry I didn't go back into the thread to find the particular example you were speaking of... or maybe you should have clarified.




I thnk you're assigning a tone to my posts that I don't intend to convey. My intention was to clarify, not to go "Ah ha!" I thought the re-skinned barbarian portion of the idea was relevant to our discussion at the time. There's alot more to the character's concept than "City-Born Noble Barbarian" that I have not discussed in this thread, that was just the part relevant to my position. 





Imaro said:


> *sigh* again... no mechanical weight.




If the mechanical weight is important to you then there are ways to achieve it. For example, I chose Intimidate as the character's primary method of dealing with his fellow nobles. I spent the skill points necessary to overcome the illiteracy of the class. Etc. My point is that I'm not going to let an idea I have for a character sit idle because no one has published a viable city-dwelling noble-born dragon-blooded class.  



Imaro said:


> Are we really at this point in the argument, where word games rule the day? Will his abilities detec as magic if someone casts the spell on him?




Without DM permission? No. If that's important to you, then why suggest such a character? Maybe because you were being snarky? 



Imaro said:


> Well then I guess as a concept it's meaningless, since the way you've presented it it can mean any and everything. I mean he grew up in this city... does he even have a knowledge skill to represent this... let me guess he was never allowed into the actual city or some other bull.




What skill would represent this knowledge to you? Has every single city-dwelling character of yours had this skill?

In our games a character will be familiar with the community he grew up in, no check needed. Ranks or training in a skill would apply to more general knowledge of cities. 



Imaro said:


> Yep, I assumed you were discussing openly, honestly and in good faith. I was wrong.




Like I said, I'm trying to clarify my points and am discussing honestly.  



Imaro said:


> Nope...I'm tying class to fantasy archetypes. I'm not really into word games, purposeful misdirection or any of the other tactics you seem ready and willing to pull out in order to "win" this argument so I think I'll step away now and discuss with posters who are more genuine in their arguments and methods.




I think you're reading my intentions incorrectly, I'm trying to understand your side with as much diffulty you seem to have with mine.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 28, 2011)

[MENTION=4892]Vyvyan Basterd[/MENTION]: I may be reading your posts incorrectly but you seem to be arguing from a disingenuous position.  

On the one hand you tell me that you can reskin a barbarian to be a city-born, noble-bred scion who channels the power of dragons.  Now, not once did you mention that this noble-born, city dweller concept was actually a city-dweller who spent all his time in the wilds and a noble that never learned anything at court... somehow, auto-magically I was suppose to realize that we were really discussing the anti-concept of what you presented.  If this isn't a "GOTCHA" type situation I don't know what is.  You were purposefully misleading in naming your concept.   

Then you proceed to try and place blame on me for taking the concept you presented at face value (assuming) and infer that it is only my preconceived and limited idea of the concept you presented that's really at fault... when in actuality the concept, as you presented it, was misleading and not really the concept you ended up constructing... you know like the fighter whose been re-skinned as a wizard... only with no spells and no magic and no lore... At this point I'm going to say, I didn't realize my concept.

In other words... wait a minute I'll claim one concept then create a concept that's different (while claiming it's the same) and kind of weasel it in there somehow, disregard the actual rules, tropes and mechanical weight the concept I actually put forth would be expected by most to have and declare it successful.

To me this smacks of dishonest discussion, plain and simple.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I didn't mention class, I was specifically talking about concept. I don't need a class called knight to play a knight. Never have, never will.




This conversation reminds me of the OOTS strip:

Giant In the Playground Games

Miko:  I did not take any levels in "Samurai" class.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 29, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, 3.X might be a bad edition to use as an example. What, mechanically, represents this?




It is a concept. The magic involved is conceptual. The mechanics of the class would not change in my example.



JamesonCourage said:


> Are their verbal and somatic components? No? Good spells, since their really aren't (m)any like that.




That's what outside-the-box thinking is all about. It doesn't *have* to be like other spells. If that line of thought prevailed among designers we would never have seen the 3E Warlock or the Book of Nine Swords.



JamesonCourage said:


> From an internal consistency standpoint, that's a problem. When people look at the game to give them information about the world (like the Kobold's Shifty power), then things that buck hard against that consistency are more likely to be singled out. Your wizard example is a perfect representation of that. I would never allow that to fly in a 3.X game back in the day, for the reasons stated above.




Like I've said, I would never (or rarely) create something of the sort for NPCs. But PCs can be unique in my games. As long as a player isn't trying to change mechanics they can pass any concept by me and I'm willing to listen. "Martial Magic" can work exactly like the Fighter mechanics-wise. What it allows for is a wider range of options to envision your character. Internal consistency doesn't need to hold true, IMO, when we are talking about a character in the spotlight like the PCs. I'm not even saying I'd make a character like this, it was merely quick brainstorming of an idea that Imaro seemingly thought was ridiculous.



JamesonCourage said:


> Sure, it's doable, and yes, you can make exceptions, but in my campaign, that means it now has a place in the world. Arbitrarily deciding where those limitations begin and end for balance is something I'd rather avoid, as doing so in this case is going to stretch my groups suspension of disbelief dramatically. (And no, not all decisions a GM makes is arbitrary.)




I understand that individual DMs have different thresholds of concepts they'd like to allow. I have a line myself. My greater point is that people are claiming Roles limit their characters, but they are more than willing to limit player creativity based on class choice.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 29, 2011)

Hussar said:


> This conversation reminds me of the OOTS strip:
> 
> Giant In the Playground Games
> 
> Miko:  I did not take any levels in "Samurai" class.




And yet archetypes are still really useful, particularly when there are in-game social structures capable of promoting reasonable conformity... Like with your archetypal samurai or members who make through the ranks from page to squire to full member of an established knighthood who all receive similar educations.

If we use Miko as a case in point, she was not only a terrible paladin, though she had the social rank of samurai, she was terrible at it. Perhaps if she had an archetypal samurai training (and all that entails) she'd have been more loyal and not murdered her lord.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 29, 2011)

Imaro said:


> On the one hand you tell me that you can reskin a barbarian to be a city-born, noble-bred scion who channels the power of dragons.  Now, not once did you mention that this noble-born, city dweller concept was actually a city-dweller who spent all his time in the wilds and a noble that never learned anything at court... somehow, auto-magically I was suppose to realize that we were really discussing the anti-concept of what you presented.  If this isn't a "GOTCHA" type situation I don't know what is.  You were purposefully misleading in naming your concept.




I meant that as examples of how the barbarian skill list, used as is, can still fit a city-dweller. I don't honestly remember exactly what skills I chose for my character 4-5 years ago beyond Intimidate and buying off Illiteracy. I most likely spent some resources outside of the class (like cross-class skills) to accomplish my full concept.

My point was that city-dwelling does not necessitate the skills you demand be present for mechanical support. If the skills you believe are important were important to my concept then I would have either spent resources in cross-class skills or feats or chosen a different set of classes.



Imaro said:


> In other words... wait a minute I'll claim one concept then create a concept that's different (while claiming it's the same) and kind of weasel it in there somehow, disregard the actual rules, tropes and mechanical weight the concept I actually put forth would be expected by most to have and declare it successful.




Who are you to declare what would be expected by most? You speak for all of gamerdom? No. I gave one example to your snarky comeback that took me all of a minute to construct mentally. I said your concept would take work, but it wouldn't be impossible by any means. Of course if you're inflexible on conceptual matters and disallow unique ideas because they don't fit your preconceived notions of how the game world works, then any concept you don't consider 'the norm' will fail.

It's easy to declare failure on my part. It requires no creativity. At least I'm testing the waters of concepts through creative means.



Imaro said:


> To me this smacks of dishonest discussion, plain and simple.




I am discussing my honest opinion of how concepts can be molded. I can't read your mind to discover what parameters you consider normal, so if stepping outside your box is dishonest, then I geuss I'm dishonest.


----------



## LurkAway (Nov 29, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I understand that individual DMs have different thresholds of concepts they'd like to allow. I have a line myself. My greater point is that people are claiming Roles limit their characters, but they are more than willing to limit player creativity based on class choice.



Ya, technically, it is self-limiting player creativity based on class choice, but it's self-limiting because it feels wrong.

I don't know if it's the right analogy, but it's like you're shopping  for a shirt and the store only offers shirts with front pockets. You'd  think it would be easy for the store to offer pocketless shirts, but  they don't. A pocket is hardwired into every shirt. Yes, you could go to  a tailor to remove the pocket but why go through the hassle and maybe  there'd be some ugly stitching left over. You otherwise like this store and not inclined to shop elsewhere, so you hope that next season, they'll offer nice shirts with a pocketless design.

Technically, I am self-limited by my dislike of front pockets and expectations of what a good shirt is, but it doesn't feel that way. I actually think the store is self-limiting for no apparent reason.

So I feel that the solutions provided (other than a 5E rehaul) are somehow missing the point . That's the subjective feeling anyway. The messy rationale behind it has been explained through several perspectives since the OP.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 29, 2011)

billd91 said:


> And yet archetypes are still really useful,




Agreed. Why? Did someone in this thread claim they weren't?



billd91 said:


> particularly when there are in-game social structures capable of promoting reasonable conformity... Like with your archetypal samurai or members who make through the ranks from page to squire to full member of an established knighthood who all receive similar educations.




See, I definitely do not see adventurers as conformists. They _could_ be, but I don't see the majority as such. If they were they would be the rank and file of the knighthood, later a commander, etc. They would most likely not be mucking through the sewers of an underdark city. They most likely wouldn't be associating with a rag-tag bunch of glory-seekers, zealots, and murderers. They _could_ be part of the order if that's what your campaign is about. But I don't see why you would think a different skill-set for an adventuring knight would be a bad thing.



billd91 said:


> If we use Miko as a case in point, she was not only a terrible paladin, though she had the social rank of samurai, she was terrible at it. Perhaps if she had an archetypal samurai training (and all that entails) she'd have been more loyal and not murdered her lord.




So choice of class would limit what personal actions a character takes? That sounds like much worse of a limitation than anything anyone has assigned to the game so far.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 29, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It is a concept. The magic involved is conceptual. The mechanics of the class would not change in my example.



Right. That's what I assumed.



> That's what outside-the-box thinking is all about. It doesn't *have* to be like other spells. If that line of thought prevailed among designers we would never have seen the 3E Warlock or the Book of Nine Swords.



Haha, bad examples for me personally. I didn't like the class or the book 

I do get your point, but those were also entirely new mechanics created to help place concepts. They were not "reskinning" or the like.



> Like I've said, I would never (or rarely) create something of the sort for NPCs. But PCs can be unique in my games. As long as a player isn't trying to change mechanics they can pass any concept by me and I'm willing to listen. "Martial Magic" can work exactly like the Fighter mechanics-wise. What it allows for is a wider range of options to envision your character. Internal consistency doesn't need to hold true, IMO, when we are talking about a character in the spotlight like the PCs. I'm not even saying I'd make a character like this, it was merely quick brainstorming of an idea that Imaro seemingly thought was ridiculous.



Well, from an internal consistency standpoint, it sounds ridiculous to me. It models nothing else in the game mechanically, and nothing else in the game can copy its mechanics (no components, unlimited reactive free actions, unlimited spells, and so on) without disregarding the rules that define the game. I think 3.X was pretty simulationist (and pretty gamist), so the rules were meant to model the setting. Mess with the rules, mess with the setting, and all that entails.

And, really, my impression of 4e design doesn't line up with what you're saying (that internal consistency doesn't need to hold true, especially for the PCs). While 4e definitely supports reskinning, it features that on both sides, and it favors giving everything that _isn't_ a PC the possibility of mechanical exceptions, to boot. "Want that door to work a certain way? Beauty of exception-based design! Same for monsters! Not the same for PCs!" 



> I understand that individual DMs have different thresholds of concepts they'd like to allow. I have a line myself. My greater point is that people are claiming Roles limit their characters, but they are more than willing to limit player creativity based on class choice.



Yes, but player creativity in the sense you're describing it is based on the social contract. It's based on what lines _we as a group_ draw. If you were in a different group, they might accept your barbarian/sorcerer with no problems.

Roles, on the other hand, are deeply and purposefully embedded into the classes. No matter what table I sit it, it's expected that my Cleric be a Leader, or my Fighter be a Defender. Yes, certain groups will accept striving against those confines, but the class is literally mechanically stuck in that role.

Reskinning classes is nice. It lets you do things with them that are out of the box. It lets you be creative. I think that separating role from classes only lets classes get even more easy to reskin, really. I mean, if I want to play a holy warrior striker, I'm not forced to reskin the Avenger, now I can potentially reskin the Cleric or Paladin, too.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Sometimes I'm not great at getting my point across. I hope you at least see what I'm trying to say. As always, play what you like


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 29, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> I don't know if it's the right analogy, but it's like you're shopping  for a shirt and the store only offers shirts with front pockets. You'd  think it would be easy for the store to offer pocketless shirts, but  they don't. A pocket is hardwired into every shirt. Yes, you could go to  a tailor to remove the pocket but why go through the hassle and maybe  there'd be some ugly stitching left over. You otherwise like this store and not inclined to shop elsewhere, so you hope that next season, they'll offer nice shirts with a pocketless design.




Well, the current store started small and had limited room for types of shirts they could offer. But since they've expanded they've started to not only offer pocketless shirts but some new shirts that their customers previously had no exposure to. They still haven't offered all the esoteric choices that their shirt customers can imagine, but they seem to be working towards stocking popular demands as the store grows.


----------



## LurkAway (Nov 29, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Well, the current store started small and had limited room for types of shirts they could offer. But since they've expanded they've started to not only offer pocketless shirts but some new shirts that their customers previously had no exposure to. They still haven't offered all the esoteric choices that their shirt customers can imagine, but they seem to be working towards stocking popular demands as the store grows.



It's too bad the store was thinking small instead of thinking big when they started. Because they lost a lot of customers to The Gap. Still that would be forgivable except that the head of the marketing dept should be fired for labelling the pocketless shirt line to be "esoteric" because that judgment value means they still didn't understand their customers.

Edit: Not to inadvertently land myself in hot water, but the metaphorical head of the marketing dept should be fired, not you. Marketing people are supposed to be sensitive to customer values, but I don't hold the same expectations here, nor for myself


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 29, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I do get your point, but those were also entirely new mechanics created to help place concepts. They were not "reskinning" or the like.




Well, I'd talk about house-ruling but I don't enjoy it myself and it always seems to invoke an even stronger negative reaction than reskinning.



JamesonCourage said:


> Well, from an internal consistency standpoint, it sounds ridiculous to me. It models nothing else in the game mechanically, and nothing else in the game can copy its mechanics (no components, unlimited reactive free actions, unlimited spells, and so on) without disregarding the rules that define the game.




It models the Fighter _mechanically_. The Fighter can copy its _mechanics_. The concept drives the look of that 18 STR Fighter from buff pro-wrestler body to scrawny geek. That's it. It requires no rules adjustments. I understand this may not be a satisfactory answer to some, but when its seems those that are unwilling to reskin are also unwilling to house rule, then it seems unreasonable to me to expect the designers of the game to cater to all your wants in the game.



JamesonCourage said:


> And, really, my impression of 4e design doesn't line up with what you're saying (that internal consistency doesn't need to hold true, especially for the PCs). While 4e definitely supports reskinning, it features that on both sides, and it favors giving everything that _isn't_ a PC the possibility of mechanical exceptions, to boot. "Want that door to work a certain way? Beauty of exception-based design! Same for monsters! Not the same for PCs!"




I can only speak to my own preferences. I prefer to offer consistency most of the time to the players. But, since their characters are in the bright spotlight, I have no issue with breaking expectations for a unique concept. Exception-based design speaks directly to rules, not concepts.



JamesonCourage said:


> Yes, but player creativity in the sense you're describing it is based on the social contract. It's based on what lines _we as a group_ draw. If you were in a different group, they might accept your barbarian/sorcerer with no problems.




I would hope few tables would have a problem with a player choosing Barbarian and choosing to be from a civilized city. Anything else outside of special campaigns would be too restrictive for my tastes.



JamesonCourage said:


> Roles, on the other hand, are deeply and purposefully embedded into the classes. No matter what table I sit it, it's expected that my Cleric be a Leader, or my Fighter be a Defender. Yes, certain groups will accept striving against those confines, but the class is literally mechanically stuck in that role.




_No matter what table_? Then you say certain groups. I'm confused by alot of what you and Imaro are saying. I'm arguing the absoluteness that the two of you are projecting. If you're dealing in less than absolutes then I have only a matter of scope to argue. And since I only have anecdotal evidence of the tables I've played at and their expectations, that endeavor would be pointless.



JamesonCourage said:


> Reskinning classes is nice. It lets you do things with them that are out of the box. It lets you be creative. I think that separating role from classes only lets classes get even more easy to reskin, really. I mean, if I want to play a holy warrior striker, I'm not forced to reskin the Avenger, now I can potentially reskin the Cleric or Paladin, too.




I've said multiple times I think both you and Imaro have great ideas and I hope WotC continues to work towards these goals. But I also like working with the current toolset to see what I can make work for me. And I enjoy sharing my ideas with others. You and Imaro may think my ideas are crap, but I'm sure some think their gold, while others just wish we'd all just shut up.



JamesonCourage said:


> Do you see what I'm getting at? Sometimes I'm not great at getting my point across. I hope you at least see what I'm trying to say. As always, play what you like




I think I do. Hopefully I've gotten mine across as well and don't come off as discussing dishonestly.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 29, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So choice of class would limit what personal actions a character takes? That sounds like much worse of a limitation than anything anyone has assigned to the game so far.




Based on that it sounds clear to me that you really don't *get* the point of behavior-based archetypes like paladins or good rangers or samurai. Some classes and the archetypes they represent are *supposed* to channel your decisions as part of the challenge of playing them.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 29, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Well, I'd talk about house-ruling but I don't enjoy it myself and it always seems to invoke an even stronger negative reaction than reskinning.



Hmm, interesting. My group has always accepting houseruling if it helps accomplish a player's goal, and shied away from reskinning most of the time.



> It models the Fighter _mechanically_. The Fighter can copy its _mechanics_. The concept drives the look of that 18 STR Fighter from buff pro-wrestler body to scrawny geek. That's it. It requires no rules adjustments. I understand this may not be a satisfactory answer to some, but when its seems those that are unwilling to reskin are also unwilling to house rule, then it seems unreasonable to me to expect the designers of the game to cater to all your wants in the game.



Yes, The _Fighter_ can mimic the mechanics of base attack, HP, etc., but the _Wizard_ cannot mimic the mechanics of spells with no components, unlimited reactive spells, spells that work extensively in antimagic fields, etc. That is, if these are spells, they are unique in that other spells cannot copy the mechanics. Thus the hiccup in internal consistency, from my point of view.



> I can only speak to my own preferences. I prefer to offer consistency most of the time to the players. But, since their characters are in the bright spotlight, I have no issue with breaking expectations for a unique concept. Exception-based design speaks directly to rules, not concepts.



Well, allowing a Wizard to be a Fighter is ignoring the current rules (in your 3.X example), and thus houseruling. It's not massive, but the "martial spells" that you're casting are breaking some pretty major rules, and you're ignoring those.

In 4e, the "exception-based design" approach is pretty exclusively for things outside the PCs. It's for things that the PCs interact with. Yes, you can definitely use it for PCs, but that approach itself seems to have been designed for the PCs to interact with, not to help shape potential or conceptual PCs.



> I would hope few tables would have a problem with a player choosing Barbarian and choosing to be from a civilized city. Anything else outside of special campaigns would be too restrictive for my tastes.



I know that a lot of groups functioned from the standpoint of what the PHB says: "Civilized people call them barbarians" is the very beginning of the second sentence in 3.5 (which is where you made your character). The 3.5 PHB gives some details about them, and they're definitely men from the wilds, away from civilization. The fluff is embedded in the class.

Yes, you can reskin and strip the given fluff away, and there's nothing wrong with that, but players following the basic guidelines that the PHB explicitly states does not seem outrageous to me. It seems like these people see the Barbarian class as representing something specific in regards to D&D, and attempting to change that is "not playing the game."

Just like you don't like being confined, some groups don't like disrupting the perceptions of the setting, as that helps them immerse, connect, or gives them a sense of what the internal consistency of the setting looks like.

Like you say, though, it's preference. Neither way is "right" or "wrong" in any objective sense. On that note, I don't think either preference seems overtly unreasonable or overly restrictive, either.



> _No matter what table_? Then you say certain groups. I'm confused by alot of what you and Imaro are saying. I'm arguing the absoluteness that the two of you are projecting. If you're dealing in less than absolutes then I have only a matter of scope to argue. And since I only have anecdotal evidence of the tables I've played at and their expectations, that endeavor would be pointless.



If you don't want to have a conversation based on anecdotal evidence, you can stop discussing things with me. That's the basis of most conversations, and I'm not about to shy away from using my experience to color my opinions.

As far as me saying that "no matter what table I sit at, it's expected that my Cleric be a Leader, or my Fighter be a Defender", I stand by that in concept. There probably are a few exceptions, but they're probably inexperienced or heavily houseruled.

However, when I generalize by saying "when you play a class labeled Leader, people will expect you to play a Leader," I feel like my meaning should be clear. If it's not, I apologize, but arguing the semantics of "every table" while not addressing the point I'm trying to make feels very unproductive to me.



> I've said multiple times I think both you and Imaro have great ideas and I hope WotC continues to work towards these goals. But I also like working with the current toolset to see what I can make work for me. And I enjoy sharing my ideas with others. You and Imaro may think my ideas are crap, but I'm sure some think their gold, while others just wish we'd all just shut up.



Of course? I don't see any objection to the above. I don't think your ideas are crap, but I feel like you're giving the impression that groups that don't accept most reskinning are somehow overly restrictive, and I'd disagree with that assessment.



> I think I do. Hopefully I've gotten mine across as well and don't come off as discussing dishonestly.



I definitely think you're trying to discuss this with me honestly. I'd rather not get involved in your and Imaro's argument, since I like how well our talk is going. I feel it's definitely going somewhere, if slowly (the unfortunate effect of a text-based medium). So, thanks for the discussion thus far 

As always, play what you like


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 29, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Based on that it sounds clear to me that you really don't *get* the point of behavior-based archetypes like paladins or good rangers or samurai. Some classes and the archetypes they represent are *supposed* to channel your decisions as part of the challenge of playing them.




Did you miss the part where Miko *is* a paladin, yet her "special training" and "behavior-based archetype" still allowed for her to follow the wrong path? She thought she wa doing the right thing. The class did not hold control over her actions.



JamesonCourage said:


> Hmm, interesting. My group has always accepting houseruling if it helps accomplish a player's goal, and shied away from reskinning most of the time.




Just upthread the complaint from others was that "just houserule it" was an unsatisfactory answer. It seems from my experience here that more people decry that solution than reskinning. And even so, reskinning has less rigorous constraints IME. The reskin must pass the suspension of deisbelief factor of the DM, while houseruling opens up many questions and issues as you pointed out with the examples above.



JamesonCourage said:


> Well, allowing a Wizard to be a Fighter is ignoring the current rules (in your 3.X example), and thus houseruling. It's not massive, but the "martial spells" that you're casting are breaking some pretty major rules, and you're ignoring those.




They are not breaking any rules. The rules for the hypothetical "martial mage" exactly mimic the fighter rules. The only thing that changes is that a scrawny-looked guy has a high Strength and learned to fight a different way than other fighters. There are no rules for what your Strength score makes you look like. There is descriptive fluff that tells you what someone with a high strength looks like. There are no rules for how you gained your training to be a fighter. There is descriptive fluff that tells you how fighters normally train.



JamesonCourage said:


> In 4e, the "exception-based design" approach is pretty exclusively for things outside the PCs. It's for things that the PCs interact with. Yes, you can definitely use it for PCs, but that approach itself seems to have been designed for the PCs to interact with, not to help shape potential or conceptual PCs.




I can only agree with you since I was never advocating use of exception-based design for character concepts. What I mean about player expectation is that when they meet something like a mind flayer or a dragon they know generally what to expect. I may create the occasional exception, but that will be a focal point in the campaign. PCs, OTOH, I don't mind reskinning outside the normal parameters because they are the stars of the show. In the fighter example that borrows from Chuck. Chuck is the only Intersect for the majority of the show. And that's OK with me because he's one of the main characters.



JamesonCourage said:


> Yes, you can reskin and strip the given fluff away, and there's nothing wrong with that, but players following the basic guidelines that the PHB explicitly states does not seem outrageous to me. It seems like these people see the Barbarian class as representing something specific in regards to D&D, and attempting to change that is "not playing the game."




There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to the basic fluff of any class. But insisting that others do the same every time? That's where my problem lies.



JamesonCourage said:


> Just like you don't like being confined, some groups don't like disrupting the perceptions of the setting, as that helps them immerse, connect, or gives them a sense of what the internal consistency of the setting looks like.




Another player shouldn't even be looking at the classes listed on my sheet. Once I explain my concept and capabilities that should be enough, IMO.



JamesonCourage said:


> Like you say, though, it's preference. Neither way is "right" or "wrong" in any objective sense. On that note, I don't think either preference seems overtly unreasonable or overly restrictive, either.




I do feel that forcing players to use the default fluff of a class is too restrictive. And I don't believe the intent of the game from its beginning was to limit players to the ideas printed in the book.



JamesonCourage said:


> If you don't want to have a conversation based on anecdotal evidence, you can stop discussing things with me. That's the basis of most conversations, and I'm not about to shy away from using my experience to color my opinions.
> 
> As far as me saying that "no matter what table I sit at, it's expected that my Cleric be a Leader, or my Fighter be a Defender", I stand by that in concept. There probably are a few exceptions, but they're probably inexperienced or heavily houseruled.
> 
> However, when I generalize by saying "when you play a class labeled Leader, people will expect you to play a Leader," I feel like my meaning should be clear. If it's not, I apologize, but arguing the semantics of "every table" while not addressing the point I'm trying to make feels very unproductive to me.




My anecdotal evidence suggests that beyond the basic healing capabilities of the Cleric and the basic marking ability of the Fighter that the classes automatically gain, the player is welcome to devote his attention to fulfilling whatever role he wants. Despite others claims, I've seen Clerics play very capably as controllers, conditional strikers, and even OK defenders. I've seen Fighters played as effective controllers and strikers. There is alot to each class beyond what the basic role allows.



JamesonCourage said:


> Of course? I don't see any objection to the above. I don't think your ideas are crap, but I feel like you're giving the impression that groups that don't accept most reskinning are somehow overly restrictive, and I'd disagree with that assessment.




I would expect a group to work with the player to come to a character concept that works for the group. Not just shoot someone's idea down outright because it messes with one's expectations of what a barbarian should be.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 29, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Did you miss the part where Miko *is* a paladin, yet her "special training" and "behavior-based archetype" still allowed for her to follow the wrong path? She thought she wa doing the right thing. The class did not hold control over her actions.




Nor would playing a class-based samurai schooled in bushido control her actions either. Which makes me wonder if your statement about class limiting actions had a point to it all or if you were just being contrarian.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 29, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Just upthread the complaint from others was that "just houserule it" was an unsatisfactory answer. It seems from my experience here that more people decry that solution than reskinning. And even so, reskinning has less rigorous constraints IME. The reskin must pass the suspension of deisbelief factor of the DM, while houseruling opens up many questions and issues as you pointed out with the examples above.



Ah, but the topics have changed. When it comes to _my group_, houseruling is more acceptable than reskinning most of the time. Earlier, houseruling was not acceptable in the context of _game design_.

The thing with houseruling not being very palatable in game design is that it's saying, "if you don't like the rules, change the rules." In a discussion on how to design the game, that's not helpful. In the context of what's acceptable to my group (or your group), we can speak of houseruling and reskinning as solutions in an entirely different context. The former is theoretically future game design, while the latter is a particular group's preferences to current game design.



> They are not breaking any rules. The rules for the hypothetical "martial mage" exactly mimic the fighter rules.



No, the Fighter doesn't cast any spells. Saying he does is breaking rules (again, though, it's not massive from a rules standpoint).



> The only thing that changes is that a scrawny-looked guy has a high Strength and learned to fight a different way than other fighters. There are no rules for what your Strength score makes you look like. There is descriptive fluff that tells you what someone with a high strength looks like. There are no rules for how you gained your training to be a fighter. There is descriptive fluff that tells you how fighters normally train.



By this token, you could have a Strength of 18 and be 5'10" and 130 pounds. You'll look pretty scrawny, but be strong. Why not use the already existing rules to model this?



> I can only agree with you since I was never advocating use of exception-based design for character concepts. What I mean about player expectation is that when they meet something like a mind flayer or a dragon they know generally what to expect. I may create the occasional exception, but that will be a focal point in the campaign. PCs, OTOH, I don't mind reskinning outside the normal parameters because they are the stars of the show. In the fighter example that borrows from Chuck. Chuck is the only Intersect for the majority of the show. And that's OK with me because he's one of the main characters.



I still hold that a "wizard" that uses Fighter mechanics is breaking the rules. So, I can't agree with your assessment here. Maybe it's best to agree to disagree on this point?



> There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to the basic fluff of any class. But insisting that others do the same every time? That's where my problem lies.



Even for their group? I mean, I shouldn't insist that _your group_ does, but I don't see how you could reasonably say that my group should accept your preferences some of the time, either.

It's really a social contract issue, as I've previously mentioned. Depending on what the players want to get out of the game, they're going to have different priorities, and different preferences or deal-breakers. That's just the way it is.



> Another player shouldn't even be looking at the classes listed on my sheet. Once I explain my concept and capabilities that should be enough, IMO.



I think once you use your first _Rage_ people will figure it out, yeah? Also, people shouldn't be looking at your sheet _in your opinion_. This is yet another social contract issue that will vary greatly from table to table, and your view on it is by no means universal.



> I do feel that forcing players to use the default fluff of a class is too restrictive. And I don't believe the intent of the game from its beginning was to limit players to the ideas printed in the book.



Well, those two sentences mean very different things. Saying, "your druid should always be nature-oriented" is exceptionally different from "you can only do something if it's in a book somewhere saying you can." You know what I mean?

And, once again, if _you_ think that it's too restrictive, that's cool. Again, it's a social contract thing, and it'll vary from group to group.



