4E Charcter roles- The Leader as healer? [Archive]

Nota Biene

2007-08-31, 11:10 AM

Over on wizards, their is a new article on 4e "character roles." I'm having trouble linking it at the moment, but it is right at the top of the "features" section of D&D.

Anyway, what does everyone think? The "leader" role seems to include the cleric's healing function, and bards will be able to use music to recover hp, hinting it would seem that hp is now a function of moral or some similar idea. Also, one of the new races seems to be warforged- I don't approve, warforged always seemed to clash outside of the "magic as technology" aesthetic of Eberron.:smallfrown:

Any thoughts?

Ceres

2007-08-31, 11:19 AM

I don't really have any thoughts on the leader functioning as a healer, but I'm very interested in knowing why you think the warforged will be a core race. Please link to your source.

Starbuck_II

2007-08-31, 11:22 AM

Skyserpent

2007-08-31, 11:35 AM

Warforged being included in Core? While believable, I'd also like to know your source on that. Not to say it wouldn't be fun, and not to say you HAVE to have them in your campaign world.

Nota Biene

2007-08-31, 11:50 AM

Okay, guys, as I said, I am not good at linking, hence my description of where the source was located, however, I'll give it another shot:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/2007831a

My source for the warforged is the fact that the fourth edition playtesters are playing one in a 4E game. Maybe they are using a supplemental rule, but the context of the article implied, at leas to me, that it was core. The reason I don't like intelligent golems is that it defeats the profound contradiction of golemhood: a body, and the semblance of an intelligence, without a soul. The question of "just what makes a soul, and can an artifical being have one?" I also profound, but it it is a question more in line with science fiction, at least from my experience. Yes, I know that D&D isn't a literary excercise, but I'm still a bit of a mythological traditionalist, as a matter of personal preference. I know I could ban warforged in games I DM, but as a player, the thought of my wizard, cleric, or rogue adventuring alongside Commander Data is jarring (and I love Commander Data, by the way.)

Horay, the link worked!

Draz74

2007-08-31, 11:56 AM

I didn't think "Core-only" was implied in the article.

I like the idea of the Bard having an actual role, along with every class, and the idea that divine casters are no longer the only competent "leader" classes. I hope there's significantly more to the "leader" role than just healing, though.

HP being the abstract system that they are, they have partially represented morale at LEAST since Tome of Battle (Crusader healing maneuvers), and arguably much longer.

Larrin

2007-08-31, 12:01 PM

warforged have been mentioned in many playtest articles, but many of the WotC staff (blogs and posts) have cautioned that not everything mentioned in playtests is core. At the very least, warforged seem to have gotten a tenative upgrade to 4e, but i'm betting on them not showing up until either the monster manuel or Eberron handbook. Just because these guys are testing 4e doesn't mean they want to be limited to core, they're pretty much like most gamers.

That said, i'm liking what i'm hearing about leaders. They get to wade into battle AND buff their followers at the same time. Imagine not spending time to run across an AoO minefield to the injuered wizard to try and patch up his d4s, or taking the first three rounds of an ambush to cast bless, aid, bull str etc. I like it. the tone of the article makes it sound ALOT like bard won't be in the initial release (he say things like "When the bard does show up" and the like) which is too bad, but i doubt he'll stay away for too long (and i'm betting he'll have the monk to keep him company :p).

Anyway, i'm looking forward to trying out the leader (though i'll probably favor the striker classes) as it sounds like a great way to support the group AND kill stuff at the same time.

Person_Man

2007-08-31, 12:02 PM

Here's the link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a&authentic=true) to the party role article. It requires that you login to the site.

So, according to the James Wyatt's interview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3440334479819323&q=James+Wyatt++interview&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0), this breaks down to:

Leader: Cleric, Warlord
Striker: Rogue, Ranger
Controller: Wizard, Unnamed Class
Defender: Fighter, Paladin

I'm guessing this translates into:

Leader: Buff and heal
Striker: Skills and ranged attacks
Controller: Blasting and battlefield control magic
Defender: Close combat meat shields

They've also said that many of your favorite classes that don't make it in the first year will be released in expansions, though they'll presumably always fit into one of these four roles. Though a few (notably the Scout, which is "killed" by the new Ranger, who takes his abilities) are rolled into existing classes.