> My anecdotal evidence suggests that beyond the basic healing capabilities of the Cleric and the basic marking ability of the Fighter that the classes automatically gain, the player is welcome to devote his attention to fulfilling whatever role he wants. Despite others claims, I've seen Clerics play very capably as controllers, conditional strikers, and even OK defenders. I've seen Fighters played as effective controllers and strikers. There is alot to each class beyond what the basic role allows.



Oh, this is definitely true (in spirit, at least... I'm actually hazy on the mechanical details of the system). But, your cleric is an "OK defender" instead of a good defender, and only a "conditional striker" instead of a good striker. See the obvious objection I'll have?



> I would expect a group to work with the player to come to a character concept that works for the group. Not just shoot someone's idea down outright because it messes with one's expectations of what a barbarian should be.



Well, if you doing so ruffles the feathers of the group, shouldn't you be willing to change it? I mean, it's about fun for everyone, right? So, if a particular group has a mindset that makes what you're doing be a fun dampener, shouldn't it be okay to point that out?

I get what your personal views on this are, but to think that they should somehow be universal is to deny the massive variances in play style for all gamers out there. Ideally, yeah, every group you play in will match up with your play style, but I cannot for a second support the idea that every group should embrace your style or be labeled "too restrictive", as you indicated earlier about class fluff (and possibly on this issue). It's just too OneTrueWay for me. Sorry.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Imaro (Nov 29, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I meant that as examples of how the barbarian skill list, used as is, can still fit a city-dweller. I don't honestly remember exactly what skills I chose for my character 4-5 years ago beyond Intimidate and buying off Illiteracy. I most likely spent some resources outside of the class (like cross-class skills) to accomplish my full concept.




It wasn't an example of anything because there were no parameters set and no defining of the city-dweller or noble-born concepts. That means any and every skill could fit under "city-dweller" or "noble born" so then the question becomes how do those sklills in any way flesh out that particular concept when that concept doesn't actually mean anything?

 IMO for a concept to be meaningful it has to have things it includes and things it doesn't... that's the whole point of a concept.  As an example most peoples idea of a swashbuckler concept does not include a heavily armored warrior on a horse with a lance... but would you argue they are just pigeonhling a swashbuckler?   You have, for all practical purposes, defined city-dwelling and noble-born as so wide they are meaningless.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My point was that city-dwelling does not necessitate the skills you demand be present for mechanical support. If the skills you believe are important were important to my concept then I would have either spent resources in cross-class skills or feats or chosen a different set of classes.




No city-dwelling doesn't necessitate the skills I brought up... but it also can't encompass any and every skill, ability, etc. as you seem to be arguing... or it becomes so diluted that as I said above...for all purposes as a concept it is now meaningless.

You've presented an argument and yet your answers and examples are extremely vague. Even in the paragraph above you talk about spending resources but again only in a vague, hand-wavey manner that doesn't present any evidence that this character fulfilled the concept as you presented it (which seems purposefully un-defined so then anything and everything could fit it). 




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Who are you to declare what would be expected by most? You speak for all of gamerdom? No. I gave one example to your snarky comeback that took me all of a minute to construct mentally. I said your concept would take work, but it wouldn't be impossible by any means. Of course if you're inflexible on conceptual matters and disallow unique ideas because they don't fit your preconceived notions of how the game world works, then any concept you don't consider 'the norm' will fail.




It wasn't snarky it was showing that you have presented no evidence that you fulfilled this concept in any mechcanically meaningful way. It's not about "disallowing unique ideas" it's about showing how sometimes re-skinning and mechanics just don't line-up. Due to the nature of magic in 3e... a fighter being re-skinned as a wizard just doesn't add up... the reasons have been expressed, probably much more fully and clearly than I could have, by others in this very thread... Unless of course, like with your city-dwelling noble... the concept is so un-defined and mutable that it really isn't a concept at all.




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It's easy to declare failure on my part. It requires no creativity. At least I'm testing the waters of concepts through creative means.




That's great but you should also be willing to accept that re-skinning doesn't always work well and isn't the one size fits all answer for many. 

Most people I know would be totally dissatisfied if their concept was a city-dwelling, noble-born scion with the power of dragons in his blood... and they had to use the mechanics of the barbarian class from 3e to represent this... just starting out illiterate and having to spend resources to correct that is a pretty big cost. 

For many people mechanical weight is important to their concept and the classes in D&D have their own mechanical weight that backs up certain concepts under their archetypes far better than a concept that isn't under the archetype they are based on. 

Now the original problem I was presenting was that the problem is exacerbated when one attaches combat role to this as well.  It can now create a conundrum where you may have to sacrifice concept for combat gameplay or combat gameplay for concept if they don't match up. Mechanics are kinda the whole point. 




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I am discussing my honest opinion of how concepts can be molded. I can't read your mind to discover what parameters you consider normal, so if stepping outside your box is dishonest, then I geuss I'm dishonest.




Well then why didn't you set the parameters since it was your concept? I put a box down because you didn't. How can we discuss a concept without having definition of that concept. Lacking your specifics I went with the stereotypical idea of said concept which is what I think most people do when presented with an idea to discuss. 

You see, IMO, the dishonesty is in saying that my parameters aren't valid... but still not defining your own.  It prevents any type of true discussion on how well or how badly you were able to fulfill the concept.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> You see, IMO, the dishonesty is in saying that my parameters aren't valid... but still not defining your own.  It prevents any type of true discussion on how well or how badly you were able to fulfill the concept.




Then I wasn't clear. I don't think your parameters are invalid, I just don't believe they are the only parameters. And I did define my parameters: the character lived in a city instead of the wilds and was the son of a minor noble. Neither of those parameters requires specific skill support.

I'm not trying to tell anyone else that they should approach concepts the way I do. I just find it off-putting that so many people would shoot down a, IMO, reasonable concept just because I chose to use Barbarian to model it. I found the costs worth it.

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] - The social contract is fine if it is just that - social. If it just ends up being a dictatorship of ideas then I don't see a social contract as something that can be achieved.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> You see, IMO, the dishonesty is in saying that my parameters aren't valid... but still not defining your own.  It prevents any type of true discussion on how well or how badly you were able to fulfill the concept.




Then I wasn't clear. I don't think your parameters are invalid, I just don't believe they are the only parameters. And I did define my parameters: the character lived in a city instead of the wilds and was the son of a minor noble. Neither of those parameters requires specific skill support.

I'm not trying to tell anyone else that they should approach concepts the way I do. I just find it off-putting that so many people would shoot down a, IMO, reasonable concept just because I chose to use Barbarian to model it. I found the costs worth it.

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] - The social contract is fine if it is just that - social. If it just ends up being a dictatorship of ideas then I don't see a social contract as something that can be achieved.


----------



## LurkAway (Nov 30, 2011)

So I was reading a review of the One Ring RPG, which lists classes (or "Callings") as Scholar, Slayer, Treasure Hunter, Wanderer and Warden.

I don't own the RPG but I'm only using these examples to try to get beyond our comfort zone of D&D classes.

The names inspire vague archetypes, and I was wondering what the class rules are like. Also, are they pigeon-holing -- can't you have a scholarly treasure-hunter or a wandering scholar?

But apparently, they're called Callings (ie. a profession or trade), which implies to me that you can create a scholarly treasure-hunter or treasure-hunting scholar using either the Treasure-Hunter or Scholar but that the Calling (metagame) you choose is the same as the career or way of life the PC chose in the fiction (in-game). Hopefully, there are Traits and/or multiclassing to allow you to move outside that definition a bit.

I can see how you can have a suburban Barbarian, if class means your background but not if class means a way of life. I can see how you can have a barbarian Suburbanite, if the class means your way of life but not your background.

I can also see that a barbaric Barbarian and suburban Suburbanite are the most common options, but would feel pigeon-holed if they were hardwired to be the only two options, but it really depends on what Barbarian and Suburbanite actually means.

I'm guessing for Vyvyan Basterd and others, that suburban Barbarian and barbarian Suburbanite are interchangeable?

For me, that's only true as much as the rules allow for it with sufficient ease, and I don't feel that I'm 'fighting' against system conventions (ie houserules, non-playtested issues, fictional inconsistencies) to make it work.

And I think the foundation for that is whether or not the game designers _cared_ (and thus accounted for) that there are players out there who want class design rules to reflect the various nuances of fictional characters that aren't just cookie cutter outlines of their metagame counterparts.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Then I wasn't clear. I don't think your parameters are invalid, I just don't believe they are the only parameters. And I did define my parameters: the character lived in a city instead of the wilds and was the son of a minor noble. *Neither of those parameters requires specific skill support*.




And I guess this is the crux of the matter. I agree that one can call one's character anything in the game... but for me and many of the players I know there's nothing to that chosen name if there is no mechanical support for it. If your city-born noble has no mechanical support for the concept then for all practical purposes he could just as easily be a wild-born slave or a seafaring pirate... and each concept will have the same amount of mechanical impact when it comes to the actual playing of the game... which is to say none.

Another problem I see with this method, as exemplified by the fighter as wizard example, is that certain things work in a particular way in the fiction of the world... in other words the mechanics have discernable rules that have an impact on the fiction. In 3.x & 4e(for PCs) magic works a certain way and has certain rules that have an impact on the world and narrative. By allowing a fighter to "re-skin" as a wizard... he breaks many of the rules and conventions that magic works on in the game world. This is where house-ruling vs. re-skinning starts to blur. 




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm not trying to tell anyone else that they should approach concepts the way I do. I just find it off-putting that so many people would shoot down a, IMO, reasonable concept just because I chose to use Barbarian to model it. I found the costs worth it.




Well I find it off-putting that you can't understand why the way you approach concepts would be unsatisfactory for many players because of a lack of actual mechnical support for the concept and/or the amount of cost inherent in fulfilling the mechanical weight they want for the concept.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Well I find it off-putting that you can't understand why the way you approach concepts would be unsatisfactory for many players because of a lack of actual mechnical support for the concept and/or the amount of cost inherent in fulfilling the mechanical weight they want for the concept.




I haven't been clear enough. I do understand why my approach won't satisfy other players. As the DM of those players I would work with them to best realize the concept and mechanics they wish to achieve. I only have a problem when I'm completely satisfied with my concept and the approach I've taken to achieve it but others are unwilling to budge on basic class fluff. I can understand it in a case like the "Intersect Fighter" because that really pushes boundaries. But having a character that "fires up his blood" that isn't from a backwoods tribe seems more than reasonable IMO. I remember the discussion board complaints well regarding the induced illiteracy of the class, deriding the idea that only uneducated wilderness folk can "get mad," so I'm surely not the only one who believes that the class shouldn't be pigeonholed into the narrow background that many put it in, even if the standard fluff says so.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 30, 2011)

Everyone has a different reaction to these things. 

Honestly I am not sure why roles were such a turn-off for me in 4E. It was one of a number of changes I reacted pretty negatively to. It could be any number of things. I suspect it isn't just one reason but many. Part of it is it seems to really place the emphasis on combat and dungeon crawl. I know people have designed parties around combat functions for a while, but even back in 2E or 3E I never liked designing a party like that. It was just not organic enough for me. To me having three spell casters in a party was fine, not having a cleric wasn't a problem, a group of all fighters could be a blast. But for me combat was rarely the focus of the game (it had its place but how well a character performed in battle was only a part of his value to the party). 

I think another reason I didn't like the role concept was it felt like the designers were holding my hand, but at the same time limiting my options. It also seemed kind of muddled having both classes and roles. In my opinion one of the things 3e got right was the multiclassing system. I really liked the flexibility of it and it was way more streamlined than previous editions. It was the one aspect of the game I felt really should be preserved in the next edition. But roles and open multiclassing are somewhat opposed notions. 

At the end of the day though, I just found the concept very distasteful for some reason.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 1, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> The names inspire vague archetypes, and I was wondering what the class rules are like. Also, are they pigeon-holing -- can't you have a scholarly treasure-hunter or a wandering scholar?



In TOR you pick a Calling to define your main motiviation for going adventuring. It doesn't have a lot of mechanical impact, the most important aspect is that it will also define your 'Dark Flaw', e.g. 'Dragon Disease' (basically 'Greed') for the Treasure Hunter.

In TOR the most important decision is picking your cultural group (Beorninger, Dwarf, etc.) since it defines your starting skills. Within the culture you also get to pick something like a profession/role that defines your starting attributes and skill specialization.

Every character also gets 10 'experience points' to freely advance skills and a 1/2/3 bonus to assign to attributes.


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 1, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> In TOR the most important decision is picking your cultural group (Beorninger, Dwarf, etc.) since it defines your starting skills. Within the culture you also get to pick something like a profession/role that defines your starting attributes and skill specialization.




Wait. Aren't you supposed to roll that profession randomly? Or were we misunderstanding the rule?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 1, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> I'm guessing for Vyvyan Basterd and others, that suburban Barbarian and barbarian Suburbanite are interchangeable?




I geuss, but it wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I didn't see my character as an "Urban Barbarian/Sorcer." Rules-wise my character was a barbarian/sorcerer but I envisioned that combination as "Noble Urbanite with Draconic Heritage." The class names do not factor into my concept.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 2, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Wait. Aren't you supposed to roll that profession randomly? Or were we misunderstanding the rule?



I don't recall anything like that.

Note, though that I have the German version which suffers from some translation issues:
According to the German publisher, some of the files they received for translation were out of 
date.


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 2, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> I don't recall anything like that.
> 
> Note, though that I have the German version which suffers from some translation issues:
> According to the German publisher, some of the files they received for translation were out of
> date.




In the Adventurer's Book, page 31, Hero Creation Summary, it says "Roll (or choose) Background". So I think we're both 'doing it right'. Though as you pointed out, culture is much more important.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 2, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Now is this the part where you tell us that even the designers and developers of the game are confused about their thoughts and 4e because of presentation or something like that?





Imaro said:


> Don't see the point of snark.



Are you sure?



Imaro said:


> there are posters like pemerton, who claim that this narrative fiction is important and what makes D&D 4e such a great narrative game



My view is that 4e works well for narrativist play because of the way it supports situation-oriented, player driven play.

My view is that the lists of fictional elements - races, classes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, etc - gives the players material to choose from in building their PCs and setting up the parameters around which the GM builds situations. (It's a more commercially-oriented alternative to the HeroQuest approach of player-chosen descriptors!)



Imaro said:


> The question is... from the description of a warlock or wizard, why should one be confined to the striker role and the other be confined to the controller role?



I don't think there's any inherent reason for this. There's no in-principle reason why you couldn't have a pact-based arcane controller (and Heroes of Shadow offers a poor version of such a thing). But there _is_ a reason to focus PC builds in various ways. As I posted upthread, this produces a particular play experience.



JamesonCourage said:


> What's the problem, exactly, with divorcing combat role from being encoded into classes?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



There's nothing objectionable about it. But it would produce a different game from 4e. It would have implications for the design of Paragon Paths. It would - I suspect - tend to produce less focused PCs (less focused both mechanically and fictionally).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 2, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> It would - I suspect - tend to produce less focused PCs (less focused both mechanically and fictionally).



If that's the case, then the players would be voluntarily choosing watered down roles. That is, they could choose all Defender powers if they wanted to be paramount at Defending. If making powers optional as indicated above would tend to produce less focused PCs, isn't that a sign that players tend to want more diversity than roles give them?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Are you sure?




Touche... there might have been a little snark in that comment... but I would also argue that there's is also more then a little truth to how you often dismiss what the very designers and developers of 4e claim about the intentions, designs and flaws of their own game by asserting your own anecdotal evidence and experiences over their expertise or hand-waving it as the fault of 4e's presentation.




pemerton said:


> My view is that 4e works well for narrativist play because of the way it supports situation-oriented, player driven play.
> 
> My view is that the lists of fictional elements - races, classes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, etc - gives the players material to choose from in building their PCs and setting up the parameters around which the GM builds situations. (It's a more commercially-oriented alternative to the HeroQuest approach of player-chosen descriptors!)




So it seems like we are in agreement then (except I believe this has been true as far back as AD&D 2e.), you feel that the narrative or fictional elements have actual weight as opposeed to being irrelevant and that the mechanics back up those fictional elements... or am I mis-understanding you?



pemerton said:


> I don't think there's any inherent reason for this. There's no in-principle reason why you couldn't have a pact-based arcane controller (and Heroes of Shadow offers a poor version of such a thing). But there _is_ a reason to focus PC builds in various ways. As I posted upthread, this produces a particular play experience.




Well, I have much less of a problem with them instilling combat role in builds (though I still very much prefer the freedom of players deciding their own role by their own choices within a concept), since they are more specific concepts and thus by their very nature more narrowly defined.

That said, I think sticking combat role in the overarching archetype of a class, where any concept for a fighter must be a defender... or any concept for the wizard archetype must be a controller and so on, was a big mistake. It's unnecessarily and extremely limiting and, going by the Rule-of-Three article, I think even the designers and developers realize this.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> There's nothing objectionable about it. But it would produce a different game from 4e. It would have implications for the design of Paragon Paths. It would - I suspect - tend to produce less focused PCs (less focused both mechanically and fictionally).




I'm not really clear here... I can understand mechanically, since I think 4e's hybrids have the same problem multi-classing in D&D has always had... some combos work really well together and some combos gimp you. But I don't get the part about fictionally? 

How does one's combat role determine whether one's character is more or less focused fictionally? While this does seem to again support the view that the fictional elements of the game aren't just meaningless fluff for ability packages... I don't see how not having an intrinsic combat role would make a fictionally less focused character than one that does?


----------



## chaochou (Dec 2, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I think that separating role from classes only lets classes get even more easy to reskin, really. I mean, if I want to play a holy warrior striker, I'm not forced to reskin the Avenger, now I can potentially reskin the Cleric or Paladin, too.




The critical design point, I think, is that for class to provide any mechanical meaning it defines what you can't do.

Classes define your abilities - and by omission - your inabilities. If our paladin can be a striker, leader, controller and defender - and so can our wizard, avenger, cleric, rogue, ranger and warlock; why would the system need class? What would it provide, mechanically?

It can no longer be providing mechanical meaning, by definition, since we've agreed that the mechanics give everyone the potential for equality with regard to defence, hp, buffing, area of effect and damage output.

The more overlap there is between classes, the less class means - it's self-evident. Until, if all classes have the potential to do all things equally well, class becomes mechanically meaningless. Wizard controller can do 6d6 area damage with his meteor strike? Ranger controller can do that with her bow and Cleric controller can call down some holy wrath. 

So what you say above is true from one perspective: making role seperate from class makes it easy to reskin. But I'd say from a design point of view - it's not _easier _to reskin, it means that _all you are doing_ is reskinning that 6d6 damage. Class is no longer a determinant of capability with regard to anything.

Of course, systems can be built to allow a paladin to be striker, defender, healer, leader, controller or whatever else. They're called Runequest, HeroWars, Burning Wheel, etc.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 2, 2011)

chaochou said:


> The critical design point, I think, is that for class to provide any mechanical meaning it defines what you can't do.




I totally agree with this... with the added factor that class defines "how" you do things.



chaochou said:


> Classes define your abilities - and by omission - your inabilities. If our paladin can be a striker, leader, controller and defender - and so can our wizard, avenger, cleric, rogue, ranger and warlock; why would the system need class? What would it provide, mechanically?




Because, mechanically, classes provide different ways to perform combat roles as well as mechanics like skills, weapon & armor proficiencies, class abilities, and so on. Outside of mechanics they provide different fluff that is backed up with the particular mechanics of different classes. 

As an example, in 4e the avenger, rogue, warlock, slayer, blackguard, ranger, etc. are all under the combat role of striker, but according to your logic above there's no need for all of these seperate classes... Yet I would argue you are wrong because each of these classes provides different fiction and mechanics, (along with different ways to enact their combat role) for a player to use within the game.



chaochou said:


> It can no longer be providing mechanical meaning, by definition, since we've agreed that the mechanics give everyone the potential for equality with regard to defence, hp, buffing, area of effect and damage output.




Again, then you are arguing that not only is there no mechanical difference between any of the classes I listed above but that there is also no mechanical difference in builds that fall under the same class and have the same combat role either... Honestly, I think quite a few advocates of 4e would argue that this is patently false though.



chaochou said:


> The more overlap there is between classes, the less class means - it's self-evident. Until, if all classes have the potential to do all things equally well, class becomes mechanically meaningless. Wizard controller can do 6d6 area damage with his meteor strike? Ranger controller can do that with her bow and Cleric controller can call down some holy wrath.




You do realize that the wizard, hunter(ranger), and invoker are all controllers in 4e... right? Yet they don't seem to fall into the situation you've presented as inevitable here. 



chaochou said:


> So what you say above is true from one perspective: making role seperate from class makes it easy to reskin. But I'd say from a design point of view - it's not _easier _to reskin, it means that _all you are doing_ is reskinning that 6d6 damage. Class is no longer a determinant of capability with regard to anything.




I think what I've posted above addresses his issue pretty well. Just one other note though... class =/= combat role, combat role is one of many things attached to class.



chaochou said:


> Of course, systems can be built to allow a paladin to be striker, defender, healer, leader, controller or whatever else. They're called Runequest, HeroWars, Burning Wheel, etc.




Ok, ignoring the fact that the games you list give much more freedom than just the decision of combat role in the game and just focussing on that particular aspect...

Uhmmm, no. Even now 4e is tossing combat role out when it comes to new builds and classes (I mean we even have our first dual-role build in the berserker)... so for all practical purposes they've just chosen a much longer and bloated route to get to the same destination as the games you list. The main difference being that D&D chose/chooses to attach archetype, fiction and particular class abilities to explicit combat roles while those other games don't. So in one you need 10 books to cover the breadth of what the other does in one or two books.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 3, 2011)

chaochou said:


> The critical design point, I think, is that for class to provide any mechanical meaning it defines what you can't do.
> 
> Classes define your abilities - and by omission - your inabilities. If our paladin can be a striker, leader, controller and defender - and so can our wizard, avenger, cleric, rogue, ranger and warlock; why would the system need class? What would it provide, mechanically?



As I've said before in this thread, give them class abilities to choose from. Make a Ranger a very nature-oriented class from class abilities. Give them options, but let them choose things. Give them track options, or bonuses to Nature, or favored enemy, or the ability to move through natural terrain faster, or the like. Give them class abilities that make sense for their class, and let combat roles be combat roles.


----------



## chaochou (Dec 3, 2011)

Imaro said:


> As an example, in 4e the avenger, rogue, warlock, slayer, blackguard, ranger, etc. are all under the combat role of striker, but according to your logic above there's no need for all of these seperate classes.




I said the more overlap there is between classes, the less class means. The thing that logically follows is that there is less distinction between a rogue and a ranger than between a rogue and wizard.

Interesting however, that the Rule of Three has already accepted that there are too many similarities between classes, and too few differences. That it is impossible to tell which class has the power to do '2w and knock the target prone'. WotC think the classes are already too homogenous and you want to make them moreso.



Imaro said:


> Again, then you are arguing that not only is there no mechanical difference between any of the classes I listed above.




No, I said if classes can all achieve the same thing then class is no longer the determinant of capability.

That's not the same, so either you're deliberately setting up straw men or you don't understand those words.



Imaro said:


> You do realize that the wizard, hunter(ranger), and invoker are all controllers in 4e... right? Yet they don't seem to fall into the situation you've presented as inevitable here.




See what I said about strikers? Same here.



Imaro said:


> Because, mechanically, classes provide different ways to perform combat roles as well as mechanics like skills, weapon & armor proficiencies, class abilities, and so on.




But you're saying that none of those things should be a determinant of what role I take in combat. That my wizard can choose to be a defender in the front line of melee in his platemail and polearm.

Or maybe you think the platemail should be refluffed as a 'spell' which gives me an equivalent AC and boosts my hit points to that of a fighter. And I fluff another spell to hit and lock down and immobilise enemies. And maybe you even claim that doing so would make the wizard mechanically different.

Meanwhile the fighter has decided that he's actually going to stand at the back being protected by the front line mage - and somehow gets fewer hitpoints and less armour - and we refluff some spells as 'grenades' or something like that so he can really dish out some hardcore aoe damage.

And all this is to be achieved for every class and every role. And at the end, you claim that all these classes will still be different in ways which are mechanically meaningful.



Imaro said:


> I think what I've posted above addresses his issue pretty well.




I'm sorry, but I don't think what you've posted addresses anything much. You're arguing to homogenise class effectiveness across the board while simultaneously claiming classes will retain some unspecified uniqueness.

I've yet to see you post anything which supports such a claim.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 3, 2011)

chaochou said:


> Interesting however, that the Rule of Three has already accepted that there are too many similarities between classes, and too few differences. That it is impossible to tell which class has the power to do '2w and knock the target prone'. WotC think the classes are already too homogenous and you want to make them moreso.




Additional text omitted.

Now there is a telling question.  A part of the issue, though, the wash out of *how* the class achieved the result.

In 3.5E, many class could do that with a bull rush that hit the target into an obstruction.  A mage could do it with several spells.  Many melee combatants could do it with trip attacks.  An archer could (with feats from extra sources, but not with core feats).  Monsters could, if they had either bull rush or knockback.

I don't play 4E, but my understanding is that *how* part is not a mechanical part of the game, other than minimally to place a dependence on an implement, and to have the effect be usable at range or not.  I would, say, though, that that is a result of the game designers explicitly omitting the *how* out of the effect.

I think, in 3.5E, many classes *could* achieve that result, (or at least with a good degree of success) but only if the player built in the capability to their character abilities.

TomB


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 3, 2011)

chaochou said:


> But you're saying that none of those things should be a determinant of what role I take in combat. That my wizard can choose to be a defender in the front line of melee in his platemail and polearm.



He could choose to do so, but he'd be very bad at it without the appropriate training in arms and armor.



> Or maybe you think the platemail should be refluffed as a 'spell' which gives me an equivalent AC and boosts my hit points to that of a fighter. And I fluff another spell to hit and lock down and immobilise enemies. And maybe you even claim that doing so would make the wizard mechanically different.



No, you don't reskin armor mechanics in this case at all.

The wizard class mechanics consider what kind of magic is fun and compelling to be in the game. If there is an abjuration school, the wizard can choose to take force shields spells. With force armor, that wizard might temporarily be a defender for a few rounds or have some other mechanical differentiation from the reliable plate and armour fighter.

Magic force shields are fictionally different than mundane armor, operate by magic advantages and limitations, and thus have different mechanical rules as well, not just reskinned plate armor.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 3, 2011)

chaochou said:


> I said the more overlap there is between classes, the less class means. The thing that logically follows is that there is less distinction between a rogue and a ranger than between a rogue and wizard.




Of course there is less distinction betwen a rogue and ranger as opposed to a rogue and wizard... but this is only due to the fact that they have the same combat role hardcoded into the class... If say one player could pick a defender role for the ranger and another could pick a controller role for the rogue there would be more distinction... which is exactly the point.

Whether you hard code combat role in or don't, there are a finite (4) number of combat roles so there will always be overlap in characters (unless you have exactly 4 characters who all want to play each of the 4 combat roles, which seems kind of unlikely, but definitely possible if the stars align correctly.), dissassociating combat role neither increases or decreases this.




chaochou said:


> Interesting however, that the Rule of Three has already accepted that there are too many similarities between classes, and too few differences. That it is impossible to tell which class has the power to do '2w and knock the target prone'. WotC think the classes are already too homogenous and you want to make them moreso.




Hmmm, that's not exactly what I took away from that Rule-of-Three. IMO, they were moreso saying that there were so many powers (which is a seperate thing from class) that there were no powers associated with a particular class that were considered iconic. With the exception of a few...(Twin Strike anyone!!) I am in agreement with this. 

Furthermore they were arguing that there should have been overlap lists containing powers that had the same mechanical effect... similar to the same way that the Sorcerer and Wizard spell lists were in 3.5 (Yet I don't often see the claim that these classes were too homogenous). 




chaochou said:


> No, I said if classes can all achieve the same thing then class is no longer the determinant of capability.




Now that you've clarified...I realize this is the strawman. No one in this thread is asking for all classes to do the same thing, combat role is a single piece of what classes encompass, not the entirety.

EDIT:  Thinking about this even more... even concerning combat role, classes might cover all the combat roles but it would still be the player who decided which role(s) he would be trying to cover through his own choices of build, feats, etc..



chaochou said:


> That's not the same, so either you're deliberately setting up straw men or you don't understand those words.




See above about strawmen and such...




chaochou said:


> See what I said about strikers? Same here.




*sigh* again there are only 4 roles... the fact that a ranger can now be a controller or striker is actually diversifying the class, not homogenizing it. Homogenizing it is exactly the problem before the hunter was created...when ranger = striker no matter what build or choices one selected.



chaochou said:


> But you're saying that none of those things should be a determinant of what role I take in combat. That my wizard can choose to be a defender in the front line of melee in his platemail and polearm.




Why would a wizard be a front line defender? Why would he wear platemail and why would he use a polearm? This seems like such a limited view of the possibilities in the defender role that, even though I'm not the biggest fan of 4e, I have to ask do you play 4e? 



chaochou said:


> Or maybe you think the platemail should be refluffed as a 'spell' which gives me an equivalent AC and boosts my hit points to that of a fighter. And I fluff another spell to hit and lock down and immobilise enemies. And maybe you even claim that doing so would make the wizard mechanically different.




Why would I have to do this? We have an arcane defender (which, IMO, for all practical purposes should have been a wizard build like the Bladesinger) called the swordmage and it is mechanically different from the fighter... especially the shielding build. The shielding swordmage doesn't wear plate mail, doesn't fight on the frontline, doesn't punish with attacks, and doesn't have to use a polearm. He uses alot of teleportation, he reduces damage taken, he wears cloth armor, and so on. 



chaochou said:


> Meanwhile the fighter has decided that he's actually going to stand at the back being protected by the front line mage - and somehow gets fewer hitpoints and less armour - and we refluff some spells as 'grenades' or something like that so he can really dish out some hardcore aoe damage.




Uhm...the slayer with his high Dex is already competent enough to be a ranged fighter. It would seem that all your complaints above would apply equally to the hunter as well and yet we now have a ranger controller that is mechanically different from a wizard.



chaochou said:


> And all this is to be achieved for every class and every role. And at the end, you claim that all these classes will still be different in ways which are mechanically meaningful.




Uhm yeah... and the fact that they have done it with certain classes would seem to indicate my line of thinking is correct. What actual proof do you have that this wouldn't work? I mean outside of unsupported opinion? 



chaochou said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't think what you've posted addresses anything much. You're arguing to homogenise class effectiveness across the board while simultaneously claiming classes will retain some unspecified uniqueness.




Okay, I'm going to try this again... it's already being done. You're claiming it can't be done but we already have builds that have taken on combat roles outside of those their particular class has been assigned. On top of that we have classes that have the same combat role and yet use different mechanics to accomplish it. A Paladin's divine challenge is different form a Knight's aura, is different from a Swordmage's aegis... and so on. I'm unclear on why you are assuming it can't work?



chaochou said:


> I've yet to see you post anything which supports such a claim.




Then you must be willfully ignoring what I've posted as well as what already exists in the game.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 4, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'm not really clear here... I can understand mechanically, since I think 4e's hybrids have the same problem multi-classing in D&D has always had... some combos work really well together and some combos gimp you. But I don't get the part about fictionally?
> 
> How does one's combat role determine whether one's character is more or less focused fictionally? While this does seem to again support the view that the fictional elements of the game aren't just meaningless fluff for ability packages... I don't see how not having an intrinsic combat role would make a fictionally less focused character than one that does?



A big part of conflict resolution in 4e is combat. PCs are built for it; so are monsters. So the way in which combat plays out is a big part of the fiction. And role is a significant contributor to the way in which combat plays out - and hence to the fiction.

Role also feeds into paragon paths, which contribute to the fiction.

The contribution, I think, has two elements: giving the PC a clear identity in the fiction; and creating combats that are fictionally dramatic, and in which the various PCs play memorable parts.

(Of course other RPGs have dramatic combats with memorable fictional parts being played by the PCs. But I think this is one thing that 4e does particularly well. And tightly defined combat roles help this.)



JamesonCourage said:


> If that's the case, then the players would be voluntarily choosing watered down roles. That is, they could choose all Defender powers if they wanted to be paramount at Defending. If making powers optional as indicated above would tend to produce less focused PCs, isn't that a sign that players tend to want more diversity than roles give them?



I don't think the game should create options that undermine the play experience it offers. Reasonably tightly defined roles are part of what makes the 4e combat mechanics work.



Imaro said:


> we already have builds that have taken on combat roles outside of those their particular class has been assigned.



Using builds/sub-classes rather than classes reduces power (especially utility power) and feat bloat. But you seem to think it does something else as well. I'm not sure what you think that something else is, though.



LurkAway said:


> Magic force shields are fictionally different than mundane armor, operate by magic advantages and limitations, and thus have different mechanical rules as well, not just reskinned plate armor.



What you say is true, but from a practical point of view I find that one thing I don't miss in 4e is the rules' relative indifference to power source as an element in action resolution.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 4, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't think the game should create options that undermine the play experience it offers. Reasonably tightly defined roles are part of what makes the 4e combat mechanics work.



If players would tend to build PCs differently than 4e currently allows, and that is an indication that players would prefer a different technique to character building, I would hope that the designers would account for that while also taking combat mechanics into account.

Personally, I don't think the game would completely break if you allowed PCs to have any power they wanted to, as long as it fit their level. It would certainly be different, and PCs would certainly have better combinations of powers, but my impression of the combat engine is that it could handle this change with some strain.

On that note, if the game was designed for it from the get-go, I imagine it'd be much easier to account for. And, in a discussion on whether or not roles should be baked into classes (and not just 4e), I'd much rather my view be followed. As always, play what you like


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 4, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> If players would tend to build PCs differently than 4e currently allows, and that is an indication that players would prefer a different technique to character building, I would hope that the designers would account for that while also taking combat mechanics into account.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the game would completely break if you allowed PCs to have any power they wanted to, as long as it fit their level. It would certainly be different, and PCs would certainly have better combinations of powers, but my impression of the combat engine is that it could handle this change with some strain.
> 
> On that note, if the game was designed for it from the get-go, I imagine it'd be much easier to account for. And, in a discussion on whether or not roles should be baked into classes (and not just 4e), I'd much rather my view be followed. As always, play what you like




I think a little brokeness can be a good thing. Making character choices matter (including having some potential pitfalls) isn't so bad.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 4, 2011)

pemerton said:


> A big part of conflict resolution in 4e is combat. PCs are built for it; so are monsters. So the way in which combat plays out is a big part of the fiction. And role is a significant contributor to the way in which combat plays out - and hence to the fiction.




I can agree with this to a point... though I apparently don't feel that hardcoded role is necessarily a significant factor here, especially since many are arguing that the roles have always been in D&D (whether I agree with this or not is besides the point) just not "called out" as they are in 4e.



pemerton said:


> Role also feeds into paragon paths, which contribute to the fiction.




Eh, I would argue class is what feeds into paragon paths and role only in so much as it is hardcoded into a particular class. With one multi-class feat any character can jump into any paragon path they want, regardless of their role.



pemerton said:


> The contribution, I think, has two elements: giving the PC a clear identity in the fiction; and creating combats that are fictionally dramatic, and in which the various PCs play memorable parts.





Hmmm, I've seen you make the same argument for power selection (which I think is a much stronger argument than the one you are presenting here.). Where a themed selection of powers gives a character identity in the fiction, that I can see... role=striker, not so much. 

At any rate... I guess we can agree to disagree, as I see nothing in the above statement that revolves around a hard-coding of roles. My PC's have always had a clear identity in the fiction in every game we play and I think creating fictionally dramatic combats that have memorable parts is based much more heavily on DM encounter design than you seem to be giving it credit for... all IMO of course.



pemerton said:


> (Of course other RPGs have dramatic combats with memorable fictional parts being played by the PCs. But I think this is one thing that 4e does particularly well. And tightly defined combat roles help this.)




See and this is where I feel it might be that 4e does this particularly well... for permeton's sensibilities. Because in my experience the things you seem to think 4e does particularly well this can be accomplished with a number of systems that don't hard-code combat role into class.




pemerton said:


> Using builds/sub-classes rather than classes reduces power (especially utility power) and feat bloat. But you seem to think it does something else as well. I'm not sure what you think that something else is, though.




The "something else" is that it now makes combat role selectable under the more general archetype/class umbrella as opposed to hardcoding a specific role into an entire class. IMO there's a big difference between every Paladin build is a defender and there are both striker and defender builds under the Paladin class/archetype. The first, IMO, is vastly more limiting in in the freedom to match archetype and gameplay style.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 5, 2011)

Imaro said:


> this is where I feel it might be that 4e does this particularly well... for permeton's sensibilities.



That's probably true, but who else's sensibilities do you want me to use?



Imaro said:


> Because in my experience the things you seem to think 4e does particularly well this can be accomplished with a number of systems that don't hard-code combat role into class.



Which systems have you got in mind? When I think of RQ, RM or AD&D I don't agree. But obviously there are many more systems under the sun.



Imaro said:


> many are arguing that the roles have always been in D&D



I think there was always _something_ there - as the quotes from Gygax that I posted upthread indicate. I don't think the roles had quite the same mechanical expression as they do in 4e. There was nothing mechanically analogous to the defender role in classic D&D (although depending whether one followed Basic or AD&D DMG guidelines on entering and leaving melee, there could be some sort of approximation to it), and at least in my experience in combat healing was also rarer than in 4e, and so also not really a part of the combat dynamics. In my experience at least, in combat classic D&D clerics generally performed as second-rate fighters until they got access to serious attack spells like Hold Person and Flame Strike, at which point they performed as alternative MUs.



JamesonCourage said:


> If players would tend to build PCs differently than 4e currently allows, and that is an indication that players would prefer a different technique to character building, I would hope that the designers would account for that while also taking combat mechanics into account.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the game would completely break if you allowed PCs to have any power they wanted to, as long as it fit their level. It would certainly be different, and PCs would certainly have better combinations of powers, but my impression of the combat engine is that it could handle this change with some strain.



I don't think it would break the power level of the game. The game is (in my view) very robust in that respect.

I think it would adversely affect the dynamics of combat - although others, including (I think) [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], disagree. I find that the distribution of "responsibilities" across the PCs helps make 4e combat what it is - for example, it generates dynamic interaction between the "action budget" for each player, which in turn can generate intricate decision making in relation to positioning PCs in the initiative sequence, all of which in turn produces drama and tension at the table.

As to what the designers should take into account - I hope they continue to produce a game that supports the sort of focused builds that 4e seems to me to be designed around. I don't particularly care whether they do it via classes or sub-classes, provided there is neither too much bloat nor too many orphaned options. This may make the game less popular than it otherwise might be. I don't know. But the game as it is seems to be popular enough to be viable, which is all that I need.



Imaro said:


> The "something else" is that it now makes combat role selectable under the more general archetype/class umbrella as opposed to hardcoding a specific role into an entire class. IMO there's a big difference between every Paladin build is a defender and there are both striker and defender builds under the Paladin class/archetype. The first, IMO, is vastly more limiting in in the freedom to match archetype and gameplay style.



OK. Putting the bloat issue to one side, I think it's much of a muchness whether new sub-classes are created under Paladin, or whether a new class is created that is a heavily armourd, divinely powered striker. For me, this falls under the "what's in a name" comment made upthread by [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION].

Of course, the bloat issue shouldn't be put to one side. It is a good reason for having sub-classes. Runepriest is the most obvious class I can think of that should have been a sub-class (of Cleric). I don't have a very good understanding of Seekers, but they look like they should probably have been either a Ranger or a Druid sub-class.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't think it would break the power level of the game. The game is (in my view) very robust in that respect.
> 
> I think it would adversely affect the dynamics of combat - although others, including (I think) [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], disagree. I find that the distribution of "responsibilities" across the PCs helps make 4e combat what it is - for example, it generates dynamic interaction between the "action budget" for each player, which in turn can generate intricate decision making in relation to positioning PCs in the initiative sequence, all of which in turn produces drama and tension at the table.



Maybe it's because I use combat much less frequently than you do, but I've never really felt a lack of drama or tension in a fight, unless the PCs greatly overpowered their enemies (which is hard to do in my game unless you're particularly high level and your enemies are particularly low level). And, as I have a point-buy system (the game is classless), it's definitely up to the players how focused they want their characters. I've yet to see drama or tension wane in my games from switching to my system. Personally, I attribute drama and tension more to the story implications, likelihood of success in combat, and danger presented.



> As to what the designers should take into account - I hope they continue to produce a game that supports the sort of focused builds that 4e seems to me to be designed around. I don't particularly care whether they do it via classes or sub-classes, provided there is neither too much bloat nor too many orphaned options. This may make the game less popular than it otherwise might be. I don't know. But the game as it is seems to be popular enough to be viable, which is all that I need.



I think we're talking past another. I'm giving my point of view on games with roles, and you seem to be giving your view of 4e with roles. While I did mention 4e without combat roles being baked into the class, my post was talking about games at large, and the preferences of players.

If most players would not willingly make tightly focused combat role characters if given the option not to, it's a sign to me that most games shouldn't use that approach. To that end, in a theoretically new game (like 5e), I think they should definitely back away from combat roles being baked into the class.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Maybe it's because I use combat much less frequently than you do, but I've never really felt a lack of drama or tension in a fight, unless the PCs greatly overpowered their enemies (which is hard to do in my game unless you're particularly high level and your enemies are particularly low level). And, as I have a point-buy system (the game is classless), it's definitely up to the players how focused they want their characters. I've yet to see drama or tension wane in my games from switching to my system. Personally, *I attribute drama and tension more to the story implications, likelihood of success in combat, and danger presented.*




Emphasis mine... this is more along my experiences as well.  IMO, the design of the encounter (or adventure if we are talking about a larger scale) is what drives drama and tension for most players.  

In 4e bad adventure/encounter design can lead to the dreaded combat grind which seems to be the very antithesis of drama and tension... and I'm not seeing how combat roles do anything to mitigate this.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 5, 2011)

Imaro said:


> In 4e bad adventure/encounter design can lead to the dreaded combat grind which seems to be the very antithesis of drama and tension... and I'm not seeing how combat roles do anything to mitigate this.



Luckily I only run well-designed encounters!



JamesonCourage said:


> Maybe it's because I use combat much less frequently than you do, but I've never really felt a lack of drama or tension in a fight, unless the PCs greatly overpowered their enemies (which is hard to do in my game unless you're particularly high level and your enemies are particularly low level).



In my experience, scry-buff-teleport style play is somewhat lacking in drama and tension. It shifts the emphasis of play to preparation rather than resolution.

And systems in which victory in combat turns mostly on the "first lucky strike" - Rolemaster, Runequest and classic Traveller are all such systems - tend to produce a different sort of tension from 4e. I've played a lot of these sorts of games. 4e is an interesting change.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Luckily I only run well-designed encounters!




I'm sure... 




pemerton said:


> In my experience, scry-buff-teleport style play is somewhat lacking in drama and tension. It shifts the emphasis of play to preparation rather than resolution.
> 
> And systems in which victory in combat turns mostly on the "first lucky strike" - Rolemaster, Runequest and classic Traveller are all such systems - tend to produce a different sort of tension from 4e. I've played a lot of these sorts of games. 4e is an interesting change.




This is interesting... The first paragraph definitely speaks more to mid-high level 3e (although I think this again boils down to encounter design) , so I guess I'm curious how the nigh invulnerability of late paragon and epic 4e PC's affects drama and tension in your game?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In my experience, scry-buff-teleport style play is somewhat lacking in drama and tension. It shifts the emphasis of play to preparation rather than resolution.



Um, I'm not sure the point of this? I don't play 3.X, to which this is an obvious reference. Long distance teleportation is hard to accomplish in my game, and "scrying" is effectively impossible. Buffs are possible, though. So, I guess people can buff before a fight, though that limits most enemy-hampering effects.



> And systems in which victory in combat turns mostly on the "first lucky strike" - Rolemaster, Runequest and classic Traveller are all such systems - tend to produce a different sort of tension from 4e. I've played a lot of these sorts of games. 4e is an interesting change.



Again, this is also kinda related, I guess, but isn't really a response to what I stated:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Maybe it's because I use combat much less frequently than you do, but I've never really felt a lack of drama or tension in a fight, unless the PCs greatly overpowered their enemies (which is hard to do in my game unless you're particularly high level and your enemies are particularly low level). And, as I have a point-buy system (the game is classless), it's definitely up to the players how focused they want their characters. I've yet to see drama or tension wane in my games from switching to my system. Personally, I attribute drama and tension more to the story implications, likelihood of success in combat, and danger presented.



I was commenting on the type of combat (one based on story implications, likelihood of success, and danger) and the roles of the PCs (whether loose or tight, since I run a point-buy style game).

That is, my game can have pretty broadly created PCs, or pretty tightly made and focused PCs, and yet drama and tension don't seem to suffer or inflate due to how focused PCs are. The PCs can be incredibly broad or incredibly focused, but if the fight isn't important to the story (random unaligned bandits... again), the players are assuredly going to succeed, and they aren't in any danger, there's no tension or drama.

However, no matter how broad the PCs are, or how focused they are, if there's a lot of story involved in the fight, they have a very significant chance of failure, and the combat is filled with danger, there most certainly will be drama and tension.

This has nothing to do with "scry and fry" or "first lucky strike" styles of gameplay. If 4e, just like in my game, my players would have exactly the same reaction I described above. If they have a fully-resourced fight on the road against a random group of unaligned bandits that they can safely use dailys on, then there's no real drama or tension. However, if they're down to a single healing surge each, fighting the BBEG after he ambushed them, they're in very real danger of having the diplomat they're escorting be killed (which would make them fail their mission), and he's powerful enough with his minions to present a very real threat.... you can bet that there's drama and tension.

Again, I think it comes more to those three factors than combat roles. I just don't see it. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Dec 6, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I was commenting on the type of combat (one based on story implications, likelihood of success, and danger) and the roles of the PCs (whether loose or tight, since I run a point-buy style game).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



That there is story involved in the fight - that is, that something is at stake which matters to the players and is relevant to their engagement with the fiction via their PCs - I am taking for granted.

But I think mechanics can still matter to this. If the stakes are very high, but the mechanics (as can be the case with Runequest or Traveller, for example) take the form of "miss", "miss", "miss", "hit and win!", then the actual process of resolving the combat won't itself be a microcosm of story and drama. It will just ratchet up the tension until the outcome is decided.

I also find traditional D&D mechanics make for boring combat. My flight from AD&D to Rolemaster was driven both by the standard realism concerns about hit points, and also by the fairly common feeling that victory by attrition made for boring combat. That the combat itself is high stakes doesn't reduce the tedium of the attrition as a resolution process.



JamesonCourage said:


> This has nothing to do with "scry and fry" or "first lucky strike" styles of gameplay.



I'm not talking about styles so much as mechanics. "First lucky strike" isn't a style of gameplay, it's a property of the action resolution mechanics of games like RM, RQ and Traveller. And also high-level 3E, but substituting "first failed save" for "first lucky strike". (I suspect maybe also Burning Wheel, but (i) I don't have the play experience with BW to form a strong view, and (ii) BW has other mechanics, including both "shrug it off" mechanics and also its expectations about what losing a combat means, to make it a bit different from the traditional games.)

Scry-buff-teleport is also, in my view, a mechanical phenomenon. (Which "first lucky strike" encourages.) It doesn't even depend on having access to scrying, to teleportation, or to buffing! What it depends upon is mechanics which make it possible (i) for the PCs (and hence the players) to gain advance knowledge of when a fight will take place, and (ii) for the PCs to benefit, in the ensuing combat, from deploying their resources in advance and/or in an opening surprise salvo.

Even at low-levels in classic D&D this can be done to an extent using invisible and silent scouting, and then casting Sleep and/or Hold Person and/or backstabbing.

4e has the first sort of mechanics - the scrying/scouting options - but not the second. The PCs can't win a fight by expending their resources in advance or in a surprise round. The important decisions about resource expenditure have to be made in the course of the combat itself.



JamesonCourage said:


> If 4e, just like in my game, my players would have exactly the same reaction I described above. If they have a fully-resourced fight on the road against a random group of unaligned bandits that they can safely use dailys on, then there's no real drama or tension. However, if they're down to a single healing surge each, fighting the BBEG after he ambushed them, they're in very real danger of having the diplomat they're escorting be killed (which would make them fail their mission), and he's powerful enough with his minions to present a very real threat.... you can bet that there's drama and tension.



Different mechanical resolution systems can make it more or less likely that the sort of scenario you talk about will come about.

A "first lucky strike" system, for example, discourages the GM from having the BBEG ambush the PCs, because such a system makes it more likely that the ambush will see a significant number of PCs killed.

An attrition system, like classic D&D, makes the sort of scenario you describe less dramatic (in my view) because once combat has begun it offers few options for turning the tide or "making your own luck" other than lucky rolls to hit or to damage.

4e has mechanical features - its emphasis on movement and position as an integral component of combat resolution, for example, and its very liberal use of conditions that make the resolution of combat more than just a matter of attrition - that make it different from many other mainstream fantasy RPGs. There are many, many ways in which the players, by clever play, can make their own luck. And the correlation between mechanics and fiction means that this will be different from making your own luck if you're a clever chess player or poker player or whatever - because the players' clever use of the game rules translates (at least typically) into interesting events in the fiction.

4e also has mechancial features - like the need for PCs, if they are to win combats, to gain access to their healing surges - which make it more likely that the sort of "down to a single healing surge each" moments you describe will take place. These same mechanics also make it very common for the tide of battle to swing, quite dramatically, one way or another. In some ways it resembles the action resolution system in HeroWars (of points bidding, and the shifting of points one way or another) but obviously much less abstract.

This sort of thing can, of course, happen in other games. But at least in my experience, in a game like AD&D or RM it will be a result of changes in luck with the dice (every Rolemaster group has their story about the time a player rolled double-open-ended-high to pluck victory from the jaws of defeat). In 4e it is also, to a significant extent, a result of the players' clever use of their PCs' powers and action budget.

Which is where roles come in. Because it is the existence of focused PC builds that helps create the mechanical intricacy of the interaction between powers and the action economy.



Imaro said:


> This is interesting... The first paragraph definitely speaks more to mid-high level 3e (although I think this again boils down to encounter design) , so I guess I'm curious how the nigh invulnerability of late paragon and epic 4e PC's affects drama and tension in your game?



At the moment my game is in mid-Paragon. In story terms, I would think of it as comparable to name level AD&D.

I've heard differing view expressed about whether 4e combat breaks down at Epic (and/or later Paragon). I'm curious to find out - and obviously am hoping that it doesn't!


----------



## iela13euoiw (Dec 6, 2011)

I wasn't following how your post relates to the topic of codified roles in RPGs, so maybe it doesn't. But it seems you are equating "4E Leader" with "Party Leader." A "4E Leader" is actually shorthand for "Healer and Buffer" while the party leader can be taken on exactly how you describe it by any character and/or player


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I also find traditional D&D mechanics make for boring combat.



This might be true to some, not to others. However, any combat that is important to the story, the PCs have a good chance of failing, and that is dangerous will produce drama and tension. Pretty much regardless of system, in my experience. I find that those factors are so much more important than the mechanics of the individual system.

Of course, mechanics can determine how easy or hard it is for PCs to fail, or be placed in danger (or potentially how important it is from a story perspective). So, yes, games can have a definite impact on that based on their mechanics, but really insofar as they relate to those three factors. Take my 4e bandits on the road example: the PCs will just use their dailys and are at full healing surges. No story, no real chance of failure or danger. No tension or drama. But, compare it with the fight with the BBEG when they each have a single healing surge left.

The 4e game engine and system definitely affect danger/chance of failure, and thus drama and tension. That is, sometimes it makes the fight less dramatic and with less tension, and other times it makes it more dramatic, and with more tension. I think that combat roles have much less to do with this.



> Scry-buff-teleport is also, in my view, a mechanical phenomenon. (Which "first lucky strike" encourages.) It doesn't even depend on having access to scrying, to teleportation, or to buffing! What it depends upon is mechanics which make it possible (i) for the PCs (and hence the players) to gain advance knowledge of when a fight will take place, and (ii) for the PCs to benefit, in the ensuing combat, from deploying their resources in advance and/or in an opening surprise salvo.
> 
> Even at low-levels in classic D&D this can be done to an extent using invisible and silent scouting, and then casting Sleep and/or Hold Person and/or backstabbing.



Again, though, this is purely how the game mechanics interact with story, chance of failure, and danger. I don't see any strong relation to combat roles.



> This sort of thing can, of course, happen in other games. But at least in my experience, in a game like AD&D or RM it will be a result of changes in luck with the dice (every Rolemaster group has their story about the time a player rolled double-open-ended-high to pluck victory from the jaws of defeat). In 4e it is also, to a significant extent, a result of the players' clever use of their PCs' powers and action budget.
> 
> Which is where roles come in. Because it is the existence of focused PC builds that helps create the mechanical intricacy of the interaction between powers and the action economy.



Um, if players just picked powers from pools, they'd get the potentially the exact same interactions. They'd just get more. They'd get to splash a healing power, or a controller power, or a defender power. They'd get to be half defender/half controller. They'd still have exactly what you're describing above in terms of clever use of PC powers and action budget, as well as giving players many, many ways to make their own luck.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the clear argument for combat roles based on what you've presented here. If I've missed something, though, let me know, because I am curious. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Dec 6, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> This might be true to some, not to others.



Yes. I took that to be implicit in the "I find" in the sentence that you quoted.



JamesonCourage said:


> However, any combat that is important to the story, the PCs have a good chance of failing, and that is dangerous will produce drama and tension.



What I personally like in an RPG combat engine is that it be able to produce drama and tension even though the PCs do not have a good chance of failing. (Because if the game is to (i) last 30 levels with a high degree of PC continuity, and (ii) have an average of at least one combat per session, and (iii) not to have a cheesy amount of resurrection, then it had better be the case that most combat are ones that the PCs do not have a good chance of failing.)

AD&D generally, in my experience, does not do this. Because it is generally a system of pure hit point attrition, if the PCs are almost certain to win then this becomes clear early on, and combat consists in rolling dice until the hit point counter reaches zero. 

4e, on the other hand (in my experience, at least) does do this.

One way to generate drama and tension even though the PCs are almost certain to win, is that the certainty in question be conditional on mechanically clever play by the players. Rolemaster is better in this respect than Runequest, because it has many more player decision points in its action resolution mechanics. 4e in turn has more, and _also_ ameliorates the effects of die rolls (whereas RM, with is open-ended rules and its crit and fumble rules, exaggerates the effects of die rolls).

What 4e also does better than RM is to mechanically configure things in such a way that the players' mechanical decisions will also tend to produce little microcosms of story - rising drama, climax, denouement, etc - within the course of the resolution of a single combat.



JamesonCourage said:


> I find that those factors are so much more important than the mechanics of the individual system.



For the reasons given above - plus others - I don't. I wouldn't go so far as to say that combat in Traveller or Runequest (and other BRP games) is tedious, but it certainly has a crap-shoot element that I don't find very satisfying.



JamesonCourage said:


> Of course, mechanics can determine how easy or hard it is for PCs to fail



That is one thing that they can do. I'm not at all sure it's the most important thing. The way in which the mechanics create decision points, and make those decision points matter to the overall prospects of success, seems to me generally more important.

The mechanics of skill challenges provide one example of how mechanics can produce a situation of gripping drama even when success by the PCs is guaranteed. Because a certain number of successful checks are required to win in a skill challenge, the fictional positioning generated by the making of each skill check may make a significant difference to the final outcome even though that outcome is guaranteed to be a successful one. For example, in a social negotiation, it may be that in order to generate the requisite number of (say) Diplomacy checks (and hence Diplomacy successes) the players have their PCs offer various compromises, which then signficantly shape the final outcome of the negotiations.

Or consider a quite different example, from games like HeroWars/Quest, or The Riddle of Steel: if a player gets his/her PC into a conflict that engages all the PC's relationships, passions etc - so that in TRoS all the Spiritual Attributes are contributing bonus dice, or in HW/Q all the relationships etc are contributing augments - then the PC will have only a very small chance of failure. But this should still be a gripping challenge, because _in order to have all those mechanical benefits in play,_ the player must have maneouvred his/her PC into a situation in whch everything the PC (and presumably, therefore, the player) cares about is at stake.

4e doesn't have this particular feature in its combat resolution, of making emotional/thematic connections contribute to success. (At least not directly. The closest it comes that I can think of is with radiant-heavy divine classes fighting undead.) But the same sorts of reasons that make even easy skill challenges potentially drama-laden apply to 4e combats. Decisions have to be made, and these have implications for fictional positioning. 



JamesonCourage said:


> I think that combat roles have much less to do with this.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I think your focus on chance of failure and on danger is distracting you from what I believe to be the more significant mechanical issue, namely, the character and importance of player decision points in action resolution. And this is where combat roles make their contribution.



JamesonCourage said:


> if players just picked powers from pools, they'd get the potentially the exact same interactions. They'd just get more. They'd get to splash a healing power, or a controller power, or a defender power. They'd get to be half defender/half controller. They'd still have exactly what you're describing above in terms of clever use of PC powers and action budget, as well as giving players many, many ways to make their own luck.



But if every PC has the capacity (for example) to open up access to healing surges in a similar way, or to debuff enemies in the same sort of way as does a defender or a controller, then the force of a range of decision points is blunted. 

Questions about who to heal when, and how, become sharpened when it matters that the healer is unconcious or not. Questions about how to shape or reshape the front line become more pointed when it makes a signficant mechanical difference who is trying to hold that front line. Conversely, the more homogenous the PCs, the less sharp these questions and the less at stake in these decisions - where "the stakes" aren't necessarily success or failure (in my experience, at least, 4e is very forgiving of a wide range of player decisions) but rather the character of the play that results from the decision (both its mechanical character, and the fiction that correlates to those mechanics).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Yes. I took that to be implicit in the "I find" in the sentence that you quoted.



And yet, as interesting as your personal views on your home game are, I'm speaking within the context or what people might like in general. Generally speaking, in this discussion, I'm more interested in what you think gamers might like, not what you might like.



> What I personally like in an RPG combat engine is that it be able to produce drama and tension even though the PCs do not have a good chance of failing.



You might be confusing "chance of failing" with "danger". That is, they aren't the same. If the PCs are escorting a diplomat, then the diplomat being killed would mean the PCs failed. If they're on a timed mission, then being stalled long enough that the time lapses would mean they failed. Sometimes failure means PC death, yes, but I associate that more with danger than chance of failure.

With all of this in mind, I'd much rather have a system that allows chance of failure be a constant than danger, though I like both in my games. I like each combat being dramatic and filled with tension, and I think most people would agree. That means I'd rather most (and only most) combats have as many of those three characteristics as possible, chance of failure and danger included.



> One way to generate drama and tension even though the PCs are almost certain to win, is that the certainty in question be conditional on mechanically clever play by the players.



I'll have to say my mileage has varied on this statement. While it's a fun mental exercise, it's not really going to generate drama with me, because I'm savvy enough to win if the encounter is designed in such a way that my mechanical cleverness will consistently allow me to win. It's a fun game, for sure, and it might produce tension (with die rolls), but it probably won't add drama inherently.

Again, that will happen by having a chance of failure, and/or by being in danger, and/or by being important to the story.



> For the reasons given above - plus others - I don't. I wouldn't go so far as to say that combat in Traveller or Runequest (and other BRP games) is tedious, but it certainly has a crap-shoot element that I don't find very satisfying.



If you think that the 4e system alone makes for a more dramatic and tension filled combat without those three characteristics, as compared to a "first lucky strike" system that involves all three characteristics, all I can say is I deeply, deeply disagree. And I think most players would, too, but I can't know for sure. We're both just using anecdotal evidence, but at least I have Imaro on my side 

At any rate, we're going to have to agree to disagree, here, because what you've expressed seems so far from my feeling on the matter that I doubt we'll reconcile it in this discussion. That's not to say that system isn't important in contributing to the tension and drama -I've indicated that it is- but I do believe that it's secondary to story, chance of failure, and danger.



> That is one thing that they can do. I'm not at all sure it's the most important thing. The way in which the mechanics create decision points, and make those decision points matter to the overall prospects of success, seems to me generally more important.



This seems to lead to the same place I was pointing to: chance of failure. "Mechanics can determine how easy or hard it is for PCs to fail" is a comment on the mechanics shaping the "chance of failure" characteristic I've mentioned. You're thoughts, above, about "mechanics create decision points, and make those decision points matter to the overall prospects of success" seem to align with my point. It leads back to "chance of failure", with some systems helping or hurting more than others.

With 4e, I see no way in which combat roles particularly strengthen this. I've yet to see a compelling argument to indicate that they contribute to the chance of failure for a group, thus adding to the drama or tension of the combat.



> I think your focus on chance of failure and on danger is distracting you from what I believe to be the more significant mechanical issue, namely, the character and importance of player decision points in action resolution. And this is where combat roles make their contribution.



And I'm positing that this will happen just as often without combat roles.



> But if every PC has the capacity (for example) to open up access to healing surges in a similar way, or to debuff enemies in the same sort of way as does a defender or a controller, then the force of a range of decision points is blunted.



Only if everyone had every power. If we assume four characters, each with one role, we can assume that most of the ability to access healing surges is tied to one character. However, if we allowed PCs to access pools of powers, and even if it's evenly split (each PC has a power accessing healing surges), then drama and tension will still play out depending on how those resources are used. Each PC will have to contribute to healing whoever needs it as it arises, but can only do so at specific points (because they have one-fourth the healing potential of a regular combat role PC).

While this takes away a dimension of the game (combat roles), this adds a dimension to the game, with each PC having to time their healing abilities to help the group at large. Each PC has less "heals" to give out, and thus the decision to use that ability individually might carry more weight to the individual.

And, this is assuming everyone takes a healing power, which I doubt will be the case. I just don't find your assertion that "the force of a range of decision points is blunted" to be accurate, at least from where I'm standing. It makes more PCs have access to similar powers, yes, but players will still feel drama and tension when rolling damage, even though everyone gets that ability. I do not feel that watering down or eliminating roles in any way diminishes drama or tension.



> Questions about who to heal when, and how, become sharpened when it matters that the healer is unconcious or not. Questions about how to shape or reshape the front line become more pointed when it makes a signficant mechanical difference who is trying to hold that front line.



Yes, but we can safely assume that not everyone will be able to fulfill all four combat roles. Because of that assumption, I think it's fair to assume that you'll still have something similar to what you have now: someone who is best at defending, or controlling, or being a leader, or the like. Or, you'll have a couple hybrid-style PCs, like a warlock or melee-controller (polearm Fighter with push/pull, etc.).

You won't have everyone be able to swap out interchangeably with one another on the battlefield, because while power choices might be robust, you have the same number of power slots to fill. I steadfastly dismiss the assertion that giving power pools to choose from would lower drama or tension based on what's been presented thus far. If that means we have to agree to disagree, I'm okay with that. It's not like I'm in this to "win" the discussion, and I do appreciate your thoughts. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Dec 7, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> And yet, as interesting as your personal views on your home game are, I'm speaking within the context or what people might like in general. Generally speaking, in this discussion, I'm more interested in what you think gamers might like, not what you might like.



I think different gamers might like a range of different things. The same gamer can like a range of different things. Although at the moment I am GMing 4e, and enjoying it, I can easily envisage enjoying GMing other, different, games - HeroQuest, HARP or Burning Wheel at least. And I can easily imagine playing other, different, games that I wouldn't want to GM myself.

I think there is a reasonable amount of evidence that a reasonable number of gamers find combat based on pure hit point attrition boring. My evidence is that many gamers don't play D&D, and many gamers who do play D&D lace it with various more-or-less optional elements that displace hit point attrition, like critical hit systems and save-or-die/suck attacks.



JamesonCourage said:


> You might be confusing "chance of failing" with "danger". That is, they aren't the same. If the PCs are escorting a diplomat, then the diplomat being killed would mean the PCs failed. If they're on a timed mission, then being stalled long enough that the time lapses would mean they failed. Sometimes failure means PC death, yes, but I associate that more with danger than chance of failure.



I agree all these things can count as failure. I think that D&D, at least since some time during the 2nd ed era, has generally been premised on the assumption that the PCs will succeed. The classic 2nd ed railroading modules (Planescape, Ravenloft etc) achieved this result despite the mechanics, by encouraging the GM to narrate huge swathes of story without regard to them. 4e involves D&D "catching up" with modern developments in game design, that show how expected success can be reconciled with mechanical power and intereseting choices in the hands of the players.



JamesonCourage said:


> I'd much rather have a system that allows chance of failure be a constant than danger, though I like both in my games. I like each combat being dramatic and filled with tension, and I think most people would agree. That means I'd rather most (and only most) combats have as many of those three characteristics as possible, chance of failure and danger included.



You haven't really explained whether by "chance of failure" you mean "opportunity for failure" or "X% probability of failure". In combat in RQ or Traveller there is an X% probability of failure - hence the crapshoot element of combat in those systems. In 4e there is an opportunity for failure, but clever choices can drive the percentage chance very low (probably not arbitrarily low, given we're talking about fairly coarse randomness in action resolution, but very low).



JamesonCourage said:


> I'll have to say my mileage has varied on this statement. While it's a fun mental exercise, it's not really going to generate drama with me, because I'm savvy enough to win if the encounter is designed in such a way that my mechanical cleverness will consistently allow me to win.



This suggests to me that your principal interest is in winning. My own view - frequently posted in these threads - is that 4e doesn't suit that sort of play very well. It's not about the win - it's about the decisions that have to be made, the potentially difficult choices taken, to secure that win. This is why I think that it suits narrativist play. I think it's also why it suits the sort of gamist play that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has posted about - where the aim of play isn't to win, but to win by demonstrating "cool moves" using an ever-more complex character. (I see this as a very light and collegial form of gamism. But Balesir can correct me if I'm misdescribing it.)

Once the focus of play shifts to the choices made - whether their thematic stakes, or their "coolness" stakes - then that is where the drama will reside. This is what 4e, in my view, supports. How popular is this sort of game? I don't know. Popular enough, I would say, given that 4e seems to be widely played. Given the success of Pathfinder, however, I would guess that it is not as popular as a somewhat more hardcore gamism supported by a more simulationist rules engine. (And, of course, this is a sort of play that I also think was widespread in classic D&D and even 2nd ed times. 3E/PF didn't _invent _it - it cashed in on its popularity.)



JamesonCourage said:


> You're thoughts, above, about "mechanics create decision points, and make those decision points matter to the overall prospects of success" seem to align with my point. It leads back to "chance of failure", with some systems helping or hurting more than others.



Decision points aren't primarily about chances of failure - at least, not in a heroic system like 4e. They're about having to commit, about having to make sacrfices, or - if you're playing in Balesir's style - about trying to come up with the goods to show off to your fellow players.



JamesonCourage said:


> If you think that the 4e system alone makes for a more dramatic and tension filled combat without those three characteristics, as compared to a "first lucky strike" system that involves all three characteristics, all I can say is I deeply, deeply disagree.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Are these claims based on reading of, or playing, a range of games with various mechanics and approaches? Or are they hypotheses?

My claims are based on a mixture of play experience and wide reading. When I read about a game, like Maelstrom Storytelling, being designed to turn play into story in a certain fashion - and then I look at its mechanics, and compare them to the mechanics of different or similar games that I have played - the difference seems fairly clear to me.

I regard it as close to obvious that some mechanical systems for action resolution are better at turning play into story than others. Traditional simulationist systems, in my experience, are not very good at this.  I find it obvious - both in theory, from reading the rules, and then in experience that bears out the theory - that 4e will be better at this,  because its mechanics force the players to make decisions in the course of action resolution that have fictional signficance even if their contribution to mechanical success is guaranteed. (This is the point of the reference upthread to skill challenges, which introduce significant drama even if success is guaranteed, because the players have to repeatedly engage the fiction in order to generate sufficient successful skill checks.)

Conversely, a system when for all players most of the time the only rational choice is to pour on the damage, is just not producing the same range of drama-generating decision points.

Again, I'm not saying that other systems don't produce drama. Just not as often or reliably.

And, of course, it remains an open question whether most gamers _want_ drama in their games. The growth of PF relative to 4e suggests that they don't - or, at least, not in the play-into-story fashion that modern indie-influence RPGs use to produce that outcome. They seem to want (i) a higher degree of simulation, and (ii) a greater focus on playing-to-win.

4e obviously lacks (i). And if played with (ii) in mind it will degenerate into the proverbial dice rolling boardgame people complain about, because once you're just playing to win, and so don't care about the fiction that is shaped by the decision points, the fiction will drop out of the picture. Because 4e - at least until page 42 is brought into play, and those who are playing to win won't bring page 42 into play because they won't want to empower the GM in such a fashion - tends not to make fictional position central to the mechanics of action resolution in the way that classic D&D does (think White Plume Mountain or Tomb of Horrors as the poster children for fictional-positioning-heavy playing-to-win).

If you really see no difference between the way that classic D&D, and its offspring like 3E/PF, produce drama in the game, and the way that indie games and an indie-influenced game like 4e produce drama in the game - and the way those differences are rooted in the mechanics - then indeed we look at RPGs very differently.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Decision points aren't primarily about chances of failure - at least, not in a heroic system like 4e. They're about having to commit, about having to make sacrfices, or - if you're playing in Balesir's style - about trying to come up with the goods to show off to your fellow players.




Would you mind explaining why you think 4e mechanically supports the concept of making decisions and sacrifices better than 3e/PF? From my admittedly limited experience in 4e the opposite seems true - whatever you sacrifice you get (pretty much automatically) back in a few minutes or at most a night's sleep. A practical example or two might help me understand this better.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> You haven't really explained whether by "chance of failure" you mean "opportunity for failure" or "X% probability of failure".



Well, you hadn't really asked yet. I think of it closer to "significant opportunity of failure". That'll vary depending on the situation, but I'm not thinking a baked-in "X% probability of failure". That's too mechanical for what I'm talking about. I'm talking about players have a significant chance of failing at their goal, and that ratcheting up the tension and drama in the scenario. So, more than "opportunity for failure", but only really to the point of adding the word of "significant", I think.



pemerton said:


> This suggests to me that your principal interest is in winning. My own view - frequently posted in these threads - is that 4e doesn't suit that sort of play very well. It's not about the win - it's about the decisions that have to be made, the potentially difficult choices taken, to secure that win. This is why I think that it suits narrativist play. I think it's also why it suits the sort of gamist play that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has posted about - where the aim of play isn't to win, but to win by demonstrating "cool moves" using an ever-more complex character. (I see this as a very light and collegial form of gamism. But Balesir can correct me if I'm misdescribing it.)



It's not so much about "winning D&D", it's about me engaging in the combat game. That is, if the engine is _designed_ in such a way that I need to be clever in order to lower those odds, I'm going to be clever in order to lower those odds. As someone who can do the math on the fly very easily, and can handle many different variables simultaneously, and as someone excessively clever (as in, to a fault), I'll be able to engage the combat engine very well.

If the system is designed in such a way that clever play within the combat mini-game will all but eliminate significant chance of failure or danger, then it stands that it will lower drama and tension significantly as well. It's not about me trying to "beat D&D" or any such related thought, it's about me engaging in the game _as designed_, which then leads to a less dramatic and tense combat.



pemerton said:


> Once the focus of play shifts to the choices made - whether their thematic stakes, or their "coolness" stakes - then that is where the drama will reside. This is what 4e, in my view, supports. How popular is this sort of game? I don't know. Popular enough, I would say, given that 4e seems to be widely played. Given the success of Pathfinder, however, I would guess that it is not as popular as a somewhat more hardcore gamism supported by a more simulationist rules engine. (And, of course, this is a sort of play that I also think was widespread in classic D&D and even 2nd ed times. 3E/PF didn't _invent _it - it cashed in on its popularity.)



Well, I'd say that 4e cashed in on D&D's popularity, and I'd say that while the people that play truly do like its style, if another game made such a significant leap in mechanical chance, I'm not sure how many fans would keep playing. There's already deep divides between OWoD and NWoD, for example, and the system looks similar to me (but my roommate dislikes NWoD for the system, metaplot, and setting changes, so it definitely transcends system).



pemerton said:


> Decision points aren't primarily about chances of failure - at least, not in a heroic system like 4e. They're about having to commit, about having to make sacrfices, or - if you're playing in Balesir's style - about trying to come up with the goods to show off to your fellow players.



I think chance of failure contributes to drama and tension, but even taking your statement into account, I don't see why not having baked-in combat roles would preclude what you're describing.



pemerton said:


> Are these claims based on reading of, or playing, a range of games with various mechanics and approaches? Or are they hypotheses?



Playing about 10 different systems, including more narrative or rules-lite games. The rest, though, is game theory and hypotheses.



pemerton said:


> (This is the point of the reference upthread to skill challenges, which introduce significant drama even if success is guaranteed, because the players have to repeatedly engage the fiction in order to generate sufficient successful skill checks.)



Engaging the fiction does not automatically lead to drama, at least from my experience. While being guaranteed success can still lead to drama, it greatly lessens the odds. In this scenario, the story implications must be important enough that it makes up for the lack of a chance of failure. And, to be honest, I think this holds true for any system, not just 4e, and not just with combat roles baked into classes.



pemerton said:


> And, of course, it remains an open question whether most gamers _want_ drama in their games. The growth of PF relative to 4e suggests that they don't - or, at least, not in the play-into-story fashion that modern indie-influence RPGs use to produce that outcome. They seem to want (i) a higher degree of simulation, and (ii) a greater focus on playing-to-win.



I'm positive what you're saying is true for some players. I'm also positive that many players of 4e don't do so for any greater story or drama in their games.

That is, story is incredibly important in my games. Plot isn't, in it's usual meaning, but story is. What the PCs engage in, how their characters develop, PC interactions with NPCs and the setting at large, how things change, their successes and their failures... all these things are important. My players' PCs often establish families, even to the detriment of their characters' safety (or sanity). Why? Because they are invested in the character, in the setting, and in engaging the world.

Now, they aren't invested in following a set story. That's true. They are, however, interesting in _creating_ a story. Or, they're interested in _experiencing_ a story. They don't know what it is yet, of course, but they have goals, and depending on how things turn out while they pursue them (and how the world evolves while they do so), they get to see what the story is.

There's no "plot" to the game, sure. But, oh, there's story in spades. And with that story, and with a significant chance of failure, and with danger, there's also drama and tension in spades, too.



pemerton said:


> If you really see no difference between the way that classic D&D, and its offspring like 3E/PF, produce drama in the game, and the way that indie games and an indie-influenced game like 4e produce drama in the game - and the way those differences are rooted in the mechanics - then indeed we look at RPGs very differently.



I see a difference, yes. I don't see a compelling argument for combat roles being baked into classes. Sorry. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Dec 7, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> Would you mind explaining why you think 4e mechanically supports the concept of making decisions and sacrifices better than 3e/PF?



Because 3E encourages players to spend their resources in advance in order to maximise their chances of success during the encounter. (Scry-buff-teleport is the culmination of this sort of pressure, but as I posted upthread is only a special case of the general trend.)

So the decisions that get made happen outside the context of the encounter - namely, before it. These can be very important decisions, and very engaging decisions - I've played and GMed a lot of this style of D&D and Rolemaster - but (at least in my experience) they are not very dramatic decisions. If I had to explain why not, I would conjecture that this is because they are decisions that are not made in the course of resolving a conflict.

4e does not have mechanics that permit this type of pre-expenditure of resources. In order to bring resources to bear to change the outcome of a conflict, the players have to bring their PCs into the conflict. (I regard this is part of what it means to say that 4e treats the encounter as the meaningful unit of play.)



Hassassin said:


> From my admittedly limited experience in 4e the opposite seems true - whatever you sacrifice you get (pretty much automatically) back in a few minutes or at most a night's sleep.



The sort of resource management that you are talking about is not the sort of sacrifice or decision-making that I had in mind. 4e combat does require resource management decisions - particularly but not exclusively in relation to the action budget - but they are not as such the focus of the drama (although there can be some tension, just as there can be tension in watching hit points whittle away).

The drama I have in mind is more along the lines of deciding which ally to help and which to leave to fend for him/herself, which can include deciding which of your allies threatened with death or unconsciousness to heal and which to revive, or deciding where and how to create a "front line"; and deciding which opponent to fight and which to leave alone for the moment, which relates to the first sort of decision - opponents left alone can make life difficult for your allies - but also takes on its own signficance - these ones are the ones who might run away, or with whom you are likely to end up negotiating when swords are lowered.

Of course any RPG with a robust combat system can produce these sorts of decisions - 4e is not unique in that respect. But 4e is designed to make these sorts of decisions a constant part of action resolution in combat. A variety of features contribute to this: the need for PCs to gain access to their healing surges during combat in order to survive the damage that NPCs and monsters inflict; the movement rules, which encourage and generate a highly mobile battlefield making achieving a stable "front line" a difficult and active thing rather than the default state of affairs; and (in my view, and why I think it is relevant to this thread) PCs with tightly focused roles to play, meaning that each PC needs a different sort of help from his/her allies, and is him-/herself able to provide a different sort of help.

The upshot of this, in my experience, is that 4e combat, just played out according to the mechanics as published (including a GM following the encounter-building guidelines), is likely to produce an encounter in which there are interpersonal dynamics among the players (mediated via their PCs), with rising action, mini-climaxes (eg a foe downed or an unconscious PC revived), more rising action, an overall-climax (the combat comes to an end), and then denouement - a short rest in which tactics are discussed, recriminations levied, negotiations with surviving enemies conducted, etc. _The mechanics reliably produce this without anyone having to take responsibility for making it happen._

What is missing from the 4e rules, as published, is advice on how to build encounters with an eye to story elements as well as tactical elements. Once _this_ is done (following the advice in other, better, GM's manuals), then the tactical decision making becomes overlayed with a whole new set of thematic dynamics which are not just interpersonal among the players, but put at stake the goals and values to which the players (via their PCs) are committed. I think 4e monster design facilitates this really well also, because of the tight integration in many monsters of thematic fictional elements and their mechanical expression in the monster's traits and powers.

A practical example from my game is here, in the PCs' encounter with Kas. I'm pretty confident that I couldn't have done that encounter in Rolemaster, or any other "first lucky strike" system (including "save-or-die" style 3E) - apart from anything else, the NPCs would have died, making the negotiation part of the encounter impossible. And I don't think it would have played very well in a pure attrition system, either, which doesn't introduce the same levels of uncertainty about consequences which make tactical decisions exciting. Running it in 4e required thinking hard about the NPCs and their responses to the PCs' actions. But it didn't require any toying with or fudging of the mechanics. On the contrary, this is the sort of thing that (in my experience at least) they support routinely and well.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This suggests to me that your principal interest is in winning. My own view - frequently posted in these threads - is that 4e doesn't suit that sort of play very well. It's not about the win - it's about the decisions that have to be made, the potentially difficult choices taken, to secure that win. This is why I think that it suits narrativist play. I think it's also why it suits the sort of gamist play that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has posted about - where the aim of play isn't to win, but to win by demonstrating "cool moves" using an ever-more complex character. (I see this as a very light and collegial form of gamism. But Balesir can correct me if I'm misdescribing it.)



That's not too bad an outline. There needs to be some danger of failure, as well - "opportunity for failure" is quite a good way of putting it. It should be such that incompetent play will result in disaster, but a modicum of competence will reduce the probability of that to minimal levels. Unless this last is the case, we hit one of the "impossible things before breakfast2 of the roleplaying hobby - the wish to experience extended campaigns playing longstanding characters who face terrifying prospects of annihilation at every turn. Yeah. Good luck with that...

Once past that, however, the fun derives not merely from success but from the optimality, the style of the success. To be able to seize the _coups d'oeil_, make the inspired moves, pull off the neat combinations of powers (often between two or more characters) is the essence; not simply the success, but the elegance and _élan_ with which success is gained. This, at least, forms a sustainable model for gamist enjoyment, we find.



JamesonCourage said:


> It's not so much about "winning D&D", it's about me engaging in the combat game. That is, if the engine is _designed_ in such a way that I need to be clever in order to lower those odds, I'm going to be clever in order to lower those odds. As someone who can do the math on the fly very easily, and can handle many different variables simultaneously, and as someone excessively clever (as in, to a fault), I'll be able to engage the combat engine very well.



If the aim is simply to "win" - to survive, or whatever - then I agree "competing" with a combat system can be tedious.

Around 1981-2 several of the folk I gamed with (and in some cases still game with) drifted away from D&d because this was what we hit. We spent some time with a system designed by Cambridge mathematicians that required a reasonable level of numerical acuity to master. It involved rolls to cast spells that could be modified by adjusting the range, area of effect and saving roll modifier and carried the risk of character insanity upon failure. It involved combat attack systems that allowed aiming at weak spots in armour, dodging to use tough armour to advantage and involved careful "feeling out" of unfamiliar opponents to gauge their quality through an understanding of the maths of the combat moves. The systems were masterpieces of mathematical elegance that make the vaunted "system math" of 4E look crude and clunky by comparison.

In the end, though, this system failed to do what 4E has finally achieved. I have gradually come to realise that what was elegant and admirable about this suite of systems was the rules themselves. What 4E achieves is to give the players opportunities to put together the elegant, the 'cool', the praiseworthy moves and combinations that garner kudos from around the table. For me, the focus is finally where it should be: not on the rules, not on the DM's "story" or the extravagant dungeon description - but on what the players actually do while actually playing.



JamesonCourage said:


> Well, I'd say that 4e cashed in on D&D's popularity, and I'd say that while the people that play truly do like its style, if another game made such a significant leap in mechanical chance, I'm not sure how many fans would keep playing.



I look at this rather differently. I think 4E finally hit the nail of what D&D always had the capacity to be good at, but never really achieved. Older editions of D&D now seem to me to try to mix up several design agendas - and as a result they don't really achieve any of them well. Houseruling to "drift" the rules to support what you want out of them becomes almost mandatory; being fed up with that is what drove me away initially. Not that I'm complaining too much: I got to experience a great many games as a result, several of which are very fine at what they do. Those who have never tried Pendragon, DragonQuest (the RPG, not the boardgame travesty), HârnMaster, Bushido, Daredevils, Traveller and several others are really missing out, I think.

After 15 years or so, however, I have returned to D&D because I have found an edition that finally does one thing well, IMO. I still play other games for other 'agendas', but 4E is, for me, finally a D&D that knows what it's trying to do, and is doing it.



JamesonCourage said:


> There's already deep divides between OWoD and NWoD, for example, and the system looks similar to me (but my roommate dislikes NWoD for the system, metaplot, and setting changes, so it definitely transcends system).



Personal opinion: comparisons of oWoD and nWoD pretty much have to be on metaplot and setting, because the system sucks for both! Don't get me wrong: I think WoD has a really strong setting. Mage, especially, I love to death. But it's a classic case where I wish the publisher had offered only one element of the System - Setting - Scenario triumvirate, and made it the 'Setting' one.

As an aside - if you have or can find the old, diceless "Theatrix" system I find that can be used for WoD with minimal modification and with WoD character generation.



JamesonCourage said:


> That is, story is incredibly important in my games. Plot isn't, in it's usual meaning, but story is. What the PCs engage in, how their characters develop, PC interactions with NPCs and the setting at large, how things change, their successes and their failures... all these things are important. My players' PCs often establish families, even to the detriment of their characters' safety (or sanity). Why? Because they are invested in the character, in the setting, and in engaging the world.
> 
> Now, they aren't invested in following a set story. That's true. They are, however, interesting in _creating_ a story. Or, they're interested in _experiencing_ a story. They don't know what it is yet, of course, but they have goals, and depending on how things turn out while they pursue them (and how the world evolves while they do so), they get to see what the story is.
> 
> There's no "plot" to the game, sure. But, oh, there's story in spades. And with that story, and with a significant chance of failure, and with danger, there's also drama and tension in spades, too.



This sounds to me much like "exploring the situation" type of "story" - essentially simulationist play. But I could be wrong.



JamesonCourage said:


> As always, play what you like



Good advice: I always do


----------



## Imaro (Dec 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Because 3E encourages players to spend their resources in advance in order to maximise their chances of success during the encounter. (Scry-buff-teleport is the culmination of this sort of pressure, but as I posted upthread is only a special case of the general trend.)




I can agree with this somewhat but... I also feel like in 4e when comparing the relative PC power level vs.the relative power level of an average monster for their level... the designer's and developers have basically just buffed the PC for you and already maximised your chances of success. 



pemerton said:


> So the decisions that get made happen outside the context of the encounter - namely, before it. These can be very important decisions, and very engaging decisions - I've played and GMed a lot of this style of D&D and Rolemaster - but (at least in my experience) they are not very dramatic decisions. If I had to explain why not, I would conjecture that this is because they are decisions that are not made in the course of resolving a conflict.




This seems like a gross oversimplification of combat in 3e. Again, 4e buffs the PC for you, 3e forces you to buff the PC before combat... but in the actual combat I see the same types of decisions being made around postioning on the grid, movement, what feats or class abilities to use and how to use them in conjunction with other PC's to assure victory, when to use a magic item, and so on.. 



pemerton said:


> 4e does not have mechanics that permit this type of pre-expenditure of resources. In order to bring resources to bear to change the outcome of a conflict, the players have to bring their PCs into the conflict. (I regard this is part of what it means to say that 4e treats the encounter as the meaningful unit of play.)




This is wrong, plain and simple. 4e does in fact provide these mechanics in the form of utility powers, rituals, alchemical items and consumables.

The problem, IMO, is that 4e has combined the natural power level of characters, plus the buffing of characters through feats, items, backgrounds, etc... coupled with the low power level of the average encounter faced, so that for most players just rushing in and beating things down without devising pre-strategy or preparation (which I believe is also why these mechanics get little use in the average 4e game) is the easiest and usually best option. However this in no way makes it true that the designers didn't put these mechanics in the game or intend for them to be used... IMO, they just did a very poor job with it.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 7, 2011)

Balesir said:


> In the end, though, this system failed to do what 4E has finally achieved. I have gradually come to realise that what was elegant and admirable about this suite of systems was the rules themselves. What 4E achieves is to give the players opportunities to put together the elegant, the 'cool', the praiseworthy moves and combinations that garner kudos from around the table. For me, the focus is finally where it should be: not on the rules, not on the DM's "story" or the extravagant dungeon description - *but on what the players actually do while actually playing.*




Emphasis mine... you seem to only be talking about combat in reference to the other system you mention... and I could be mistaken, but I don't think I would equate combat being equal to "what the players do while actually playing". 

IME the playing of the game encompases much more than combat and It would, IMO, seem more apt to file ""what the players do while actually playing" under somethig like "adventuring" or even "exploring"... as opposed to combat. YMMV of course.

On a side note, with all the condition tracking, key words, and specifically spelled out rule chunks in the forms of individual powers... I don't see how one can claim that 4e doesn't have a focus on the rules? Or perhaps you meant something I'm not grasping when stating this? I'd also make the argument that the focus has shifted from the extravagant dungeon description to the extravagant dungeon terrain building.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 7, 2011)

Balesir said:


> What 4E achieves is to give the players opportunities to put together the elegant, the 'cool', the praiseworthy moves and combinations that garner kudos from around the table. For me, the focus is finally where it should be: not on the rules, not on the DM's "story" or the extravagant dungeon description - but on what the players actually do while actually playing.



I'm glad you have fun with the game, but in the scope of this discussion, I'm speaking of whether or not combat roles contribute greatly to this. And, personally, I think players will still have the same amount of drama and tension in combat that they do now without them.



Balesir said:


> After 15 years or so, however, I have returned to D&D because I have found an edition that finally does one thing well, IMO. I still play other games for other 'agendas', but 4E is, for me, finally a D&D that knows what it's trying to do, and is doing it.



It's definitely focused, and good at what it does. However, I really don't feel convinced to chance my stance. Not that yours is wrong, we just disagree.



Balesir said:


> Personal opinion: comparisons of oWoD and nWoD pretty much have to be on metaplot and setting, because the system sucks for both! Don't get me wrong: I think WoD has a really strong setting. Mage, especially, I love to death. But it's a classic case where I wish the publisher had offered only one element of the System - Setting - Scenario triumvirate, and made it the 'Setting' one.
> 
> As an aside - if you have or can find the old, diceless "Theatrix" system I find that can be used for WoD with minimal modification and with WoD character generation.



Mage was always my favorite, too. But, I have a roommate who got into official RPGs on oWoD, and he'll swear the system for the new one sucks. I was talking to him about it two days ago. Since I'm 26, I got into official RPGs with the d20 system (though I'd gone over other systems when I was younger). I understand his jolt to some degree, as I see major differences between, say, 3.X and 4e, even though they're both "roll a d20, add X, if you hit Y or more you made it" systems.

But, from someone who didn't play oWoD before nWoD was out (though I did play it before playing nWoD), the system changes seem superficial, or at least 
like a lateral move in mechanics, and neither objectively better or worse overall. But that's my take on it. My roommate will go on and on about how the mechanics in nWoD are worse, and the metaplot got removed and they abandoned it, and the setting sucks.

I don't share his views, but that plays into my point.



Balesir said:


> This sounds to me much like "exploring the situation" type of "story" - essentially simulationist play. But I could be wrong.
> Nope, you're right. It is pretty much exactly that. But, story matters. It's definitely not hack and slash; for example, they players get into a fight about every two sessions, and our sessions last about 10 hours. So, one fight every 20 or so hours (with occasional spikes). We're satisfied with that, or there'd be more fights (they'd pick them, or otherwise seek them out).
> 
> The rest of the time is engaging with the setting, or simulationist play. But it's very much about discovering the story of the characters. It's a different type of story from a more narrative, meta-focused story building game, sure. But, pemerton's comment on players moving to PF demonstrates that some people don't want drama in their games just struck me as terribly stated, or even outright wrong. A different type of drama, perhaps.
> ...


----------



## Balesir (Dec 7, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... you seem to only be talking about combat in reference to the other system you mention... and I could be mistaken, but I don't think I would equate combat being equal to "what the players do while actually playing".



Sorry, it seems I was unclear. Yes, I referred to combat-type examples, but that wasn't what I was trying to get at. When I said "what the players do while actually playing" I meant as opposed to "what the players do while designing a character" or "what the DM does when dictating the story/game".



Imaro said:


> IME the playing of the game encompases much more than combat and It would, IMO, seem more apt to file ""what the players do while actually playing" under somethig like "adventuring" or even "exploring"... as opposed to combat. YMMV of course.



No, my mileage doesn't vary by much - I just wasn't clear that I wasn't talking about combat vs. other activities, I was talking about players actually taking (any form of) action by their character, rather than listening to the DM give exposition or designing their character - although, obviously, they do these things, too.



Imaro said:


> On a side note, with all the condition tracking, key words, and specifically spelled out rule chunks in the forms of individual powers... I don't see how one can claim that 4e doesn't have a focus on the rules? Or perhaps you meant something I'm not grasping when stating this? I'd also make the argument that the focus has shifted from the extravagant dungeon description to the extravagant dungeon terrain building.



I'm saying that the focus of admiration - the focus of kudos-giving and such - is the tactics and moves the players use. The results that make these moves "good" are generated by the rules, obviously - but it's not the elegance and cleverness of the *rules* that is the focus of admiration; it's the cleverness of the players' tactics. In other words, the "focus" I'm talking about is what is generating admiration and "fun", not what is the process that supports or leads to that activity.



JamesonCourage said:


> I'm glad you have fun with the game, but in the scope of this discussion, I'm speaking of whether or not combat roles contribute greatly to this. And, personally, I think players will still have the same amount of drama and tension in combat that they do now without them.



Yeah, sorry, I was very much responding to the context set in the "Mentions" of my name, not addressing the topic of the thread. I try to make a habit of only joining actual thread topic discussions if I have read the whole thread, and 27 pages is too much for me to bone up on now!



JamesonCourage said:


> It's definitely focused, and good at what it does. However, I really don't feel convinced to chance my stance. Not that yours is wrong, we just disagree.



Sure, no worries; I was just stating a personal view.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 7, 2011)

Balesir said:


> Sorry, it seems I was unclear. Yes, I referred to combat-type examples, but that wasn't what I was trying to get at. When I said "what the players do while actually playing" I meant as opposed to "what the players do while designing a character" or "what the DM does when dictating the story/game".




Hmm, ok... though I think the DM "dictating" a game is a playstyle choice as opposed to something forced by the rules of 4e or any previous edition of D&D... while designing a character seems to have just as prevalent a culture around it in 4e as it did in previous editions... whether one chooses to partake in said culture or not, is again a playstyle choice.



Balesir said:


> No, my mileage doesn't vary by much - I just wasn't clear that I wasn't talking about combat vs. other activities, I was talking about players actually taking (any form of) action by their character, rather than listening to the DM give exposition or designing their character - although, obviously, they do these things, too.




I'm still slightly confused by your argument. Since at the end you readily admit these things still take place in 4e...



Balesir said:


> I'm saying that the focus of admiration - the focus of kudos-giving and such - is the tactics and moves the players use. The results that make these moves "good" are generated by the rules, obviously - but it's not the elegance and cleverness of the *rules* that is the focus of admiration; it's the cleverness of the players' tactics. In other words, the "focus" I'm talking about is what is generating admiration and "fun", not what is the process that supports or leads to that activity.




That's an interesting assumption, though I disagree it's something inherent to 4e and not also a part of other editions. Again, I believe this has much more to do with playstyle and culture at the table than it does with anything inherent in the rules of 4e. 

The culture around optimization of builds on WotC's site is still as large and thriving as it's ever been. There's still no "tactics or cleverness" in the use of skills... just bigger number + bigger roll wins. The build very much informs the tactics and viability of a character just as it always has. And the kudos for cool moves, sound strategies and creative tactics has been a part of every edition if your group wanted to play the game that way. 

Just like with most of pemerton's arguments I find it hard to understand what it is that you're saying is intrinsic to 4e and what that quality produces that other editions do not.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 8, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Engaging the fiction does not automatically lead to drama, at least from my experience.



I don't want to take a quote out of context, or to put too much wait on a throw away line - but if engaging the fiction in an RPG doesn't lead to drama, than it seems to me either (i) the fiction is not very good, or (ii) the mechanics that mediate engagement with it are not very good.



Balesir said:


> This sounds to me much like "exploring the situation" type of "story" - essentially simulationist play. But I could be wrong.



I had the same thought.



JamesonCourage said:


> It is pretty much exactly that. But, story matters. It's definitely not hack and slash; for example, they players get into a fight about every two sessions, and our sessions last about 10 hours. So, one fight every 20 or so hours (with occasional spikes). We're satisfied with that, or there'd be more fights (they'd pick them, or otherwise seek them out).
> 
> The rest of the time is engaging with the setting, or simulationist play. But it's very much about discovering the story of the characters. It's a different type of story from a more narrative, meta-focused story building game, sure. But, pemerton's comment on players moving to PF demonstrates that some people don't want drama in their games just struck me as terribly stated, or even outright wrong. A different type of drama, perhaps.



I don't understand your contrast between story and combat. I also don't understand your contrast between combat and simulation.

And I'm sure that Pathfinder players like drama in their game. It's pretty inherent to RPGing. But they like other stuff too, I think - a healthy dose of "winning"-focused gamism, and more purist-for-system simulationist mechanics, woudl be at least two other things I would nominate.



Imaro said:


> Just like with most of pemerton's arguments I find it hard to understand what it is that you're saying is intrinsic to 4e and what that quality produces that other editions do not.



I have two reasons for thinking that 4e has mechanical features that make the sort of difference that I (and Balesir, I think) are pointing two.

One is that the relevant mechanical features - skill challenges, healing surges, the death and dying rules, powers for all classes, the encounter as the focus of play, etc - are the frequent and repated objects of criticsm by those who don't like the game.

The other is that I don't see very many players of modern games explaining how 3E/PF produces the same sort of play experience, whereas it is fairly common to see players of modern games compare 4e in various respects to the gameplay of those games.

When someone starts posting actual play examples of narrativist or Balesir-style gamist 3E/PF, of course I'll pay them attention.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 8, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This is wrong, plain and simple. 4e does in fact provide these mechanics in the form of utility powers, rituals, alchemical items and consumables.



Consumables have to be used in the course of action resolution. They don't have long durations.

Likewise utility powers.

And I'm not sure what buffing rituals you have in mind. I can't think of any of the top of my head.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Consumables have to be used in the course of action resolution. They don't have long durations.
> 
> Likewise utility powers.
> 
> And I'm not sure what buffing rituals you have in mind. I can't think of any of the top of my head.




Here are a couple of "buffing" consumables off the top of my head...

The Elixir of Invisibility in AV lasts for 5 mins or until the end of the encounter... whichever comes first... most encounters don't last 5 mins.

The Whetstone of Venom in AV affects the next creature you successfully attack, irregardless of the amount of time.

Potion of Vigor in AV, gain 15 temporary hit points... they don't expire or have a set time limit.

Potion of Heroism, gives you 20 temp hit points with no expiration.

Alchemical Silver & Ghoststrike Oil can be used to pre-buff before combat.

Now I will readily admit that many or even majority of consumables have time limits revolving around the encounter, but I think this has much more to do with 4e's obsession with balance than in trying to create drama and tension.


As to rituals I was more talking about scrying and teleportation which there are rituals for in 4e. Finally I think you're mistaken about many of the utility powers as far as them empowering characters to scout and prepare for encounters.


----------



## Balesir (Dec 8, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Hmm, ok... though I think the DM "dictating" a game is a playstyle choice as opposed to something forced by the rules of 4e or any previous edition of D&D... while designing a character seems to have just as prevalent a culture around it in 4e as it did in previous editions... whether one chooses to partake in said culture or not, is again a playstyle choice.



On the "DM dictating" thing I didn't particularly mean that as an "attribute" of any particular edition; I think you attribute far more "advocacy" to me post than was actually intended. I write to explain why I like what I like, not to demand that you like the same things. What I was listing was a selection of things that, from time to time, have been said to be "where it's at". Among these have been "the DM's story", "the DM's description of the world", "the character build" and "the elegant rules". I think that none of these is as appropriate a focus as what the players (including the GM) do, minute to minute, at the gaming table.



Imaro said:


> I'm still slightly confused by your argument. Since at the end you readily admit these things still take place in 4e...



Sure, they take place, but they are not the focus of admiration. I'm not claiming this is universal - just relating my experience. I do think that 4E supports this focus particularly well; not as well as it ideally could, but better than any other game system I have tried. I'll say a bit about why, below.



Imaro said:


> That's an interesting assumption, though I disagree it's something inherent to 4e and not also a part of other editions. Again, I believe this has much more to do with playstyle and culture at the table than it does with anything inherent in the rules of 4e.



Right; the "inherent to 4E" thing. First a statement I'm not going to try to "prove" - I hope it's fairly self-evident to an experienced RPer, but if not we'll just have to agree to disagree:

Rules cannot control play style or table culture. They just can't. What they can do, however, is support particular playstyles by not "getting in their way". You can normally tell when a system is not supporting the preferred play style at a table, because you will see house rules - possibly in profusion.

So, no, this style of play - these observations - are not "inherent" to 4E. But I do find that 4E is exceptionally good at *supporting* them. That is to say, when we play with the agenda for fun/kudos/admiration that I describe, I find I hardly need to houserule the system at all.



Imaro said:


> The culture around optimization of builds on WotC's site is still as large and thriving as it's ever been.



Yep; 4E also seems to support this agenda fairly well. Some actually prefer it to 3.X because whareas, with 3.X, facility with character design can get you a character grossly more powerful than the "run of the mill", in 4E getting major (real) advantage is more of a challenge.

That doesn't mean it doesn't also support the agenda I'm talking about, too.



Imaro said:


> Just like with most of pemerton's arguments I find it hard to understand what it is that you're saying is intrinsic to 4e and what that quality produces that other editions do not.



OK, I'll try to give a taster.  It applies mainly to combat; that is where in 4E it's most notable. Non-combat is an area where I think 4E could use a great deal of improvement - but I would really like to see it along the lines of supporting what I'm talking about here, and the current crop of designers seem to be drifting away from that, alas.

4E combat has powers and abilities that are particularly well adjusted to pulling off "cool moves" mainly due to two things:

1) they create situations by (forced) moving enemy, but applying conditions to opponents and by creating zones and areas of specific effects.

2) they create specific, defined effects that translate directly to the game world. What I mean by this is they are not subject to adjudication, interpretation or negotiation. Charm or Domination powers, for example, make an enemy move or perhaps attack another - they do not make an enemy "do whatever the DM thinks won't trigger a self-preservation instinct" or other effects that are subject to negotiation. They do not create "illusions that make the monsters think there is someone down the corridor".

This last, in particular, helps with unequivocally "neat" tactics. If the success of a move results from me winning a social status-game with the GM, I don't feel the same sense of "victory" as I do after a really cool move in 4E or in a board game. All I have done is best a friend of mine in a social manipulation or facedown; what I wanted to do was show off to them a cool, clever idea that they did not then have to rended a judgement over.




Imaro said:


> Here are a couple of "buffing" consumables off the top of my head...
> 
> The Elixir of Invisibility in AV lasts for 5 mins or until the end of the encounter... whichever comes first... most encounters don't last 5 mins.



Or when you attack. It's a set up for starting a conflict - once you are engaged (i.e. you attack someone) it ceases.



Imaro said:


> The Whetstone of Venom in AV affects the next creature you successfully attack, irregardless of the amount of time.



Again - it lasts until the first hit.



Imaro said:


> Potion of Vigor in AV, gain 15 temporary hit points... they don't expire or have a set time limit.
> 
> Potion of Heroism, gives you 20 temp hit points with no expiration.



THPs last until they are used or you take a (short or extended) rest. Like the previous two, they set up an initial "jump", but go as the conflict is engaged in.



Imaro said:


> Alchemical Silver & Ghoststrike Oil can be used to pre-buff before combat.



As can Magic Items, levelling up and taking new powers...



Imaro said:


> Now I will readily admit that many or even majority of consumables have time limits revolving around the encounter



And this, I think, was *pemerton*'s point.



Imaro said:


> but I think this has much more to do with 4e's obsession with balance than in trying to create drama and tension.



I'm not really interested in speculating what the rules designers' intentions or motives were - maybe you're right >shrug<



Imaro said:


> As to rituals I was more talking about scrying and teleportation which there are rituals for in 4e. Finally I think you're mistaken about many of the utility powers as far as them empowering characters to scout and prepare for encounters.



I would distinguish between "preparing for an encounter" - setting up a surprise, recconnoitering the opposition, getting into position and so forth - and applying buffs that will last all day, or through several encounters, from temporary/renewable character resources.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I have two reasons for thinking that 4e has mechanical features that make the sort of difference that I (and Balesir, I think) are pointing two.




I can give a quick example of one mechanical feature that "easily" promotes "drama" in a narrativist fashion within the game, when compared to similar rules in previous edition(s), which were more mechanically driven.

Taking prisoners.

In 4e, the player decides at the time of the hit whether to leave an eneny alive, or whether to kill him.  It is a simple yes/no toggle at the time the enemy reaches 0 Hit Points.

In the previous edition taking prisoners was usually a mechanical slog of missing the target because doing "subdual" damage incurred a penalty to the attack.

With those circumstances, the option to do subdual damage was very often completely overlooked, eliminated, or house-ruled.

In 4e, the fact that the decision is simple and the mechanical implementation is also simple makes the option of taking prisoners a useful one.

In addition, the consequences of this action (taking prisoners) are usually felt in the drama of the game.  I've had players get into heated in character arguments as to why another player let a hated enemy live.  Or the other way around of why a "valuable" potential prisoner was killed in the combat when he could have been captured.

This type of drama never happened in the 3.x games because it was a foregone conclusion that no enemy was ever going to survive the combat.  The mechanics did support it, but in such a poor fashion that the option was not useful.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't want to take a quote out of context, or to put too much wait on a throw away line - but if engaging the fiction in an RPG doesn't lead to drama, than it seems to me either (i) the fiction is not very good, or (ii) the mechanics that mediate engagement with it are not very good.



If every moment of the game fiction is not dramatic, it's bad fiction? That's a wildly amusing assertion, to my mind. Maybe it's a miscommunication of the word "drama", though. Here's how I see it being used in this context:


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> dra·ma
> 4. A situation or succession of events in real life having the dramatic progression or emotional effect characteristic of a play: the drama of the prisoner's escape and recapture.
> 5. The quality or condition of being dramatic: a summit meeting full of drama.
> 
> ...



If _every_ moment of the game were dramatic, the game would be much less dramatic. That is, the force of the situation, or the emotional impact of the situation, will always be compared to a highly emotional or forceful situations, which might tend to lessen the force of any particular situation.

To me, that sounds like a soap opera. And, to me, that's not good fiction.



pemerton said:


> I don't understand your contrast between story and combat. I also don't understand your contrast between combat and simulation.



Sorry?



pemerton said:


> And I'm sure that Pathfinder players like drama in their game. It's pretty inherent to RPGing. But they like other stuff too, I think - a healthy dose of "winning"-focused gamism, and more purist-for-system simulationist mechanics, woudl be at least two other things I would nominate.



I don't think most 4e players have any less drive for "a healthy dose of "winning"-focused gamism" on average, honestly. So, now we're just talking about simulationist mechanics. And, from my experience, they lead to as much drama and tension as you pursue, plus whatever the world gives you. If that hasn't been your experience, may I put forth the possibility that "the fiction was not very good"?

As always, play what you like


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 8, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> As always, play what you like




Just a *very* minor pet peeve spurs me to ask you: Do you have signatures turned off? Because every one of your posts has the above quoted line both in the body of your post and your sig. So those of us who do see sigs always see it twice. Just letting you know in case that wasn't your intent.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 8, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Just a *very* minor pet peeve spurs me to ask you: Do you have signatures turned off? Because every one of your posts has the above quoted line both in the body of your post and your sig. So those of us who do see sigs always see it twice. Just letting you know in case that wasn't your intent.



No, it is my intent. The signature is just a fallback for when I forget to proactively mention it to people. Sorry it bugs you... I'll refrain from posting it to you if you'd like (and if I remember).


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 9, 2011)

D'karr said:


> This type of drama never happened in the 3.x games because it was a foregone conclusion that no enemy was ever going to survive the combat.  The mechanics did support it, but in such a poor fashion that the option was not useful.




My experience is exactly the opposite.

Trying to "take them alive" in 3e is a real decision with costs and benefits. If you go on hitting them lethally, there's always a chance you push them to -10 before anyone can keep them alive. If you want to hit nonlethal you usually take a penalty to hit, but you can attempt to subdue them by e.g. grappling and pinning. Many spells are useless, unless you come prepared.

In my experience this makes the decision to take enemies alive actually heroic, since it involves risk. The PCs also get to feel superior if they defeat the enemy while not even going all out.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 9, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> My experience is exactly the opposite.
> 
> Trying to "take them alive" in 3e is a real decision with costs and benefits. If you go on hitting them lethally, there's always a chance you push them to -10 before anyone can keep them alive. If you want to hit nonlethal you usually take a penalty to hit, but you can attempt to subdue them by e.g. grappling and pinning. Many spells are useless, unless you come prepared.




I agree about the "perceived" costs and benefits, unfortunately they were not "dramatic" costs and benefits.  It always became a metagame solution (can't take them below -10).  Everytime I saw this tactic attempted in the game it involved no drama, only metagaming.  Using the "subdual" damage rules ended up being a washout.  The amount of times that the players missed their target trying to attack, almost always made the attempt futile.  They would get frustrated, and simply revert back to doing regular damage. And if the solution was to go to the more complicated grappling and pinning rules then the entire point of the "drama" was lost in the minutiae of the rules. It also didn't work with things like dragons, which had such an outrageous grappling bonus that the players might as well have been trying to swim up a tornado.

The reason the 4e mechanics work better in the "dramatic space", in a narrativist way, is that they make it simple, without any need for metagaming.  The players get to keep their concentration in the "drama" of the moment (capturing prisoners) rather than on how many more times they're going to miss, or if their grappling bonus is high enough (the metagame).  There's no metagaming involved in the "drama" at that point.

The rules don't mechanically get in the way of the "drama", and they also don't make capturing prisoners a suboptimal choice within the mechanics.  Because it is not automatically a suboptimal choice, it gets used quite frequently.  The drama occurs because they are able to capture their opponents rather than kill them.  It does not require a frustrating spiral of misses, or complicated grappling rules to do so.  It can also be done with all manner of creatures, instead of only with those with a crappy grappling bonus.

With the 4e games I've run or played, and I've done a lot of that in the past 3 years, capturing prisoners happens all the time.  And by ALL the time I mean once per adventure, or even more.  I ran, and played 3.X games for a home group, and at conventions for almost 10 years.  In that time I saw the "effective" capture of prisoners happen exactly twice.

So that dramatic opportunity was "supported" by the rules. It's just that it was done in a way that made the option not be used often, if at all.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 9, 2011)

D'karr said:


> I agree about the "perceived" costs and benefits, unfortunately they were not "dramatic" costs and benefits.  It always became a metagame solution (can't take them below -10).  Everytime I saw this tactic attempted in the game it involved no drama, only metagaming.




It's not "metagaming" to weigh the costs and benefits of lethal/nonlethal, any more than it is for any other combat actions.

Maybe you've played with open enemy hit points? Then I guess someone might see an enemy at 1 hp and decide he can't afford to swing the greataxe... That might be a bit metagamey.



D'karr said:


> Using the "subdual" damage rules ended up being a washout.  The amount of times that the players missed their target trying to attack, almost always made the attempt futile.  They would get frustrated, and simply revert back to doing regular damage. And if the solution was to go to the more complicated grappling and pinning rules then the entire point of the "drama" was lost in the minutiae of the rules. It also didn't work with things like dragons, which had such an outrageous grappling bonus that the players might as well have been trying to swim up a tornado.




Usually, melee types hit around half the time against opponents. After the -4 they hit about one third of the time. It hasn't been a problem in our games.

I have to agree about grappling, but usually only those who play monks attempt it and they've memorized the rules in any case.



D'karr said:


> The rules don't mechanically get in the way of the "drama", and they also don't make capturing prisoners a suboptimal choice within the mechanics.  Because it is not automatically a suboptimal choice, it gets used quite frequently.  The drama occurs because they are able to capture their opponents rather than kill them.




Maybe I'm just more simulationist, but IMO trying to subdue someone non-lethally *needs* to be more difficult. If it's not suboptimal there's no weight to the choice.

Without a cost, doesn't it reduce to just an alignment check? "Ok, I'm LG and that's a human, so we'll have to haul him to the authorities."



D'karr said:


> With the 4e games I've run or played, and I've done a lot of that in the past 3 years, capturing prisoners happens all the time.  And by ALL the time I mean once per adventure, or even more.  I ran, and played 3.X games for a home group, and at conventions for almost 10 years.  In that time I saw the "effective" capture of prisoners happen exactly twice.
> 
> So that dramatic opportunity was "supported" by the rules. It's just that it was done in a way that made the option not be used often, if at all.




Capturing prisoners is very common in our 3.5 campaigns whenever there is combat against humanoid opponents. Depending on party alignments it may only happen when someone lands between -1 and -9 or intentionally through nonlethal damage and/or demanding surrender. I've never felt that the mechanics of it were in any way lacking.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 9, 2011)

D'karr said:


> I can give a quick example of one mechanical feature that "easily" promotes "drama" in a narrativist fashion within the game, when compared to similar rules in previous edition(s), which were more mechanically driven.
> 
> Taking prisoners.
> 
> ...




There is a different way to obtain drama.  This is an example from one of the games that I play in:

The players are infiltrating an enemy base.  We approach a simple worker, with my character using intimidate to convince him to surrender.  I go for a fearful result, and roll high, leading to the worker surrendering, but being scared out of his wits.

We interrogate the prisoner, and are distracted by discussions of what to do next.  None of us say that we are watching the prisoner, who promptly bolts.

The Druid of the party, who has an large cat animal companion, has her cat chase down and pounce on the fleeing man (who hasn't yet gone very far).  She isn't thinking about how rake damage is lethal: The poor worker is torn apart and killed.

One of the great moments from our game.  We very much didn't want to kill the worker.

TomB


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 9, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> Maybe I'm just more simulationist, but IMO trying to subdue someone non-lethally *needs* to be more difficult.




Depends on what you're trying to simulate.

The real world? Then my question is, why? What makes striking someone without the intent to kill inherently more difficult?

Fantasy fiction? The fantasy heroes I read and watch don't seem to have any more difficulty knocking a foe out than running them down with a sword.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 9, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Depends on what you're trying to simulate.
> 
> The real world? Then my question is, why? What makes striking someone without the intent to kill inherently more difficult?
> 
> Fantasy fiction? The fantasy heroes I read and watch don't seem to have any more difficulty knocking a foe out than running them down with a sword.




This.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 9, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The real world? Then my question is, why? What makes striking someone without the intent to kill inherently more difficult?



Assuming you're trying to knock them out with a kick or sword hilt punch, I think it's risky. Bring fists into a knife fight, you will likely get cut.. badly. Bring fists into a sword fight is probably worst. You can try to use your sword to cripple instead of kill, but it still carries the risk that they will stab you lethally as a reward. I heard that police shoot to kill if the man wounded in the leg or arm can still lurch forward to harm you.



> Fantasy fiction? The fantasy heroes I read and watch don't seem to have any more difficulty knocking a foe out than running them down with a sword.



I guess because watching the protagonist getting stabbed multiple times with a sword is too unbelievable, so the kicks and sword hilt punches magically connect more often than the blade. Not sure how this translates into RPGs, I'm not aware of D&D caring to address it one way or another.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 9, 2011)

tomBitonti said:


> There is a different way to obtain drama.  This is an example from one of the games that I play in:
> 
> The players are infiltrating an enemy base.  We approach a simple worker, with my character using intimidate to convince him to surrender.  I go for a fearful result, and roll high, leading to the worker surrendering, but being scared out of his wits.
> 
> ...




Sure, and the rules don't get in the way of doing it like that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 9, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Assuming you're trying to knock them out with a kick or sword hilt punch, I think it's risky. Bring fists into a knife fight, you will likely get cut.. badly. Bring fists into a sword fight is probably worst. You can try to use your sword to cripple instead of kill, but it still carries the risk that they will stab you lethally as a reward. I heard that police shoot to kill if the man wounded in the leg or arm can still lurch forward to harm you.




I think attacks of opportunity are a good way to handle this. Personally I liked thd non lethal damage system 3e used. Don't think d&d has ever handled unarmed combat very well. Things like grapple and the old fist fighting chart from 2e stand out in my mind as clunky solutions.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 9, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Depends on what you're trying to simulate.
> 
> The real world? Then my question is, why? What makes striking someone without the intent to kill inherently more difficult?
> 
> Fantasy fiction? The fantasy heroes I read and watch don't seem to have any more difficulty knocking a foe out than running them down with a sword.




LurkAway already wrote pretty much what I would have answered. Lethal weapons are made to be, well, lethal, so trying to keep from accidentally hurting your opponent will be more difficult than taking whatever openings you get.

It's also quite common in fantasy fiction that in a fight someone accidentally kills e.g. an assassin that they ought to have questioned, because they had to fight "for real". (I'm not trying to model fantasy fiction, but many things that are common in fiction are so because they make for a good story.)

In any case, the simulation angle isn't *that* important to me - I only care about having enough simulation to make the game believable. More importantly, the nonlethal damage system plays pretty well for such a simple approximation and produces interesting scenarios.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 9, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Assuming you're trying to knock them out with a kick or sword hilt punch, I think it's risky. Bring fists into a knife fight, you will likely get cut.. badly. Bring fists into a sword fight is probably worst. You can try to use your sword to cripple instead of kill, but it still carries the risk that they will stab you lethally as a reward. I heard that police shoot to kill if the man wounded in the leg or arm can still lurch forward to harm you.




The rules in this case don't assume you are trying to use a kick or punch. You get all of your relevant bonuses with the weapon you use, so I would assume you are still using the weapon. Flat of the blade instead of the edge, etc. And what you describe seems more like an AoO situation than a -4 to hit.



LurkAway said:


> I guess because watching the protagonist getting stabbed multiple times with a sword is too unbelievable, so the kicks and sword hilt punches magically connect more often than the blade. Not sure how this translates into RPGs, I'm not aware of D&D caring to address it one way or another.




Depends on edition. 4E addresses this by allowing heroes to knock out opponents.



Hassassin said:


> LurkAway already wrote pretty much what I would have answered. Lethal weapons are made to be, well, lethal, so trying to keep from accidentally hurting your opponent will be more difficult than taking whatever openings you get.




I think you're making a different point than LurkAway did. And this is the point of view I believe the designers took with 3E.



Hassassin said:


> It's also quite common in fantasy fiction that in a fight someone accidentally kills e.g. an assassin that they ought to have questioned, because they had to fight "for real". (I'm not trying to model fantasy fiction, but many things that are common in fiction are so because they make for a good story.)




Even in 4E I *think* you can still accidentally kill someone. At least I would rule that anyone at negative bloodied was dead whether you intended to kill them or not. I'm not certain the RAW matches my ruling though.



Hassassin said:


> In any case, the simulation angle isn't *that* important to me - I only care about having enough simulation to make the game believable. More importantly, the nonlethal damage system plays pretty well for such a simple approximation and produces interesting scenarios.




I think it really varies table to table. I have players that would *never* accept a -4 to hit. They saw no value in it. If they couldn't rescue an enemy from death's door they didn't care. Others did see the value.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 9, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Even in 4E I *think* you can still accidentally kill someone. At least I would rule that anyone at negative bloodied was dead whether you intended to kill them or not. I'm not certain the RAW matches my ruling though.




Ok, I didn't know that. As I wrote before, limited experience with 4e.

Doesn't hit point scaling mean that at high levels it becomes much less likely?



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think it really varies table to table. I have players that would *never* accept a -4 to hit. They saw no value in it. If they couldn't rescue an enemy from death's door they didn't care. Others did see the value.




Frankly, I think that's "bad roleplaying"*/blatant metagaming. I have played *characters* who'd never "take -4 to hit" for such a reason, but that's because they have been some combination of: ruthless, amoral, self-centered or afraid to die. And that's how I like the decision - an opportunity for expressing the character.

* Nothing wrong if you like your game that way, of course.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 9, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The rules in this case don't assume you are trying to use a kick or punch. You get all of your relevant bonuses with the weapon you use, so I would assume you are still using the weapon. Flat of the blade instead of the edge, etc. And what you describe seems more like an AoO situation than a -4 to hit.



Yes, there's a good chance that you will land a knocking blow to find that you've been stabbed which could well be modelled as an AoO. But in real life, if unarmed vs a opponent with a knife, you're in an extremely dangerous situation. You'll try to run away safely if you can. Otherwise, you'll expend an enormous amount of focus and energy just trying not to get stabbed. You'll dodge. You'll try to block the incoming knife thrusts, and you will likely get cut multiple times, but at least it wil be superficial cuts on the arms, etc. instead of a stab into the vitals. You can try to disarm, if you know the right move, but you need luck, good timing and it helps to be faster and/or stronger. All in all, you're usually on the defensive waiting for an opening to land a solid punch.  This is assuming you're punching or trying to use the hilt of a sword to knock out your opponent -- which is what I've seen in fantasy movies anyway. I can't recall ever seeing a movie scene of a guy being knocked out with the flat of a blade -- and in real life, I suspect it would be clumsy and difficult but what do I know about real-life medieval combat? What I do know is most movie scenes of medieval warfare show warriors attacking to kill and then after the battle, checking to see who is still alive for ransom or interrogation. How all these lines of thinking apply to 3E and/or 4E I'm not sure. I think that as an overall abstraction, knocking out an opponent as a function of chance is more in line with real-life and gritty fantasy but not maybe pulpish adventure which is over the top and doesn't try to be realistic anyway.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 9, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> Doesn't hit point scaling mean that at high levels it becomes much less likely?




Yes.



Hassassin said:


> Frankly, I think that's "bad roleplaying"*/blatant metagaming. I have played *characters* who'd never "take -4 to hit" for such a reason, but that's because they have been some combination of: ruthless, amoral, self-centered or afraid to die. And that's how I like the decision - an opportunity for expressing the character.




Funnily enough *every* character they play is a ruthless, amoral, self-centered loner whose entire family died. 

IOW, if confronted with this justification (which I think is worthy), they just make sure they cannot be confronted with it so they don't have to deal with the penalty the rules tack on.

In our 4E games these same players will roleplay their character either way. Taking prisoners and even letting the bad guys go if appropriate for their character.



LurkAway said:


> Yes, there's a good chance that you will land a knocking blow to find that you've been stabbed which could well be modelled as an AoO. But in real life, if unarmed vs a opponent with a knife, you're in an extremely dangerous situation. You'll try to run away safely if you can. Otherwise, you'll expend an enormous amount of focus and energy just trying not to get stabbed. You'll dodge. You'll try to block the incoming knife thrusts, and you will likely get cut multiple times, but at least it wil be superficial cuts on the arms, etc. instead of a stab into the vitals. You can try to disarm, if you know the right move, but you need luck, good timing and it helps to be faster and/or stronger. All in all, you're usually on the defensive waiting for an opening to land a solid punch.




Then why can't you forego the -4 penalty and open yourself up to an attack? And why do you still get the -4 penalty against an unarmed opponent such as a wizard holding nothing more than a wand? Even if you attempt it against an unnarmed peasant (Com1) you still get the -4 penalty, why is that if the -4 is meant to represent dodging?



LurkAway said:


> This is assuming you're punching or trying to use the hilt of a sword to knock out your opponent -- which is what I've seen in fantasy movies anyway. I can't recall ever seeing a movie scene of a guy being knocked out with the flat of a blade -- and in real life, I suspect it would be clumsy and difficult but what do I know about real-life medieval combat? What I do know is most movie scenes of medieval warfare show warriors attacking to kill and then after the battle, checking to see who is still alive for ransom or interrogation. How all these lines of thinking apply to 3E and/or 4E I'm not sure. I think that as an overall abstraction, knocking out an opponent as a function of chance is more in line with real-life and gritty fantasy but not maybe pulpish adventure which is over the top and doesn't try to be realistic anyway.




True. They could have presented multiple rules for this in 4E easily. The prior edition -4 to hit could have been an option for grittier games. It's easily insertable.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 9, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Then why can't you forego the -4 penalty and open yourself up to an attack? And why do you still get the -4 penalty against an unarmed opponent such as a wizard holding nothing more than a wand? Even if you attempt it against an unnarmed peasant (Com1) you still get the -4 penalty, why is that if the -4 is meant to represent dodging?



I'm getting confused. I can't justify how D&D simulates subdual damage in a case by case scenario, and I don't think D&D does it robustly. I was only responding to your post questioning and/or refuting that it was more difficult to knock out an opponent trying to kill you -- and overall I think it is. So the 3E way may crudely and very innaccurately abstract that difficulty, but 4E's method of allowing the PC 100% control over that outcome (if that's indeed the RAW) without difficulty or AoO is not any better in terms of simulating the real-life difficulty of trying to knock out an opponent who is trying very hard to kill you.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 9, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> I'm getting confused. I can't justify how D&D simulates subdual damage in a case by case scenario, and I don't think D&D does it robustly. I was only responding to your post questioning and/or refuting that it was more difficult to knock out an opponent trying to kill you -- and overall I think it is. So the 3E way may crudely and very innaccurately abstract that difficulty, but 4E's method of allowing the PC 100% control over that outcome (if that's indeed the RAW) without difficulty or AoO is not any better in terms of simulating the real-life difficulty of trying to knock out an opponent who is trying very hard to kill you.




I aologize if it seemed I was saying that 4E emulates real life better, I was not trying to say that.

IMO it is futile to attempt to model reality with dice because everyone seems to have a different take on how that should occur. I'd rather model heroic fantasy where a hero can knock out a villain when the stroy calls for it. 4E has had the best solution to date for my group. I even said upthread that other options should have been presented for a grittier take on the matter.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> If _every_ moment of the game were dramatic, the game would be much less dramatic.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To me, that sounds like a soap opera. And, to me, that's not good fiction.



I don't agree. You quoted definition of "dramatic" included

A situation or succession of events in real life having the dramatic progression or emotional effect characteristic of a play​
Some plays - perhaps many - are good fiction without being soap operas. My game is in fact not particularly good fiction, and rather soap operatic - if me and my players were capable of generating _better_ fiction, probably we'd be professional writers rather than the academics, financiers, IT professionals and labourers that we are.

But the fact that every moment of a play or a movie is dramatic in the sense of "having the dramatic progression and emotional effect characteristic of a play" doesn't get in the way of it being good drama. And I believe the same is true of an RPG.

Now, of cousre there is room in the world for movies like Empire, but I personally have little interest in watching them. Likewise with my RPGing - I want it to be dramatic in the sense that you quoted and I requoted.



JamesonCourage said:


> Sorry?



You said this upthread:



JamesonCourage said:


> But,story matters. It's definitely not hack and slash; for example, they players get into a fight about every two sessions, and our sessions last about 10 hours. So, one fight every 20 or so hours (with occasional spikes). We're satisfied with that, or there'd be more fights (they'd pick them, or otherwise seek them out).
> 
> The rest of the time is engaging with the setting, or simulationist play.



This suggested to me you saw roleplaying as being at odds with combat, and that you saw simulation as being something that occurs outside combat. I didn't follow either of these ponts. I think that, in D&D but also in some other fantasy RPGs as well, combat is one important place where roleplaying takes place. And I also think combat is one part of the game where the contrast between simulationist and non-simulationist priorities for play can emerge.



JamesonCourage said:


> now we're just talking about simulationist mechanics. And, from my experience, they lead to as much drama and tension as you pursue, plus whatever the world gives you. If that hasn't been your experience, may I put forth the possibility that "the fiction was not very good"?



You may. I don't think you're right, though. There are at least two reasons that simulationist mechanics of a purist-for-system variety can get in the way of dramatic play.

First, they make opening and closing scenes hard, because there is no end to the causal repercussions taken, and by definition purist-for-system mechanics have no constraints on their consequences outside of ingame causal logic. 

Second, they are apt to produce results that are not shaped by the thematic concerns of the story. There is no guarantee, for example, that the battle by a PC with his/her life long nemesis will be more dramatic than that with the nemesis's body guard. There is no guarantee that, when the PC confronts his/her nemesis, s/he will draw upon reserves of fortitude and courage that lesser confrontations do not elicit. Contrast, for example, Relationship augments in HeroWars/Quest, or Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel.

It is in order to avoid these problems that games that want to produce a dramatic play experience, but use essentially purist-for-system mechanics - Storyteller, 2nd ed AD&D, etc - have "rules" telling the GM to suspend the action resolution mechanics in the interests of story. 

I personally agree with Ron Edwards that this is among the most dysfunctional approach to RPGing possible. The whole purpose of "modern" game design is to design mechanical techniques of play that will produce drama (in the sense you quoted and I requoted) without anyone at the table - either player or, moreso, the GM by using rules-suspending force - having to deliberately try to author it.

4e has a range of mechanics that deal with the first issue I mentioned. The combat mechanics, including the pacing and decision-making that they force, is a significant component of the total suite of such mechanics.

4e relies upon the GM's approach to encounter building to deal with the second issue (it doesn't include player-side elements like Spiritual Attributes or Relationship-based augments, although some Paragon Path powers can push a little bit in this direction). But it gives the GM tools (both mechanical tools and story elements) that make this encounter building very easy compared to other mainstream fantasy RPGs.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Not sure how this translates into RPGs, I'm not aware of D&D caring to address it one way or another.



As [MENTION=4892]Vyvyan Basterd[/MENTION] posted, 4e addresses this with the option to kill or subdue an opponent when reducing him/her to 0 hp.



LurkAway said:


> 4E's method of allowing the PC 100% control over that outcome (if that's indeed the RAW) without difficulty or AoO is not any better in terms of simulating the real-life difficulty of trying to knock out an opponent who is trying very hard to kill you.



In 4e it's not the _PC _who has the control, it is the _player_. It's just one example of 4e granting players a degree of narrative control over aspects of the gameworld other than their PCs. (At my own table, we play it this way: the player must declare in advance of an attack whether his/her desire is death or subdual, and then if the attack reduces the NPC to 0 hp the player's desire is realised.)



Hassassin said:


> Maybe I'm just more simulationist, but IMO trying to subdue someone non-lethally *needs* to be more difficult. If it's not suboptimal there's no weight to the choice.
> 
> Without a cost, doesn't it reduce to just an alignment check? "Ok, I'm LG and that's a human, so we'll have to haul him to the authorities."



I can't speak for [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], but yes, this sounds to me very different from how I like to play the game, and more simulationist.

In my game, the weight of the choice between killing and taking prisoner isn't about mechanical trade-offs. It's about thematic/evaluative trade-offs.

I agree with you that in a game with a mechanical alignment system, the choice of alignment already predetermines what those thematic/evaluative trade-offs should be. That's one reason why I hate mechanical alignment systems and have not used them since the mid-80s, when I read the article in Dragon 101 called "For King and Country".

A similar discussion to this one came up earlier this year when I posted about a skill challenge involving my PCs taming a dire bear without killing it:



pemerton said:


> the whole party encountered the bear. I didn't want to do any re-statting on the fly, so stuck with the level 13 elite. They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures). That was another metagame-driven decision.





Raven Crowking said:


> in a "fiction-first" system, the players could attempt to avoid a combat because that offered their best chance of success.  If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice.





Victim said:


> I strongly disagree.  Wide variance in difficulty or rewards based on player strategy doesn't preserve the value and meaning of player choice, it destroys that value - essentially, you create a single correct choice.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something.  The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values.  If talking is easy, then PCs can get through without strong social skills, and all that their choice tells us about the characters is that they're expedient.



I tend to agree with Victim in this discussion. If what you want are choices that are thematically/evaulatively expressive, then mechanical penalties and advantages will _get in the way_ of such choices, because they will intefere with the choice situation by overlaying it with the sorts of considerations of optimality and expedience that Victim talks about.

In my 4e game, decisions by the players about who their PCs kill and who they take prisoner are highly meaningful and carry a lot of weight, _precisely because_ those decisions were made even though the player could just as easily had the PC not be a killer.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 10, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Sure, and the rules don't get in the way of doing it like that.




I'm not sure I follow your point ...

In my example, once the cat had been unleashed, there was no taking back the result (unless the cat rolled very poorly).

The moment would have been much less exciting if the player could have decided *after* they had their cat pounce that the worker wasn't killed.

TomB


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2011)

tomBitonti said:


> I'm not sure I follow your point ...
> 
> In my example, once the cat had been unleashed, there was no taking back the result (unless the cat rolled very poorly).
> 
> The moment would have been much less exciting if the player could have decided *after* they had their cat pounce that the worker wasn't killed.



At least in part this seems to raise an orthogonal issue, namely, who gets to play the cat - player, or GM?

4e tends to answer "the player", but there are some exceptions - Druidically summoned creatures with their instinctive actions, and the Quasit in the recent BoVD preview.

I've never played Sorcerer, but in that game I understand that the PCs' demons are _always_ NPCs, to be played by the GM when the opportunity arises.

The point being, that there are ways to get the excitiement of the unexpectedly dead prisoner without making lethal damage the mechanical default - namely, by allocating responsibility for playing the various characters in the game in the right way.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> At least in part this seems to raise an orthogonal issue, namely, who gets to play the cat - player, or GM?
> 
> 4e tends to answer "the player", but there are some exceptions - Druidically summoned creatures with their instinctive actions, and the Quasit in the recent BoVD preview.
> 
> ...




In our games, having an animal companion do something unusual requires a handle animal check.

The problem was not the default; the player could have restrained their companion, or done a check to avoid lethal damage.  But the player acted without thinking, with an unintended consequence.

I think you could say that was the player, not the character; not sure how to respond to that.  But, it seems within bounds for a player to act reflexively to handle an escaping opponent, and mix that up with a helpless prisoner.

In some cases, I'd allow a Wisdom check to have the player reconsider.  Whether to allow such a check for an experienced player is an interesting question.

TomB


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 10, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> 4E's method of allowing the PC 100% control over that outcome (if that's indeed the RAW) without difficulty or AoO is not any better in terms of simulating the real-life difficulty of trying to knock out an opponent who is trying very hard to kill you.




Is it harder in real life? If 0 hit points isn't "You're dead/dying", but, "You have to stop fighting", then there will be people who lose fights yet survive. Which is hardly less true to reality.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In 4e it's not the _PC _who has the control, it is the _player_.  It's just one example of 4e granting players a degree of narrative  control over aspects of the gameworld other than their PCs.



That's true, but I feel it's "nitpicky" in the sense that, in actor stance, that distinction isn't relevant to the context. In 4E, I could choose subdual or lethal but I can't choose as player to *not* to know the outcome as thru the eyes of the PC.



Bluenose said:


> Is it harder in real life? If 0 hit points isn't "You're dead/dying", but, "You have to stop fighting", then there will be people who lose fights yet survive. Which is hardly less true to reality.



I'm not sure I understand the question or 0 hp has to do with being more or less difficult to do subdual damage. In real life, I'm not sure what "you have to stop fighting" means. I think you can knock out or disable or disarm an opponent before they had the reached the point that they were too exhausted or wounded to continue fighting. If you knocked them out, that would cause them to stop fighting, but if you didn't knock them out, they would keep fighting. Anyway, can anyone here show that historical real-life sword fights usually end when one opponent "has to stop fighting" rather than getting impaled, stabbed, or slashed, dying instantly or fatally?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 10, 2011)

tomBitonti said:


> There is a different way to obtain drama.  This is an example from one of the games that I play in:
> 
> The players are infiltrating an enemy base.  We approach a simple worker, with my character using intimidate to convince him to surrender.  I go for a fearful result, and roll high, leading to the worker surrendering, but being scared out of his wits.




And, of course, this took the full ten rounds to accomplish while the simple worker did not struggle.



> We interrogate the prisoner, and are distracted by discussions of what to do next.  None of us say that we are watching the prisoner, who promptly bolts.




So, now we're in house rules territory since intimidated targets stay that way while in your presence and for some minutes afterwards.  Intimidated targets don't "promptly bolt".



> The Druid of the party, who has an large cat animal companion, has her cat chase down and pounce on the fleeing man (who hasn't yet gone very far).  She isn't thinking about how rake damage is lethal: The poor worker is torn apart and killed.
> 
> One of the great moments from our game.  We very much didn't want to kill the worker.
> 
> TomB




So, because of the rules, you failed at what you wanted to do, partially because your DM didn't follow the rules of the game.  And this is meant as a reason why the 3e rules support taking prisoners so well?  

Me, I like it better when the drama of the game isn't dictated to my by game designers.  However, I've seen more than a few people here who are more than willing to let game designers tell them what should and should not be dramatic in their game.

Certainly not to my taste anymore.


----------



## Bluenose (Dec 10, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> I'm not sure I understand the question or 0 hp has to do with being more or less difficult to do subdual damage. In real life, I'm not sure what "you have to stop fighting" means. I think you can knock out or disable or disarm an opponent before they had the reached the point that they were too exhausted or wounded to continue fighting. If you knocked them out, that would cause them to stop fighting, but if you didn't knock them out, they would keep fighting. Anyway, can anyone here show that historical real-life sword fights usually end when one opponent "has to stop fighting" rather than getting impaled, stabbed, or slashed, dying instantly or fatally?




In every edition of D&D, being reduced to 0 hit points means you can't fight any more unless something is done to get you back into the combat. If this is interpreted as dead/dying/unconscious then you run into a problem. A significant percentage of real fights end with _someone giving up_. That's observable in medieval literature, whether it's histories about the life and deeds of some individual emphasising their prowess in battle and how they overthrow and capture some enemy, or a battle description where the number and rank of prisoners (and whether they're wounded) is recorded. It's observable in renaissance dueling, where one memoirist mentions how he had to concede a duel because his eye was closing up and he couldn't see properly, after being head-butted at one point. Or there's a Napoleonic memoir, a French cavalry officer describing winning a fight with a Prussian one after they'd both ended up pummeling each other on the ground in the mud and snow. Morale, making someone give up, wins at least as many fights as knocking someone unconscious or killing them. Giving up because you're injured before being unconscious is hardly rare at all.

I'm still not persuaded that it's harder to use a weapon to injure someone non-fatally than it is to use it with lethal intent. I see no reason for a penalty, and never did. There's a lot of games which get by without one, without it detracting from their simulationist nature.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> That's true, but I feel it's "nitpicky" in the sense that, in actor stance, that distinction isn't relevant to the context. In 4E, I could choose subdual or lethal but I can't choose as player to *not* to know the outcome as thru the eyes of the PC.



Knowing or not knowing the outcome as a player doesn't seem relevant to actor stance.

Playing my PC in actor stance, in 4e, I decide whether or not to attempt killing or subdual based on the percpetions, beliefs, desires etc of my PC (ie without metagaming). My adoption of actor stance isn't impeded by the fact that the rules guarantee my PC's decision will succeed.

Here is a parallel situation from classic D&D. In "real life", were I casting a spell, there is always a chance I would sneeze and spoil my words and gestures. But in the game, I (as a player) know that, out of combat, my PC's attempt at spell casting will always succeed. This needn't impede adopting actor stance either.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Knowing or not knowing the outcome as a player doesn't seem relevant to actor stance.
> 
> Playing my PC in actor stance, in 4e, I decide whether or not to attempt killing or subdual based on the percpetions, beliefs, desires etc of my PC (ie without metagaming). My adoption of actor stance isn't impeded by the fact that the rules guarantee my PC's decision will succeed.



Then we're talking about 2 entirely different things.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 10, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> In every edition of D&D, being reduced to 0 hit points means you can't fight any more unless something is done to get you back into the combat. If this is interpreted as dead/dying/unconscious then you run into a problem. A significant percentage of real fights end with _someone giving up_.



I would be very curious to know how many groups actually play this way, because I haven't heard of it being the norm at all IME.



> I'm still not persuaded that it's harder to use a weapon to injure someone non-fatally than it is to use it with lethal intent. I see no reason for a penalty, and never did. There's a lot of games which get by without one, without it detracting from their simulationist nature.



I have no strong opinion one way or  another. I find it strange that some people look to real-life for justification, then pick and choose what they want to support what they would do anyway in the game.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> Then we're talking about 2 entirely different things.



What are you talking about? I'm talking about actor stance:

In *Actor* stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.​
Playing in actor stance isn't impeded by the player knowing that the mechanics guarantee that a PC's attempted action will succeed.

Besides the examples I've already given, another one could be given drawing on the jump rules from 3E. In 3E there are no fumble rules for skills, so a character with a +X bonus to jump is guaranteed to be able to clear Y feet with a running broad jump. (I don't know the rules off-hand for correlating X and Y.) So suppose my PC has to decide whether or not to jump over a terribly deep chasm that is only Y feet wide. I (as my PC) am confident that I have a pretty good chance of clearing the chasm - in practice, I never jump fewer than Y feet. So I decide to try the jump! Is it an impedence of adopting actor stance that in the real world even the best jumper might have a chance (however small) of misstepping at the threshold and falling down the chasm, whereas the action resolution mechanics guarantee that I (as my PC) will succeed? I don't think so.

As long as the player doesn't rely upon his/her knowlege of the mechanical determinism in deciding what his/her PC does, there need be no departure from actor stance.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> What are you talking about? I'm talking about actor stance:



Me too. "Different things" didn't apply to the definition of actor stance.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2011)

LurkAway said:


> "Different things" didn't apply to the definition of actor stance.



Could you be less cryptic?

The other interpretation I'm going for is something to do with whether or not it is possible for a player to know that (in virtue of some feature of the mechanics) an action will automatically succeed, but not have that knowledge influence the choice of actions for the PC (and thus vitiate an attempt to adopt actor stance).

If that is your view, it seems to have strong implications for any system without fumble rules for action resolution (which would include every version of D&D I'm familiar with).


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And, of course, this took the full ten rounds to accomplish while the simple worker did not struggle.




Intimidate references diplomacy, which allows a full-round rushed action at -10. In any case, a minute isn't a long time before weapons are drawn.



Hussar said:


> So, now we're in house rules territory since intimidated targets stay that way while in your presence and for some minutes afterwards.  Intimidated targets don't "promptly bolt".




That's not a house rule, it's the DM playing an NPC.



Hussar said:


> So, because of the rules, you failed at what you wanted to do, partially because your DM didn't follow the rules of the game.  And this is meant as a reason why the 3e rules support taking prisoners so well?
> 
> Me, I like it better when the drama of the game isn't dictated to my by game designers.  However, I've seen more than a few people here who are more than willing to let game designers tell them what should and should not be dramatic in their game.
> 
> Certainly not to my taste anymore.




The rules are just a tool to map the game world. What the example was really about IMO is the PCs interaction with the game world leading to drama. That's pretty much what most of my roleplaying is about. Whether it is an actual rule or the DM that causes the interaction varies (usually a bit of both).


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In my game, the weight of the choice between killing and taking prisoner isn't about mechanical trade-offs. It's about thematic/evaluative trade-offs.




The problem I have with the 4e solution is that *there is no trade-off*. There is no cost to taking someone alive. You could just play it like the character still faced a trade-off, but IMO the mechanics are there exactly to map game world trade-offs into numbers. It's easier for me to play a character evaluating a trade-off if the game really works like there is a trade-off.

Edit: As an example of what I mean here's something that was in a book I read recently (I forget which): Two friends were attacked by two agents of an unknown enemy. Both went all out on different enemies so they could quickly get to helping their friend with the other. The killed them before realizing they were doing the same thing and were left with no-one to question. They clearly faced a trade-off of helping their friend on the other hand, and having to kill their enemy on the other. Neither being to coldly calculative character they made the same choice.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> The problem I have with the 4e solution is that *there is no trade-off*. There is no cost to taking someone alive.



In my game, the cost is generally that you irritate the other PCs who wanted the person dead.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And, of course, this took the full ten rounds to accomplish while the simple worker did not struggle.
> 
> So, now we're in house rules territory since intimidated targets stay that way while in your presence and for some minutes afterwards.  Intimidated targets don't "promptly bolt".
> 
> ...




This was *not* strictly a combat encounter.  We dropped into combat for perhaps two actions, or maybe just one, for the pounce attack.  There were initiative rolls, intimidate rolls, and spot checks done, but only the one actual attack.

We actually didn't entirely fail: The mission went on.  But we had (or the Druid had) a mark against her alignment for the slaughter.

The main point is what happens when the Druid allows their animal companion to run down the escaping prisoner.  What will the cat do (a lion) to bring down the prisoner?  How is the cat to know not to kill the prisoner?

That is, what is the consequence of the allowance, in 4E, to decide after the fact, if damage is lethal or not, and in 3.5E requiring that to be decided before attempting the action, but with a consequence to the success chance?

I was showing that the trade off (less chance of success vs. possibility of accidental death) is a source of excitement.

To drop into terminology (not my preferred mode), in Sim space, the excitement comes from not knowing the outcome ahead of time.  You set up the parameters, and an outcome, sometimes surprising, or at least unexpected or unintended, occurs.  In Narrative space, the excitement seems more to occur from the interaction of player narrations, together with the GMs guidance through a story framework, heightened by unknown knowledge.

TomB


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But the fact that every moment of a play or a movie is dramatic in the sense of "having the dramatic progression and emotional effect characteristic of a play" doesn't get in the way of it being good drama. And I believe the same is true of an RPG.
> 
> Now, of cousre there is room in the world for movies like Empire, but I personally have little interest in watching them. Likewise with my RPGing - I want it to be dramatic in the sense that you quoted and I requoted.



Of course, I also quoted drama as emotional or forceful in effect.

The difference between a play and an RPG, of course, is that most RPG sessions are longer than a play, and most are not one-shots. That is, my group plays for 10-hour sessions, once a week. We're sinking in 40 or more hours a month into our game, which is significantly more than a play.

A play can afford to be fairly dramatic all the way throughout without getting repetitive or old, because it's a couple hours long. One of my sessions, however, is several plays in length, and then, of course, there will be many sessions. I still hold that if every session was dramatic in the way I have quoted, it was lose its meaning over time.



pemerton said:


> You said this upthread:
> 
> This suggested to me you saw roleplaying as being at odds with combat, and that you saw simulation as being something that occurs outside combat. I didn't follow either of these ponts.



Well, you said this:


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> And, of course, it remains an open question whether most gamers want drama in their games. The growth of PF relative to 4e suggests that they don't



I was saying that I think this is baseless. As in, you have no basis for which to make this claim, at least not without qualifying it, which you did to some degree, when you mentioned a "play-into-story" style of player play style. Then you mentioned simulationist play and "playing-to-win".

In my reply to Balesir, I was saying that I think "playing-to-win" is decidedly not-unique to PF, and especially not compared to 4e. I would guess both games would have many players who engage in that style. So, now we're just saying some PF players prefer simulationist mechanics. So... okay?

I don't see RPing as being at odds with combat, but I did address the most likely scenario of "playing-to-win" as combat. I went on to state the proportion of combat to engaging the setting, which would be engaging the fiction, which usually leads to more dramatic events then combat. Not that combat doesn't lead there, but often times it leads to less dramatic areas (because my PCs tend to win or successfully retreat).



pemerton said:


> I think that, in D&D but also in some other fantasy RPGs as well, combat is one important place where roleplaying takes place. And I also think combat is one part of the game where the contrast between simulationist and non-simulationist priorities for play can emerge.



Yeah.



pemerton said:


> You may. I don't think you're right, though. There are at least two reasons that simulationist mechanics of a purist-for-system variety can get in the way of dramatic play.
> 
> It is in order to avoid these problems that games that want to produce a dramatic play experience, but use essentially purist-for-system mechanics - Storyteller, 2nd ed AD&D, etc - have "rules" telling the GM to suspend the action resolution mechanics in the interests of story.
> 
> I personally agree with Ron Edwards that this is among the most dysfunctional approach to RPGing possible. The whole purpose of "modern" game design is to design mechanical techniques of play that will produce drama (in the sense you quoted and I requoted) without anyone at the table - either player or, moreso, the GM by using rules-suspending force - having to deliberately try to author it.



Constant or forced drama is less dramatic, in my opinion. The show _24_ stops being dramatic to me after the first few hours, especially when some complication happens at the end of each and every hour. To others, of course, they like the drama and each and every show, even if I find it so forced and overdone that I can't see it.

And that's the difference in our approach to drama, I think. The PCs in my game will pursue whatever issue they want, and the world will revolve and throw whatever's appropriate at them. To this end, they will not be able to engage in a single topic or theme consistently, _but that's good for drama_. When a topic they are emotionally invested in does crop up, it is dramatic. The players also have their PCs engaged and invested in a number of different topics.

I understand my view on this is different from yours, but I'd find constant and consistent dramatic engagement in a topic to kill the drama of that topic. Perhaps that's where we strongly differ.



pemerton said:


> 4e has a range of mechanics that deal with the first issue I mentioned. The combat mechanics, including the pacing and decision-making that they force, is a significant component of the total suite of such mechanics.
> 
> 4e relies upon the GM's approach to encounter building to deal with the second issue (it doesn't include player-side elements like Spiritual Attributes or Relationship-based augments, although some Paragon Path powers can push a little bit in this direction). But it gives the GM tools (both mechanical tools and story elements) that make this encounter building very easy compared to other mainstream fantasy RPGs.



Perhaps it's an immersion issue, but obviously forced story or pacing _makes things less dramatic to me_. I'll look from the outside, and I'll lose a lot of my investment. I'll think, "this was a cool setup. I like it." I won't _experience_ it, though. I won't think, "_wow... I have to do something_" because of an emotional investment. The deliberate pacing and focus setting up the dramatic moment will lessen the drama.

Maybe it's because it's like fudging to me. Fudging does the same thing. I'll realize what's going on, and I'll be consistently pulled out of the fiction, wondering what's been fudged, if I was forced into this situation, or the like. If the story focus is being manipulated to the point where this happens, and I notice, it definitely dampens drama for me. It's not natural, and it's not as dramatic.

Maybe it differs from TV shows or movies in that I'm playing the game. I don't know. In a film, I have no control over the movie, so I tend to still feel the drama. In an RPG, however, that isn't the case. My focus as a player will be drawn to the forced focus in-game, or the forced engagement of purposefully chosen dramatic elements within the game. That hurts my emotional connection to the game, and, as I've said, dampens the drama.

I think the disconnect is between what we find dramatic, and why we find it dramatic. I don't find _24_ or a soap opera dramatic, even though that's definitely where the focus is. At least _24_ touches on a few different points of drama each episode, making it more tolerable. However, I just can't find those shows to be dramatic in a "emotionally forceful" sense.

Maybe our mileage has just wildly varied. I find drama to be "drama-less" if it does not carry force or emotional impact. I find consistent engaging of drama to blunt to force of drama, and potentially the emotional impact of it. You might disagree, or maybe you just reject my inclusion of that part of the dictionary (sorry?). But, I spoke to multiple definitions, not just one. As always, play what you like


----------



## Imaro (Dec 10, 2011)

Sorry about the long response time...



Balesir said:


> On the "DM dictating" thing I didn't particularly mean that as an "attribute" of any particular edition; I think you attribute far more "advocacy" to me post than was actually intended. I write to explain why I like what I like, not to demand that you like the same things. What I was listing was a selection of things that, from time to time, have been said to be "where it's at". Among these have been "the DM's story", "the DM's description of the world", "the character build" and "the elegant rules". I think that none of these is as appropriate a focus as what the players (including the GM) do, minute to minute, at the gaming table.




I didn't think you were demanding that I like certain things. As far as advocacy goes... perhaps I am attributing more of it towards your posts than I should, I think the fact that oftimes pemerton uses your posts as support for his particular ideas may contribute to that.

As to focus, I don't think any of the things you've listed are necessarily more or less appropriate as a focus. In all honesty I would think a balance between these things (as opposed to focusing on one) would provide the most enjoyment, at least for my particular group of players... but then, I also feel that this lies in the realm of subjectivity as opposed to objectivity.




Balesir said:


> Sure, they take place, but they are not the focus of admiration. I'm not claiming this is universal - just relating my experience. I do think that 4E supports this focus particularly well; not as well as it ideally could, but better than any other game system I have tried. I'll say a bit about why, below.




This is a strange statement to make, especially in a general sense. On the WotC CharOps boards I see lots of admiration around builds... but this seems, IMO, to be a cultural or playstyle thing... just as it was in 3.5. I'm not saying the focus of 4e can't be what you're claiming... I'm saying I don't see how it supports that over say the build admiration or even the admiration of a well built encounter, or any other thing a particualr group focuses on with the game.



Balesir said:


> Right; the "inherent to 4E" thing. First a statement I'm not going to try to "prove" - I hope it's fairly self-evident to an experienced RPer, but if not we'll just have to agree to disagree:




Again, strange... you believe it's fairly self-evident to an experienced RPer... and yet I would say Enworld is made up of many experienced RPer's, some, at least, that don't agree with your statement. Perhaps your logic is flawed then but like you said we can agree to disagree.



Balesir said:


> Rules cannot control play style or table culture. They just can't. What they can do, however, is support particular playstyles by not "getting in their way". You can normally tell when a system is not supporting the preferred play style at a table, because you will see house rules - possibly in profusion.




A game having houserules doesn't necessarily mean it fails to support a preffered playstyle... it can mean it doesn't support it in the fashion that the particular houseruler would prefer. 

As an example, there's no doubt that 4e technically supports backgrounds for characters... however many people do not like the way that it goes about doing this thus they make the choice to houserule backgrounds. This, however, doesn't prove that 4e doesn't support a playstyle that enjoys character backgrounds.



Balesir said:


> So, no, this style of play - these observations - are not "inherent" to 4E. But I do find that 4E is exceptionally good at *supporting* them. That is to say, when we play with the agenda for fun/kudos/admiration that I describe, I find I hardly need to houserule the system at all.




Okay perhaps you could give some concrete examples of how 4e supports this better than any other edition where the table has decided that there is where the focus will lie?



Balesir said:


> Yep; 4E also seems to support this agenda fairly well. Some actually prefer it to 3.X because whareas, with 3.X, facility with character design can get you a character grossly more powerful than the "run of the mill", in 4E getting major (real) advantage is more of a challenge.




Allright so this seems to point towards a style choice just like I think your kudos/fun/accolades example does as well. I certainly can't think any previous editions (with the caveat that I have never played anything earlier than BECMI) of the game that has a problem facilitating this if that's the style of play the people at the table want. 



Balesir said:


> That doesn't mean it doesn't also support the agenda I'm talking about, too.




That's exactly my point though, I see people speak to what 4e's laser focus is on (narrativism, light-gamist play.etc.) but IMO, it seems like 4e just works better for certain GM's and Players for facilitating the things other GM's easily got form earlier editions if they wanted that particular style or focus of play.  Now mechanically I think 4e does grid based, tactical combat with a laser focus (which is not to say that's all it does) but I don't see how it's better at manyy of the things claimed by it's proponents.



Balesir said:


> OK, I'll try to give a taster. It applies mainly to combat; that is where in 4E it's most notable. Non-combat is an area where I think 4E could use a great deal of improvement - but I would really like to see it along the lines of supporting what I'm talking about here, and the current crop of designers seem to be drifting away from that, alas.
> 
> 4E combat has powers and abilities that are particularly well adjusted to pulling off "cool moves" mainly due to two things:
> 
> ...




Again, with the possible exception of forced movement (and I believe though not common forced movement of enemies was in the realm of PC possibilities)... why isn't this possible in 3.5?



Balesir said:


> This last, in particular, helps with unequivocally "neat" tactics. If the success of a move results from me winning a social status-game with the GM, I don't feel the same sense of "victory" as I do after a really cool move in 4E or in a board game. All I have done is best a friend of mine in a social manipulation or facedown; what I wanted to do was show off to them a cool, clever idea that they did not then have to rended a judgement over.




Ok, you had these things in 3.5... I'm trying to get at the heart of why they are "better" in 4e. Again, I keep getting the impression this boils down not to anything objective but to a measure of one's preference for how mechanics handle a certain thing.




Balesir said:


> Or when you attack. It's a set up for starting a conflict - once you are engaged (i.e. you attack someone) it ceases.
> 
> Again - it lasts until the first hit.
> 
> ...




It was my understanding that a buff (at least as far as I got from pemerton... sorry about the misspelling of your name), was something you could stick on your PC beforehand (after scouting out an encounter or at the beginning of the day) and walk around with it until you needed it for a combat... that's what all of those things do. Now we can get into specifics but from a general standpoint all the things I listed can be used to buff your PC beforehand which is something pemerton claimed could not be done in 4e.



Balesir said:


> I'm not really interested in speculating what the rules designers' intentions or motives were - maybe you're right >shrug<




Fair enough...



Balesir said:


> I would distinguish between "preparing for an encounter" - setting up a surprise, recconnoitering the opposition, getting into position and so forth - and applying buffs that will last all day, or through several encounters, from temporary/renewable character resources.




Well when you talk about Scry/Buff/Teleport then aren't you talking about all of those things? IMO, while 4e doesn't support them as fully as 3.5 did a clever PC can still Scry on his enemy. Buff himself up before the encounter, and Teleport there with the right resources... and that was the context I believed pemerton was speaking about this in.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Okay perhaps you could give some concrete examples of how 4e supports this better than any other edition where the table has decided that there is where the focus will lie?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I certainly can't think any previous editions (with the caveat that I have never played anything earlier than BECMI) of the game that has a problem facilitating this if that's the style of play the people at the table want.



My first thought is that, in AD&D, a fighter's "kudos" moments are mostly limited to rolls of natural 20. (Thieves also have the once-per-encounter backstab moment.)


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2011)

Imaro said:


> while 4e doesn't support them as fully as 3.5 did a clever PC can still Scry on his enemy. Buff himself up before the encounter, and Teleport there with the right resources... and that was the context I believed pemerton was speaking about this in.



To teleport to a destination other than a permanent circle requires a 28th level ritual. And, as [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] pointed out, the buffs generally don't last through the whole combat - they are contingent on the first attack/hit, and other features of 4e (eg no save-or-die/suck) mean that one round wins aren't going to happen. (Assuming the GM is following the encounter building guidelines.)



Imaro said:


> I see people speak to what 4e's laser focus is on (narrativism, light-gamist play.etc.) but IMO, it seems like 4e just works better for certain GM's and Players for facilitating the things other GM's easily got form earlier editions if they wanted that particular style or focus of play.



As I've said before, on this and other threads - show me all the discussion and examples of narrativst 3E or AD&D, and of Balesir-style gamist 3E, and I'll happily discuss them.

But I haven't come across them, on these or other boards.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My first thought is that, in AD&D, a fighter's "kudos" moments are mostly limited to rolls of natural 20. (Thieves also have the once-per-encounter backstab moment.)




Perhaps... but then that discounts AD&D 2e's combat and tactics optional material, as well as the feats and abilities of 3.0 and 3.x.  I'm not claiming every edition allowed this playstyle, but I feel like self selecting and ignoring at least two previous editons (3 if you count 3.5 as seperate) that did is kind of disingenuous.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> To teleport to a destination other than a permanent circle requires a 28th level ritual.




Yes, and there were restrictions on 3.5's long distance teleportation (at lower levels) as well. The teleportation spell itself can't be gained until 9th level... which is equivalent to 15th level in 4e... also it was based on the casters familiarity with the area he's trying to teleport to... and there's the possibility of ending up in the wrong area or even dying from mishaps. So both editions have restrictions on their teleport usage at lower levels. (though for some reason in these discussions 3.x's restrictions are played down or ignored). 





pemerton said:


> And, as @Balesir pointed out, the buffs generally don't last through the whole combat - they are contingent on the first attack/hit, and other features of 4e (eg no save-or-die/suck) mean that one round wins aren't going to happen. (Assuming the GM is following the encounter building guidelines.)




So now we're placing restrictions on the durations, types, usage lengh, etc. of buffs, fair enough I guess I though we were discussing the general ability to buff one's character before a fight in the game, but if you're claim is instead... There's no way to buff the exact same as in 3.x in 4e... I can only say I agree since they are different games.

I see we've also moved to discussing one round wins... Hey I'll concede that the possibility oif this exists in 3.5 and not in 4e... but I don't thiink or see how it's relevant to the point. 



pemerton said:


> As I've said before, on this and other threads - show me all the discussion and examples of narrativst 3E or AD&D, and of Balesir-style gamist 3E, and I'll happily discuss them.
> 
> But I haven't come across them, on these or other boards.




Hmmm, intersting logic... reminds me of the Planescape discussion. In other words the fact that your experiences don't include a particular thing in no way is proof that the particular thing doesn't exist or can't be done.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 11, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Hmmm, intersting logic... reminds me of the Planescape discussion. In other words the fact that your experiences don't include a particular thing in no way is proof that the particular thing doesn't exist or can't be done.



The difference from the Planescape discussion is that Quickleaf post an example of narrativist Planescape play.

I'm still waiting to learn all about the narrativist 3E going on out there.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> As I've said before, on this and other threads - show me all the discussion and examples of narrativst 3E or AD&D, and of Balesir-style gamist 3E, and I'll happily discuss them.




I've not found either 3/3.5E, or 4E, for that matter, to be particularly narrativist.

Neither concentrates much on story telling: The focus is on fights.  In 4E, I would say, the focus is on randomish crawls, which strikes me as far from Narrativist.  I can see skill challenges as a framework for narration, but at times they seem much to mechanic focused.  That may be more of a presentation / authorship failure than is fair to the mechanic.

For a narrativist game, I would expect guides on how to manage the narration: How much control to give each player, how much spotlight was appropropriate, how to reward players, and so forth.

Pathfinder, with background and region feats, and the rich character building options, seems to be putting in some hooks to deeper player backgrounds, which is a nod to more story telling.  i don't think that Pathfinder is narrativist, though.

The most recent WFRP, with its strange dice, and party state, and three act guide, seems to be moving more into the space.  That game seems to have at least moved the play into the interpretation of player intent, which seems to me closer to narrative style.

TomB


----------



## Hussar (Dec 12, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> Intimidate references diplomacy, which allows a full-round rushed action at -10. In any case, a minute isn't a long time before weapons are drawn.




Well the post I quoted said intimidate, so, I'm not sure why you would go with diplomacy here.  



> That's not a house rule, it's the DM playing an NPC.




And deliberately changing the rules to suit what he wants.  Thus, houserule.  Or, at the very least, not the rules that are in the books.



> The rules are just a tool to map the game world. What the example was really about IMO is the PCs interaction with the game world leading to drama. That's pretty much what most of my roleplaying is about. Whether it is an actual rule or the DM that causes the interaction varies (usually a bit of both).




Well, the post was telling how the 3.5 E rules were facillitating a particularly dramatic point.  My point was that the rulings that facillitated drama were actually absent from 3.5 E.  If you have to change the rules to achieve your goal, that is not an endorsement of a particular ruleset, it's a condemnation.



tomBitonti said:


> This was *not* strictly a combat encounter.  We dropped into combat for perhaps two actions, or maybe just one, for the pounce attack.  There were initiative rolls, intimidate rolls, and spot checks done, but only the one actual attack.
> 
> We actually didn't entirely fail: The mission went on.  But we had (or the Druid had) a mark against her alignment for the slaughter.
> 
> ...




Yeah, see, to me, the upshot of this situation would be that the players would never, ever try to take prisoners again.  The DM is going to play silly buggers with the rules and screw us over every time we do, so, why bother?  The only reason that this prisoner died is because the DM changed the rules mid-stream.

If the DM is going to start changing rules like that, I wonder how many players will ever try something like that again.

So, here's the question.  After that event, how many prisoners did you ever take using Intimidate again?


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well the post I quoted said intimidate, so, I'm not sure why you would go with diplomacy here.
> 
> And deliberately changing the rules to suit what he wants.  Thus, houserule.  Or, at the very least, not the rules that are in the books.
> 
> ...




We role played our interaction with the prisoner, and we had him scared out of his wits.  Having him run at the first opportunity fit the moment perfectly.  Having the Druid set her cat after the prisoner also fit rather well.  She had the best spot, and the cat had the best initiative.  The rest of us could only gape in horror as the sequence resolved before us.

None of us thought that the DM changed the rules.  It was to us a classic "Oh--do-you-realize-what-you-are-doing" moment.

We had a player, while sneaking up to an altar invisibly, give a medusa the finger ... and they said "I look up and give the medusa the finger."  And promptly failed their save, leaving them invisible and turned to stone on the altar, and leaving a huge hole in an elaborate plan.

Sometimes a player acts impulsively, and realizes too late the consequences of their action.  The brain putting together A + B just a little slower than the mouth can speak.

TomB


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And deliberately changing the rules to suit what he wants.  Thus, houserule.  Or, at the very least, not the rules that are in the books.




There no rule that says NPCs never run away. The NPC could just as easily have run *before* anyone attempted any intimidation at all, whether to raise the alarm, to make it to the toilet in time or because he was afraid of social interaction.

Even if you apply bluff, diplomacy and intimidate by the book you don't need to turn NPCs into state automata.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 12, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My first thought is that, in AD&D, a fighter's "kudos" moments are mostly limited to rolls of natural 20. (Thieves also have the once-per-encounter backstab moment.)



As an aside, martial "kudos" moments in AD&D were usually things like rolling high on damage or doing things that weren't explicitly handled by the system, like jumping off a tower onto the back of a passing dragon. 

Even crits on a natural 20 were usually (common) house rules. My 1st AD&D group imported (some of) the crit charts from Rolemaster! 



Imaro said:


> Perhaps... but then that discounts AD&D 2e's combat and tactics optional material...



As another aside, the Player's Option books were released fairly late in the game, 6 years after the AD&D 2e core books, and 2 years prior to TSR's sale of D&D to WoTC. It might not be fair to discount them entirely, but I don't think it's accurate to imply they had much impact (which is to say you can probably _mostly_ discount them). 

I'm pretty sure things like the class splatbooks saw more use.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 12, 2011)

Mallus said:


> As another aside, the Player's Option books were released fairly late in the game, 6 years after the AD&D 2e core books, and 2 years prior to TSR's sale of D&D to WoTC. It might not be fair to discount them entirely, but I don't think it's accurate to imply they had much impact (which is to say you can probably _mostly_ discount them).
> 
> I'm pretty sure things like the class splatbooks saw more use.




The fact that they were released later in the life cycle of the product is irrelevant to my point... As to impact, I don't think you or I can say, with certainty (though that doesn't seem to stop you from implying that you can), what impact or percentage of D&D players at the time used Player's Option.  Simply put my point wass that rules to support this type of play were available (if players desired it) as far back as 2nd edition and continued into 3.x.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 13, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> There no rule that says NPCs never run away. The NPC could just as easily have run *before* anyone attempted any intimidation at all, whether to raise the alarm, to make it to the toilet in time or because he was afraid of social interaction.
> 
> Even if you apply bluff, diplomacy and intimidate by the book you don't need to turn NPCs into state automata.




Here are the exact rules:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.)* The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).*  (bold mine)




So, actually, yes, there is a rule that specifically says that the NPC will not run away.  That the NPC actually cannot do what happened in this situation.

Now, the DM is certainly entitled to change the rules.  I'm not saying that he's not.  But, that's exactly what he did here - change the rules.  I know that as a player, I would never try to take prisoners again after this event.  It's just not worth it.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, actually, yes, there is a rule that specifically says that the NPC will not run away.





I'm not seeing anything in what you quoted that says the NPC cannot run away.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Here are the exact rules:
> 
> *The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile). *
> 
> ...




The DM hung the decision on our taking our attention away from the target.  We stepped to the side to make plans; not very far away, but off to the side to converse discretely.  That was enough, in the GM's view, for the prisoner to make a run for it.

But, this is tangential to my point: The point was about drama resulting from the inability to change the cat's attacks to non-lethal damage after the fact.  In my view, the 3E rule which forces a trade-off has more inherent tension, and as a result tends to more drama.

Anyways, I'm not sure now what this has to do with the original thread topic.  Can someone tie this back, or otherwise close it off?

TomB


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 13, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I'm not seeing anything in what you quoted that says the NPC cannot run away.




This.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 13, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I'm not seeing anything in what you quoted that says the NPC cannot run away.




What part of "The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward." is difficult to understand?  The effect in this case is that the target treats you as friendly for the duration.

Do you regularly run away from your friends?  I would think that it would be difficult to chat with someone while running away as would offering advice or help.

Maybe this is some new form of friendly that I was previously unaware of.

So, unless tomBitonti's sidebar discussion lasted a REALLY long time, I'm thinking that the drama here came from the fact that the DM changed the rules to suit himself.  The only reason that the cat attacked the NPC is because the DM ignored the rules.

See, I missed this line the first time around:



			
				tomBitonti said:
			
		

> We had a player, while sneaking up to an altar invisibly, give a medusa the finger ... and they said "I look up and give the medusa the finger." And promptly failed their save, leaving them invisible and turned to stone on the altar, and leaving a huge hole in an elaborate plan.




Again, here's an example of a DM being a dick.  Because, you know, the character would actually be THAT stupid.  I certainly would never consider this to be an example of drama in a game.  It's Three Stooges D&D.  

I've played with DM's like this and I refuse to do so anymore.  "Ha ha, you said you look up!  YOU SAID IT!  YOU SAID IT!  Make your saving throw you stupid player!"

Yeah, no thanks.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> What part of "The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward." is difficult to understand?  The effect in this case is that the target treats you as friendly for the duration.





It doesn't say he becomes your friend, it says he has to act as if he is while he is near, nor does it say he has to stay near you.  In fact, it also says, "(That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.)"  Basically, he has to put up with you for being a dick but it doesn't limit his ability to ignore you or to put some distance between himself and your bad attitude.  If I can come up with an example, perhaps I'll post it later.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> What part of "The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward." is difficult to understand?  The effect in this case is that the target treats you as friendly for the duration.




Do you regularly run away from people you feel indifferent about? Probably not, but that doesn't mean you never do.

I can certainly imagine situations that would make me want to run away from people, even if I was feeling friendly. For example, suppose they get wasted and start waving guns? Or suppose I'm a soldier and have been ordered to?

Maybe in the intimidate case the NPC would even have stopped if asked to, but that doesn't mean he can't run away, since the rules don't say the target stops doing anything other than following orders.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2011)

He's not indifferent.  He's FRIENDLY.  

In your example, I doubt you feel friendly (the D&D defined term) towards someone who is drunk and waving firearms.

See, to me, MarkCMG and you Hassasin are the reason that players almost never take prisoners.  I've played with more than a few DM's who will do exactly this sort of crap.  "Oh it's justified because I can pull examples out of the air to justify it".  Gimme a break.

The only reason the prisoner ran away is because the DM was being a dick.  He changed the rules because he didn't want the players to get any sort of "unfair" advantage over his carefully crafted adventure and hadn't planned on giving the players information.

I've seen this way too many times to believe it was anything else.  The DM wants to hoard information and make the players "earn" their victory.  The players get creative, find a way to bypass the DM's plot and the DM takes the first opportunity to nip that in the bud.

The fact that he actually had to bend, if not outright break, the rules to do it shows that.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 14, 2011)

From my point of view, Hussar is correct in the ruling. He shouldn't run away.

From my point of view, he's really, _really_ off when attributing motivations to people. He might be right when he says he's experienced it, but I've seen thread after thread where people disagree with his experiences on dick GMs.

I mean, could the group just accept that the rule of Diplomacy doesn't work for them (which is why you have things like this: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html )? That'd make it different from the rules, yes, but it's not because the GM is a dick. It's because the group doesn't like the Diplomacy rules (because of things like Diplomancers, perhaps).

I don't know the motivations of the GM. Maybe he was being a dick. I can't tell you one way or another. I can say, however, that it seems like Hussar is pretty much coming to a conclusion with little to no justification. He has his experience, but nobody else saying, "no he wasn't trying to be a dick" is going to change it.

Therefore, I'd put forth just moving on. It's a derailment anyways. Hussar is correct on the rules issue. When being questioned, the NPC (according to the base, core Diplomacy rules) shouldn't run away if he was intimidated. I mean, he's supposed to be doing things like offering limited advice, not doing something that would ideally actively prevent that. Either way, though, it doesn't really contradict Tom's point, which seemed to be that drama can arise in the general method he described.

I just don't see this conversation going anywhere other than, "it's this way," "no it isn't, "yes it is," "nuh-uh," "yeah-huh." But, hey, if you want to have that conversation, don't let me stop you. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2011)

Meh, you're probably right JC, that I shouldn't be attributing motives.  My bad.  It's just something I've seen so many times that it becomes pretty much knee-jerk whenever I see it now.

But, yes, it's my bad for that.  Apologies.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> He's not indifferent.  He's FRIENDLY.






Nope.  The target is "treated" as friendly for as long as he is Intimidated and for as long as the target remains in the presence of the person doing the Intimidating.  The description goes out of its way to state that "the target retains its normal attitude" under those conditions, as well.  The description does not state that the target is restricted to remain in the presense of the Intimidator and, since the target retains its normal attitude, the target would likely attempt to remove itself from being in that presence if its normal attitude would be of one not liking to be Intimidated.


*edit* Note, also, that with Diplomacy you are actually "[c]hanging others’ attitudes" rather than simply getting them to treat you differently while in your presence and retaining their attitude.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, to me, MarkCMG and you Hassasin are the reason that players almost never take prisoners.  I've played with more than a few DM's who will do exactly this sort of crap.  "Oh it's justified because I can pull examples out of the air to justify it".  Gimme a break.
> 
> The only reason the prisoner ran away is because the DM was being a dick.  He changed the rules because he didn't want the players to get any sort of "unfair" advantage over his carefully crafted adventure and hadn't planned on giving the players information.




I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, though MarkCMG seems to make the same points I would. It's my opinion that diplomacy and intimidate should affect NPCs, but not make them puppets. Anything that the rules don't prevent an NPC from doing is ok. Also, people do irrational things, so should NPCs (and PCs!).

Regarding the DM, I wasn't there so I obviously can't say whether it would have felt like the DM was being a dick. I know I don't expect things to always go my way as a player, and even when I succeed it might not go as I thought. Failures, especially unexpected ones, have often lead to memorable events in our games.

This is probably about more deep-seated differences in approach to roleplaying and drama. I like facing unpredictable things, and I don't need to always be in control even of my own character. I don't see it as a game to win the scenario or the DM as a "referee" who should only follow the rules like a computer.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

This post addresses an earlier topic in this thread. I was looking over Players Options: Heroes of Shadow... and while looking over the Blackguard my interest was piqued by the following introduction...



			
				 Players Options; Heroes of Shadow said:
			
		

> _*The world knows paladins to be shinning paragons who champion lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor.* Such virtuous figures are symbols to the common people, icons from which they draw the strength and courage to stand fast against the encroaching darkness. Yet in every light a shadow lurks- the brightness of these noble warriors is equaled by the shadow spreading from their sinister counterparts._




Emphasis mine: Now I'm curious, because IMO, the first sentence of this introduction to the Blackguard seems to imply strongly, if not outright call out, that a "paladin" is a known thing in the world and that people can determine who in their world is a paladin and who isn't. 

So my question is for those who claim a class, by default, is just a set of abilities not attached to a particular archetype... how do you reconcile this type of fiction with that idea? I mean yes I understand you can change the fiction to suit your patrticular game... but the default seems to be that a class represents something specific in the gameworld... not just a set of abilities someone has trained in.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 14, 2011)

Imaro said:


> So my question is for those who claim a class, by default, is just a set of abilities not attached to a particular archetype... how do you reconcile this type of fiction with that idea?




I would apply the fiction to the majority of paladins in my game world but not hold every paladin to that default.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I would apply the fiction to the majority of paladins in my game world but not hold every paladin to that default.




I think you missed my point... or maybe I didn't quite express it well. Like I said in my previous post, anyone can change anything they want for their personal game... but what I"m asking is how can people claim the default is that classes aren't real things in the gameworld, but instead just packages of abilities to be fluffed however they want... when the game's default fiction treats them as real and recognizable archetypes?


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2011)

Imaro said:


> So my question is for those who claim a class, by default, is just a set of abilities not attached to a particular archetype... how do you reconcile this type of fiction with that idea?




Simple: "paladin" in that line doesn't refer to the Class.  

How do you reconcile the fact that NPCs don't have Classes with the idea that paladin refers to the PC Class in the game world?  No NPC is a member of the Paladin Class, but NPCs may be called paladins by someone in the game world.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Simple: "paladin" in that line doesn't refer to the Class.
> 
> How do you reconcile the fact that NPCs don't have Classes with the idea that paladin refers to the PC Class in the game world? No NPC is a member of the Paladin Class, but NPCs may be called paladins by someone in the game world.




But it attributes the abilities of the paladin class to the in-game paladin, so I'm a little confused by what you mean. the description also makes it clear that the blackguard is recognized as a type of paladin... which in turn means certain things like a wizard are recognized as "not paladins". In other words these classes are very much ore than a package of abilities that can be called anything... from this passage it seems that a paldin in the world has recognizable qualities, powers and beliefs.

EDIT: Oh, and on another note... NPC's can have classes if the DM builds them that way.  There is a "paladin" NPC class in DMG 1


----------



## D'karr (Dec 14, 2011)

This boils down to "Thinking Too Hard About Fantasy".

In the game world there are no game classes, only labels (titles).  I could be playing a Knight (class) and call myself a Paladin of Justice (title).  I could be playing a Rogue (class) and call myself a Scout (Title).

The fact that there are game mechanics defining a Paladin and a Scout have no relevance to the "fictional" title that I'm using.  

The fantasy genre, and D&D in particular, have never been internally consistent to a high degree.  The exception occurs in the degree that they promote suspension of disbelief.  

Neither of the examples above "break" the suspension of disbelief in the "fictional" space of the game.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2011)

Imaro said:


> But it attributes the abilities of the paladin class to the in-game paladin, so I'm a little confused by what you mean. the description also makes it clear that the blackguard is recognized as a type of paladin... which in turn means certain things like a wizard are recognized as "not paladins". In other words these classes are very much ore than a package of abilities that can be called anything... from this passage it seems that a paldin in the world has recognizable qualities, powers and beliefs.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and on another note... NPC's can have classes if the DM builds them that way.  There is a "paladin" NPC class in DMG 1




Really?  Yeah, there are NPC Classes in the DMG.  Huh.  I guess I'm wrong there!

The fluff they wrote is lame because I don't think a Paladin of Torog is going to be a champion of "lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor."  He'll probably champion ideas such as imprisonment and torture!  A Wizard who is into Ioun might champion those lofty ideas - and might be considered a paladin by townspeople as well as the clergy of Ioun.

In other words, I think that, if you consider "paladin" in the text you quoted to mean the Class, it doesn't make any sense.  If you consider it to mean something else - a Rogue who fights for those "lofty ideas" - then it makes sense.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 14, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I think you missed my point... or maybe I didn't quite express it well. Like I said in my previous post, anyone can change anything they want for their personal game... but what I"m asking is how can people claim the default is that classes aren't real things in the gameworld, but instead just packages of abilities to be fluffed however they want... when the game's default fiction treats them as real and recognizable archetypes?




I think I've not been clear if this is how you've viewed my previous points in this discussion (as I am a strong advocate of refluffing classes). I do not claim the default is that classes aren't real things in the game world, they certainly are real. I just refuse to hold every member of that class to the default, _especially_ player characters. Being the stars of the story I am more than willing to break convention for any concept a player wishes to emulate.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think I've not been clear if this is how you've viewed my previous points in this discussion (as I am a strong advocate of refluffing classes). I do not claim the default is that classes aren't real things in the game world, they certainly are real. I just refuse to hold every member of that class to the default, _especially_ player characters. Being the stars of the story I am more than willing to break convention for any concept a player wishes to emulate.




This clears up alot, and I have no problem with people playing the game the way they want. But yes, I thought you were claiming, as others are in this thread, that the default was that something like a paladin wasn't a specific thing in the gameworld but a nebulous package of abilities that the default fiction gave no meaning to.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

D'karr said:


> This boils down to "Thinking Too Hard About Fantasy".




No it really doesn't. But I'll let you know if it starts to strain my brain or become too worrisome toi handle... 



D'karr said:


> In the game world there are no game classes, only labels (titles). I could be playing a Knight (class) and call myself a Paladin of Justice (title). I could be playing a Rogue (class) and call myself a Scout (Title).




Maybe in *your* gameworld but we are talking about the default world as presented by the rules and fluff of the gamebooks. The passage I quoted stated clearly that "the world knows *paladins* to be..." which implies rather strongly there are specific things in the world that are known to it's inhabitants as paladins... as opposed to clerics, fighters, etc.  IMO, these things are the archetypes that more specific concepts fall under.



D'karr said:


> The fact that there are game mechanics defining a Paladin and a Scout have no relevance to the "fictional" title that I'm using.




Good for you, I'm not discussing your personal game though.



D'karr said:


> The fantasy genre, and D&D in particular, have never been internally consistent to a high degree. The exception occurs in the degree that they promote suspension of disbelief.
> 
> Neither of the examples above "break" the suspension of disbelief in the "fictional" space of the game.




Not sure about the relevance of this as I didn't claim anything about suspension of disbelief being broken. What I am saying is that there is a very strong arguement, supported by passages of fluff and the game rule for classes as recognizable archetypes... as opposed to fluffless packages of abilities... at least in so far as the default gameworld goes.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> The fluff they wrote is lame because I don't think a Paladin of Torog is going to be a champion of "lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor." He'll probably champion ideas such as imprisonment and torture! A Wizard who is into Ioun might champion those lofty ideas - and might be considered a paladin by townspeople as well as the clergy of Ioun.




Whether it's lame or not is purely suibjective and irrelevant when looking at it for our purposes. On a side note, it's interesting that the bladesinger has similar fluff that seems to point at it being a discrete and specific thing in the gameworld as opposed to a generic set of skills, abilities, etc.

As to your example... IMO, the paladin of Torog is holding up the most lofty ideas...as percieved by those who worship a god of imprisonment and sacrifice. In 4e good and evil are no longer forces that have an active and discernable effect upon the world and thus belief seems to now reside in the domain of relativity and perception... not necessarily my preference for morality in a fantasy world, but whatever, the cries of alignment sucks won out. 

EDIT: I wonder if a paladin of Torog who took on quests from others in order to do what they weren't willing (torture, imprisonment, etc.) to further or protect the greater good would still be considered "evil". He's promoting the domains of his god but also doing good (at least in his and some people's minds) As an example Jack Bauer from 24, tortured people and worse... yet most people considered him a hero.

The wizard on the other hand, IMO, is not a paladin because he hasn't devoted his life and soul to promoting and championing the ideas of Ioun, and more importantly... Ioun has never empowered him like he has his true paladins... I also feel that any cleric, true paladin of Ioun, invoker of Ioun or avenger of Ioun would know this either inherently or with a religion check. 



LostSoul said:


> In other words, I think that, if you consider "paladin" in the text you quoted to mean the Class, it doesn't make any sense. If you consider it to mean something else - a Rogue who fights for those "lofty ideas" - then it makes sense.




Uhmm, actually, IMO, this causes the fluff to make even less sense. blackguards are specifically called out as the *sinister counterparts* of paladins. If you're scenario is true then a particular build of a class becomes the "sinister counterpart" of any and every class? That seems unnecessarily limiting and narrow even as just pure fluff. IMO, it makes much more sense if paladin = class (archetype) and the blackguard is the sinister counterpart of that very specific class (archetype).


----------



## D'karr (Dec 14, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Maybe in *your* gameworld but we are talking about the default world as presented by the rules and fluff of the gamebooks. The passage I quoted stated clearly that "the world knows *paladins* to be..." which implies rather strongly there are specific things in the world that are known to it's inhabitants as paladins... as opposed to clerics, fighters, etc.  IMO, these things are the archetypes that more specific concepts fall under.




I think you are reading too much into the "fictional" description of a label, and assigning it mechanical meaning, which it does not always have in the fictional gameworld.

As someone mentioned above the Paladin (class) of a god such as Torog that does not espouse those ideals would not have to fit any of the description given in the quote you mentioned.



> Good for you, I'm not discussing your personal game though.




I'm sorry but you are stretching it there quite a bit.  In the mechanics of the D&D Gameworld the label of Paladin(s) does not have to be "a shinning paragon who champions lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor."  The game rules do not limit the paladin class in that way.

By using a similar stretch to the one you are making we could say that because the paladins are shinning *paragons*, etc., that the description only applies to Paragon Level characters.  That is, we'd be reading a mechanical meaning into a label, paragon in this case, where none is needed or intended.



> Not sure about the relevance of this as I didn't claim anything about suspension of disbelief being broken. What I am saying is that there is a very strong arguement, supported by passages of fluff and the game rule for classes as recognizable archetypes... as opposed to fluffless packages of abilities... at least in so far as the default gameworld goes.




I disagree that there is any strong argument of the sort.  You are tying a piece of fiction to a mechanical construct (the class), and trying to give it an absolute value.  Whereas the mechanical construct has no such restrictions at all. 

As mentioned a Paladin (class) of Pelor might be an example of the fluff.  It doesn't mean that every Paladin (class) of every other god will be such an example.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Uhmm, actually, IMO, this causes the fluff to make even less sense. blackguards are specifically called out as the *sinister counterparts* of paladins. If you're scenario is true then a particular build of a class becomes the "sinister counterpart" of any and every class? That seems unnecessarily limiting and narrow even as just pure fluff. IMO, it makes much more sense if paladin = class (archetype) and the blackguard is the sinister counterpart of that very specific class (archetype).




If your scenario is true, then _all_ paladins are champions of compassion, nobility, sacrifice, and valour, even when they worship evil and unaligned gods who are specifically opposed to those ideals!

If you assume they meant that those who are "shining paragons who champion lofty ideals such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice, and valor" are _called_ paladins in the game world, regardless of their actual Class, then it does make sense: blackguards are not the sinister counterpart to the paladin Class, but instead anyone who champions the above ideals.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

D'karr said:


> I think you are reading too much into the "fictional" description of a label, and assigning it mechanical meaning, which it does not always have in the fictional gameworld.




I don't think I am and nothing you've said has proven otherwise.



D'karr said:


> As someone mentioned above the Paladin (class) of a god such as Torog that does not espouse those ideals would not have to fit any of the description given in the quote you mentioned.




Read the description again... It only really claims that paladins are shinning paragons in championing lofty ideas... now granted every paladin won't fit the particular examples they used... but to a worshipper of Torog what is a more lofty idea then the inflicting of torture and imprisonment. Lofty does not equal good. 
Definition of Lofty
1
_a_ *:* elevated in character and spirit *:* noble <_lofty_ ideals> 
_b_ *:* elevated in status *:* superior 

2
a* :* having a haughty overbearing manner *:* supercilious 

3
_a_ *:* rising to a great height *:* impressively high <_lofty_ mountains> 

To a follower of Torog he is a shinning paragon of lofty ideas when you figure that the ideas that would be most elevated in status are those concerning torture and imprisonment.






D'karr said:


> I'm sorry but you are stretching it there quite a bit. In the mechanics of the D&D Gameworld the label of Paladin(s) does not have to be "a shinning paragon who champions lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor." The game rules do not limit the paladin class in that way.




Only it does, at least upon creation.... what it doesn't do is force you to play him a certain way (except in combat ).

Using the idea of lofty as presented above. The fact that a paladin must choose a deity and faith to serve during character creation and must be the same alignment as said deity, undergo trials and rituals of worthingess to be imbued with his power as well as the fluff of his powers all point towards this. Now a DM has free reign in his own game to seperate fluff from mechanics and the player has free will to turn away from this but the above is very much what the archetype of the paladin (unless you purposefully choose to play against type) is about and the fluff and mechanics do point towards it.



D'karr said:


> By using a similar stretch to the one you are making we could say that because the paladins are shinning *paragons*, etc., that the description only applies to Paragon Level characters. That is, we'd be reading a mechanical meaning into a label, paragon in this case, where none is needed or intended.




I'm not even going to address this because it's nowhere near similar to what I am saying and I honestly believe you know that.



D'karr said:


> I disagree that there is any strong argument of the sort. You are tying a piece of fiction to a mechanical construct (the class), and trying to give it an absolute value. Whereas the mechanical construct has no such restrictions at all.




Eh, you're free to have your oppinion... but I didn't tie anything to anything, these are the worsds of the developers and designers that I quoted... why are they using the word paladin in fiction if not referring to the specifc class in the game? And again why are blackguards referred to as their sinister counterparts (as this also implies that blackguards are a discrete and quantifiable thing in the game world that are discernable from other things? Why aren't blackguards just considered evil warriors?



D'karr said:


> As mentioned a Paladin (class) of Pelor might be an example of the fluff. It doesn't mean that every Paladin (class) of every other god will be such an example.




You keep saying this, but again "lofty" doesn't mean good.


EDIT: And as LostSoul has made me realize... when referring to the "paladin" they are in fact refering to the cavalier. So with that in mind it seems to make for an even stronger argument that a class is a fictional construct with a value and actually addresses many of the issues you bring up above since the cavalier actually does mechanically support all of this.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> If your scenario is true, then _all_ paladins are champions of compassion, nobility, sacrifice, and valour, even when they worship evil and unaligned gods who are specifically opposed to those ideals!




This is false because you are assuming they've listed every lofty idea a paladin can champion... and since lofty does not necessarily mean good we know for a fact that they haven't. So all paladins do not have to be champions of these particular ideals... only champions of "lofty" ideas.



LostSoul said:


> If you assume they meant that those who are "shining paragons who champion lofty ideals such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice, and valor" are _called_ paladins in the game world, regardless of their actual Class, then it does make sense: blackguards are not the sinister counterpart to the paladin Class, but instead anyone who champions the above ideals.




Eh, Upon further reflection...I believe they are referring specifically to the essentials paladin or cavalier. He follows the virtues (we already have sacrifice and valour in HotFK). But ultimately by the designers and developers doing this it still supports the argument that these classes are discrete things. Blackguards and Cavaliers (paladins) are counterparts in the fictional world to each other and thus are recognizable and discernable in the default world and again... not just generic packages and abilities to substitute for anything.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 14, 2011)

Imaro said:


> You keep saying this, but again "lofty" doesn't mean good.




Since I have said nothing about "lofty" and have not focused on anything about it, except to quote your example, let's focus on the actual quote.



> The world knows paladins to be shinning paragons who champion lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor.




What part of compassion would a Paladin (class) of Torog espouse?


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Eh, Upon further reflection...I believe they are referring specifically to the essentials paladin or cavalier. He follows the virtues (we already have sacrifice and valour in HotFK). But ultimately by the designers and developers doing this it still supports the argument that these classes are discrete things. Blackguards and Cavaliers (paladins) are counterparts in the fictional world to each other and thus are recognizable and discernable in the default world and again... not just generic packages and abilities to substitute for anything.




I just looked up the Cavalier - I tend to stick to the PHB stuff so I'm not familiar with Essentials Classes - and I think you're right from that point of view.  It does make sense that those two classes would be counterparts to one another, and that is what they meant when they wrote "paladin" in the blackguard fluff:

A cavalier is a paladin who has embraced one of the heroic virtues, such as compassion, justice, sacrifice, or valor.​


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

D'karr said:


> Since I have said nothing about "lofty" and have not focused on anything about it, except to quote your example, let's focus on the actual quote.
> 
> 
> 
> What part of compassion would a Paladin (class) of Torog espouse?




First...Did you read my edit?  This is referencing the cavalier or essentials paladin, not the core rulebook paladin.  Part of their mechanics is that they must pick a virtue to follow... so if a player chose to run a paladin of Torog it would be up to him which virtue he chose and how it related to Torog.  

As a DM facing your challenge I would say a paladin of Torog probably wouldn't follow compassion...  but as Torog is the god of jailers... he has leeway for compassion.  Many people view imprisonment as a more compassionate alternative to outright execution, maiming, etc..


----------



## Imaro (Dec 14, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I just looked up the Cavalier - I tend to stick to the PHB stuff so I'm not familiar with Essentials Classes - and I think you're right from that point of view. It does make sense that those two classes would be counterparts to one another, and that is what they meant when they wrote "paladin" in the blackguard fluff:
> A cavalier is a paladin who has embraced one of the heroic virtues, such as compassion, justice, sacrifice, or valor.​




Yeah, though admittedly WotC could have been a little more precise in their usage of language... then they wonder why some poeople find the current set up confusing.

EDIT: But I still believe this supports my position that classes aren't (at least by default and by the developers/designers of the game) considered generic packages of abilities and skills but instead specific archetypes (on the class level) and concepts (on the build level)... which is why I don't like combat role (a game element that has nothing to do with concept or archetype) being tied into them. it creates a choice that shouldn't be there. If I want to experience gameplay as a striker but like the fiction of the cavalier and not the blackguard... I'm stuck having to choose one over the other.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 16, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> The fluff they wrote is lame because I don't think a Paladin of Torog is going to be a champion of "lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor."  He'll probably champion ideas such as imprisonment and torture!  A Wizard who is into Ioun might champion those lofty ideas - and might be considered a paladin by townspeople as well as the clergy of Ioun.
> 
> In other words, I think that, if you consider "paladin" in the text you quoted to mean the Class, it doesn't make any sense.  If you consider it to mean something else - a Rogue who fights for those "lofty ideas" - then it makes sense.



A further complication is that the text [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] quoted seems to be written mostly in relation to Essentials paladins ("cavaliers") who must be either Unaligned, Good or Lawful Good (depending on virtue championed).

My own view is that the most important anchor between fiction and mechanics in 4e is keywords. So the *divine* keyword means something in the fiction - namely, that this particular character has been bestowed with power by the gods - and I think that creates scope within the fiction for NPCs to distinguish between a rogue or a knight who is lofty but not divinely empowered, and a "paladin" who is a divinely empowered warrior. The distinction between STR cleric and STR paladin, though, is not going to be one that can easily be drawn within the fiction. (On this account, blackguards are a fictional as well as metagame category - they are the armed and armoured STR guys who use power that is both divine and shadow!)

Of course, NPCs/monsters generally do not have power source keywords for their powers. Which makes identifying NPC "paladins" a bit trickier - some interpolation is required. Similar considerations arise in relation to paragon paths, which are often described in terms suggesting that there are orders of NPCs who follow the path, even though - mechanically - there is no obvious way to build such NPCs.

I think the game expects the participants to paper over the cracks a bit here. Is there anything important at stake here? To put it another way, is there any GM in the world who is going to blanche at a PC who is not built using the paladin class, but who fights with armour and weapons, who uses divine powers to do so (or at least to help with doing so), and who, in the fiction, calls him-/herself a paladin? Is there any real life GM who is going to insist that the player of that PC is doing it wrong, because you can only truly call yourself a paladin in the fiction if you are built using the paladin class?

EDIT: Having caught up with the rest of the thread, I see that the cavalier point was picked up.

Is a cavalier's embodiment of a virtue part of the fiction or not? Perhaps, a bit like a warlock's pact.

But this doesn't undermine my claim that, in the fiction, there is no inherent difference between a STR cleric and a STR paladin from the PHB. Neither has a class feature that singles them out as distinctively related to the metaphysics of the gameworld in the way that a cavlier's virtue or a warlock's pact does.

I'm inclined to think that the same reasoning applies to the WIS cleric and Avenger. Invokers, on the other hand, do have an inherent difference (eg the impliments they use, and the reasons for that).

Among the Arcane PCs there are clear differences: spellbooks for wizards, bloodlines for sorcerers, pacts for warlocks, and the absence of any of these things for bards.

But the martial PCs in this respect are like the divine ones - there is no inherent fictional difference between a STR ranger, a warlord and a fighter, for example, or between a DEX ranger and a rogue. And given that it was fighters and rangers that were the main focus of the discussion upthread, I don't see that this discussion of paladins and blackguards undermines the points made in relation to them.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 16, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I'm not seeing anything in what you quoted that says the NPC cannot run away.





Mark CMG said:


> The target is "treated" as friendly for as long as he is Intimidated and for as long as the target remains in the presence of the person doing the Intimidating.  The description goes out of its way to state that "the target retains its normal attitude" under those conditions, as well.  The description does not state that the target is restricted to remain in the presense of the Intimidator and, since the target retains its normal attitude, the target would likely attempt to remove itself from being in that presence if its normal attitude would be of one not liking to be Intimidated.



I think the last sentence here must be wrong. If the target is permitted to remove itself from the presence of the intimidator, then intimidating becomes a (near-)useless strategy - you can't effectively cow someone, because they are always allowed to run away.

To put it another way - being treated as friendly while in your presence means that they are helpful and don't run away. (The original case does raise the issue of what "presence" means - did the PCs voluntary move away from the prisoner, thus permitting him to leave their presence?)



Hassassin said:


> It's my opinion that diplomacy and intimidate should affect NPCs, but not make them puppets.



I don't think anyone is saying that the NPC should become a puppet. The reason they don't run is not because they have become a puppet. It is because the intimidator has cowed them.

The game-mechancial reason for setting strict parameters on what intimidated NPCs can and cannot do is to make Intimidate a mechanically viable option. Otherwise, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has pointed out, the players have a strong if not overwhelming incentive to go straight to combat, given that most GMs don't have NPCs reduced to 0 hp spontaneously run away.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think the last sentence here must be wrong. If the target is permitted to remove itself from the presence of the intimidator, then intimidating becomes a (near-)useless strategy - you can't effectively cow someone, because they are always allowed to run away.





Naw, it's just always more effective to convince someone to do sonething on their own than to try and force them.  However, if you are intimidating someone by holding a gun to their head, they aren't like to risk trying to run away.  That's an extreme example, of course, but there are more subtle ones.  If, for instance, your PCs are the big adventurers in a small town and you are intimidating the blacksmith, where's he going to run?  He's got family living here and he knows full well he's going to see the adventurers around from time to time and that they know where he lives.  If they start bullying him for info, sure he's likely to give it up with a smile (even though he doesn't like being bullied and won't think of the adventurers in a friendly way henceforth).  If you are Intimidating someone you don't know who could bolt, you'd best back them into a corner, literally or figuratively.

This is one of the results of the disassociation of mechanics from RPing.  What do you guys think that Intimidating someone is?  It has consequences.  It manifests as immediate and also longterm results.  NPCs won't like being Intimidated and will resist it (they get an opposed roll) but if they succomb they will acquiesce for a time (grit their teeth and do what they must) until such time as they think they can remove themselves from being Intimidated.  Furthermore, they'll appeal to a higher authority if they can after the fact, like talking to the local guards if they believe that will help.  If any of the adventurers belong to a Good-aligned church and the person being Intimidated knows this or finds it out, you can bet they'll be stopping by to complain about what one of their members was doing.  You don't turn someone into a friend by threatening them, you only turn them into someone who will act as you expect them to act for as long as you have power over them and if they can remove themselves without risk from that situation, or with minimal risk, they will definitely do so.  This is also one of those situations where common sense and the rules happen to agree.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 16, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Naw, it's just always more effective to convince someone to do sonething on their own than to try and force them.



Sure, but isn't this handled by the fact that your Intimidation wears off over time and distance?



Mark CMG said:


> You don't turn someone into a friend by threatening them, you only turn them into someone who will act as you expect them to act for as long as you have power over them and if they can remove themselves without risk from that situation, or with minimal risk, they will definitely do so.



Sure. But on the line that I (following [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) am running, one consequence of a successful Intimidation check is that the NPC always judges it to be too risky to try and run while in the presence of the intimidating character.



Mark CMG said:


> This is also one of those situations where common sense and the rules happen to agree.



I don't disagree with this - it's just that I think that common sense has it that some victims of intimidation will be too cowed to flee, and _this_ is the state that a successful Intimidation check engenders in an NPC.



Mark CMG said:


> However, if you are intimidating someone by holding a gun to their head, they aren't like to risk trying to run away.



This works better with mook/minion rules, I think. In D&D, against a hit-point laden foe, it gives rise to questions similar to the jumping-over-a-cliff-to-escape tactic eg is the NPC allowed to metagame his/her hit point total? I'm curious as to how you (or others) run this.



Mark CMG said:


> This is one of the results of the disassociation of mechanics from RPing.  What do you guys think that Intimidating someone is?  It has consequences.



Of course. I don't disagree with this at all. In my own game, three of five PCs have social skills - one Diplomacy and (limited, magical) Bluff, one Bluff and Intimidation, and one Diplomacy and Initimidation. A frequent feature of social situations is the need to decide which skill to use, because that choice then ramifies through the rest of the encounter, not to mention downstream implications (like whether people love or hate/fear you!).

But I think this is orthogonal to the more narrow rules point. It doesn't undo consequences to have an Intimidation skill which, if used successfully, permits an NPC to be so cowed by fear that s/he won't run while in the presence of the fearful one.

I also think the "dissociation" point is a bit of a red herring here. I'm not talking about "dissociation". I'm talking about (i) a mechanic which, like dropping a foe to 0 hp, allows a player a degree of confidence in the stability/resilience of his/her PC's victory, and (ii) a fictional gloss on that which holds that an intimidated NPC is to cowed to flee.

Is there a concern that Intimidate adjudicated in this fashion becomes too strong? (I don't have a very good handle on this aspect of the balance of the 3E rules.)


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Sure. But on the line that I (following [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) am running, one consequence of a successful Intimidation check is that the NPC always judges it to be too risky to try and run while in the presence of the intimidating character.





That's simply not always the case and probably why it isn't part of the rule.




pemerton said:


> I'm not talking about "dissociation".





I am.  And why I am is because the rules you are adding to the actual rules automatically disassociates the rules from the situation.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 16, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> This is one of the results of the disassociation of mechanics from RPing.




I find it's easier to resolve the in-fiction action - what the PC says - than it is to resolve "I got a 25 on my Intimidate check."  I find that when I know how the PC is acting in the fiction, it's easier to determine if the NPC is going to bolt at the first opportunity or if he'll remain an ally of the PCs even when the PCs leave his presence.

This is how I run that sort of thing:

[sblock]As DM I role-play the NPC - get inside his head and try to figure out what he's all about.  If I'm unsure or have a creative block I'll roll on a table.  Reaction Rolls really help me out here.

When the players interact with my role-playing of the NPC via their PCs - through in-character dialogue - I simply role-play the NPC's reactions as I understand the NPC.

When I feel that I'm not sure how the NPC is going to react to something the PCs have said (or done - body language can be important) I ask for a check.  The check helps to inform my role-play of the NPC.

Since I use 4E, the NPC will remain obstinate until a certain number of successful checks have been made (ie. I use skill challenges).  I determine the number of successful checks by the NPC's Reaction, either by rolling on the Reaction Roll table or by assigning a value.  (I have some detailed rules about the default Reactions of NPCs and how those change over time based on the PC's actions.)[/sblock]


----------



## Imaro (Dec 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My own view is that the most important anchor between fiction and mechanics in 4e is keywords. So the *divine* keyword means something in the fiction - namely, that this particular character has been bestowed with power by the gods - and I think that creates scope within the fiction for NPCs to distinguish between a rogue or a knight who is lofty but not divinely empowered, and a "paladin" who is a divinely empowered warrior. The distinction between STR cleric and STR paladin, though, is not going to be one that can easily be drawn within the fiction. (On this account, blackguards are a fictional as well as metagame category - they are the armed and armoured STR guys who use power that is both divine and shadow!)




I don't know if I consider keywords to be *the* most important anchor between fiction and mechanics in 4e... but I can agree that some can/do differentiate classes (especially as concerns power source)from each other. 

On the other hand I think this view ignores the sum of the whole by only looking at the specific parts. A strength cleric isn't different from a strength paladin because of a keyword... it's different because the class has different abilities, skills, and so on. A paladin is not taught ritual casting, Healer's Lore or Healing Word... while a cleric was never trained to use plate armor, call down a divine challenge or have to be the same alignment as his deity. 



pemerton said:


> Of course, NPCs/monsters generally do not have power source keywords for their powers. Which makes identifying NPC "paladins" a bit trickier - some interpolation is required. Similar considerations arise in relation to paragon paths, which are often described in terms suggesting that there are orders of NPCs who follow the path, even though - mechanically - there is no obvious way to build such NPCs.




There is an NPC Paladin classs in DMG 1 we established this earlier in the thread...so as long as we don't narrow our criteria to "only keywords" it's quite easy to identify a NPC paladin... it's a character who the DM has built using the NPC Paladin class... so there is a mechanical way to build a Paladin NPC. Also, contrary to your assertion, DMG 1, while warning against it for every NPC, very much allows NPC's to be stated out as full characters... if they are considered by the DM to be important. So both of your points here seem a little off.



pemerton said:


> I think the game expects the participants to paper over the cracks a bit here. Is there anything important at stake here? To put it another way, is there any GM in the world who is going to blanche at a PC who is not built using the paladin class, but who fights with armour and weapons, who uses divine powers to do so (or at least to help with doing so), and who, in the fiction, calls him-/herself a paladin? Is there any real life GM who is going to insist that the player of that PC is doing it wrong, because you can only truly call yourself a paladin in the fiction if you are built using the paladin class?




First, I am not arguing for or against what any particular DM chooses or doesn't choose to do in their campaign (though I see nothing inherently wrong with playing up the fact that classes are discrete things, such as orders with specific training, skills and abilities in the world... for a good example of how this can be done check out the Earthdawn game.). What I was talking about were the default assumptions of the game... and IMO, the default assumptions seem to be that classes are actual archetypes in the gameworld akin to orders or disciplines, while builds are more specific concepts as opposed to packages of generic abilities.




pemerton said:


> Is a cavalier's embodiment of a virtue part of the fiction or not? Perhaps, a bit like a warlock's pact.




It's very much part of the fiction... as evidenced in the blackguard description and the mechanics as the cavaliers powers are based around whichever virtue he picks. Again any DM or player can reskin whatever they want but I am concerned with the default assumptions of the game... not whether they can or cannot be changed.



pemerton said:


> But this doesn't undermine my claim that, in the fiction, there is no inherent difference between a STR cleric and a STR paladin from the PHB. Neither has a class feature that singles them out as distinctively related to the metaphysics of the gameworld in the way that a cavlier's virtue or a warlock's pact does.




Well I can think of two fictional/mechanical differrences between the cleric and paladin...

1. A paladin must select a deity to serve... a cleric may select a god, pantheon or even philosophy. This right here creates a difference in both the gameworld fiction and mechanics of the two classes.

2. Paladins must have the same alignment as their deity when created... cleric's do not necessarily have to abide by this restriction if following an unaligned deity... or following a philosophy(which has no alignment).




pemerton said:


> I'm inclined to think that the same reasoning applies to the WIS cleric and Avenger. Invokers, on the other hand, do have an inherent difference (eg the impliments they use, and the reasons for that).




Again, an Avenger must serve a single deity... not a pantheon or a philosophy according to the class write up... also an unaligned avenger can serve any deity... an unaligned cleric cannot.



pemerton said:


> Among the Arcane PCs there are clear differences: spellbooks for wizards, bloodlines for sorcerers, pacts for warlocks, and the absence of any of these things for bards.




I see, so are you making the argument that ony some classes exist within the gameworld? That the designers/developers are inconsistant with their determination of this? Or what exactly? 



pemerton said:


> But the martial PCs in this respect are like the divine ones - there is no inherent fictional difference between a STR ranger, a warlord and a fighter, for example, or between a DEX ranger and a rogue. And given that it was fighters and rangers that were the main focus of the discussion upthread, I don't see that this discussion of paladins and blackguards undermines the points made in relation to them.




Actually this discussion (at least the one I was involved in) was about whether classes were overarching archetypes or just packages of generic abilities, and whether combat role should be tied to them... I think I've proven that classes aren't just generic packages when you really examine them, and you apparently agree at least as far as some of the classes go. Now my argument didn't specifically focus on Rangers and Fighters, and I think martial is harder to draw the distinction because it is concerned with the mundane and mostly defined by combat styles, weapon types and skills as opposed to service to otherworldly forces or ideals (divine) or magical power and the techniques of wielding it(arcane).

The first fictional/mechanical difference in martial characters would be their respective variance in skills. For some reason in order to be a highly skilled warrior I have to be a Rogue or Ranger...Fighters, and to a lesser extent Warlords just aren't trained in a diverse number of skills... mechanically this shouldn't be the case if they are just generic packages of abilities... however it very much speaks to the archetype of the combat focused(whether in melee or tactics) warrior... vs. the crafty hunter or clever rogue. 

The second fictional/mechanical difference is in fighting style/weapon use. You see this enforced by the builds available under each class as well as the weapons that can be used with the powers of the particular classes.

On a final note here's a line from the Rules Compendium, under Class and Race on page 76... Emphasis mine. It seems that either the developer and designers agree with the ascertion that classes are a specific thing in the gameworld or are just being sloppy with their language and the expression of ideas because the paragraph below equates clas with a particular vocation.

_The first decision to make in character creation is picking the characters class and race. Many different types of heroes inhabit the world: sneaky rogues, clever wizards, burly fighters and more. Race defines a character's basic appearance and natural talents, *and class is the character's vocation.*_


----------



## pemerton (Dec 17, 2011)

Imaro said:


> There is an NPC Paladin classs in DMG 1 we established this earlier in the thread...so as long as we don't narrow our criteria to "only keywords" it's quite easy to identify a NPC paladin... it's a character who the DM has built using the NPC Paladin class



I've GMed modules with NPCs described as paladins - Jaryn, the fallen paladin in Heathen, and duergar paladins of Asmodeus - and they haven't been built following the NPC builds in the DMG.

I think the designers adopt a slightly looser approach here.

(Other examples would be Paldemar and the gnoll leader in H2, who are a wizard and a warlock respectively, but don't strictly follow the DMG NPC build rules.)



Imaro said:


> 1. A paladin must select a deity to serve... a cleric may select a god, pantheon or even philosophy. This right here creates a difference in both the gameworld fiction and mechanics of the two classes.
> 
> 2. Paladins must have the same alignment as their deity when created... cleric's do not necessarily have to abide by this restriction if following an unaligned deity... or following a philosophy
> 
> ...



Yes, these are build rules. But I don't know that they draw distinctions in the gameworld. That is, I'm not sure that in the gameworld there is a ficitonal difference between a LG STR paladin of Bahamut and a LG STR cleric of Bahamut.



Imaro said:


> I see, so are you making the argument that ony some classes exist within the gameworld?



Yes.



Imaro said:


> That the designers/developers are inconsistant with their determination of this?



Probably this too. They produce a lot of text, and I think they expect individual groups to do their own thing with it to some extent at least.



Imaro said:


> The first fictional/mechanical difference in martial characters would be their respective variance in skills. For some reason in order to be a highly skilled warrior I have to be a Rogue or Ranger...Fighters, and to a lesser extent Warlords just aren't trained in a diverse number of skills... mechanically this shouldn't be the case if they are just generic packages of abilities... however it very much speaks to the archetype of the combat focused(whether in melee or tactics) warrior... vs. the crafty hunter or clever rogue.



I agree that the classes are designed to push in the sorts of ways you describe (crafty hunters, clever rogues etc). The utility powers also tend to support this. But I don't think there is anything in the mechanics-fiction relationship that would prevent a player trying to build against type. Whereas a warlock PC is of necessity, in the fiction, a pact-maker.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 17, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> That's simply not always the case and probably why it isn't part of the rule.



I agree that not every scared person is too scared to run away. Nor is every person incapacitated via weapon play unconscious and dying. But in the 3E and AD&D combat rules, there is no pathway to incapacitation by weapons other than to be unconscious and dying. And similarly, I'm suggesting that in 3E there may be no mechanical pathway to scaring an NPC other than to also cow them to such an extent that they do not flee while in your presence.



Mark CMG said:


> And why I am is because the rules you are adding to the actual rules automatically disassociates the rules from the situation.



I still don't agree. Like the combat rules, they don't "disassociate" from the situation. Rather, they permit only certain sorts of situations to emerge.

Another way to handle it (with respect to Intimidation) would be via degrees of success: "act as if friendly but will flee at the first opportunity", then for greater success "act as if friendly and too cowed to flee while in the intimidator's presence".


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree that not every scared person is too scared to run away.  (. . .) I'm suggesting that in 3E there may be no mechanical pathway to scaring an NPC other than to also cow them to such an extent that they do not flee while in your presence.





My only point is that Intimidate does not prevent someone from removing themselves from your presence.




pemerton said:


> I still don't agree. Like the combat rules, they don't "disassociate" from the situation. Rather, they permit only certain sorts of situations to emerge.





That doesn't change the fact of the matter.




pemerton said:


> Another way to handle it (with respect to Intimidation) would be via degrees of success: "act as if friendly but will flee at the first opportunity", then for greater success "act as if friendly and too cowed to flee while in the intimidator's presence".





Any given GM can determine the circumstances and decide that a victim will flee, sneak away, or do something else to remove themselves from the presence of an Intimidator.  A GM is also welcome to rule that no one will ever do so, but that GM is not bound by a rule to adjudicate in that manner.


Shall we let the thread get back on topic, since I agree that individual GMs can do as they wish and since your posts are saying the same and suggesting some nuanced approaches that amount to the same thing?


----------