Also, I think we already have a thread on this subject somewhere.

Funkyodor

2007-08-31, 12:52 PM

From reading the playtesting notes, it appears that they were doing a 3.5 campaign and then got the task to do some 4th ed playtesting. Instead of making up brand new lvl 1 players and going from scratch, they slammed their existing class/race combos into 4th ed as good as they could figure, changing and tweaking classes to fit as they go (which is probably what alot of people will have to do once 4th ed comes out). While I don't agree this is a good playtest ideal, it is important to determine adaptation rules. Until they come out and say "4th Edition AD&D Players Handbook will include X races and Y classes." I'm gonna say "Neat..." and continue to try and get games together for our 1st, 2nd, and 3.x edition hybrid homebrew games.

Larrin

2007-08-31, 01:54 PM

Here's the link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a&authentic=true)
I'm guessing this translates into:

Leader: Buff and heal
Striker: Skills and ranged attacks
Controller: Blasting and battlefield control magic
Defender: Close combat meat shields

I think you have the leader and defender dead on, but i recall hearing strikers described as "being able to hit one target really hard and then running away" so while defenders will jump into a melee and start swinging at everybody, strikers find a target, set up a hit, then nail them in the kidneys, then get out of harms way. they could do this with ranged attacks or melee depending on build, and its possible that that they'll only be coincidentally skill monkeys (or maybe skills will be part of how they set up the strike)

anyway, it sounds like sneak attack isn't going to be a rogues only way of putting the hurt on!

and for controllers, i doubt they'll need to be magic, but magic will be the logical choice for area of effect, long range, status affecting attacks that one can use to control the field, so i wouldn't be surprised if the first few controllers we see are magical (If you read the most recent play test about a group fighting some goblins and wolves you see the wizard perform a "wizard's strike" which aside from being hit by the wizards staff, also pushed the wolves away from characters, ie helping control the battlefield, as level 1 wizard contributing to melee combat!)

Skyserpent

2007-08-31, 01:57 PM

Dausuul

2007-08-31, 02:19 PM

I wouldn't be too worried about the warforged. If you read it over, you'll notice that one of the PCs is a friggin' eladrin. Not an aasimar or a half-celestial or anything, but an actual eladrin.

Somehow I doubt eladrin are a core race.

Aquillion

2007-08-31, 02:22 PM

Hey, wait... so they bumped the Monk out of core? I'd missed that part. I was always calling for them to do that, but I didn't expect it to actually happen...

UserClone

2007-08-31, 02:28 PM

Nevermind Eladrin, where are people getting the "fact" that Tieflings are a core race in 4E? From the PHB cover? Art doth not the core rules make, IMO.

ALOR

2007-08-31, 02:33 PM

Somehow I doubt eladrin are a core race.

I agree. It makes me wonder, if they are play testing 4e shouldn't they be using the CORE rules rather than using non core stuff? :smallconfused:

Dausuul

2007-08-31, 02:41 PM

Hey, wait... so they bumped the Monk out of core? I'd missed that part. I was always calling for them to do that, but I didn't expect it to actually happen...

Yeah, apparently monks only get to be a core class in odd-numbered editions. :smallbiggrin:

TheOOB

2007-08-31, 02:54 PM

Hey, wait... so they bumped the Monk out of core? I'd missed that part. I was always calling for them to do that, but I didn't expect it to actually happen...

I don't recall them ever saying for sure if monk is or isn't core. There is a good chance there will be an option to turn a fighter into an unarmed class, which would make more sense then having the monk as it's own class.

Morty

2007-08-31, 02:56 PM

I just hope they don't limit archers to rogues and rangers, which Person Man's theory seems to imply.

Skyserpent

2007-08-31, 03:07 PM

I don't recall them ever saying for sure if monk is or isn't core. There is a good chance there will be an option to turn a fighter into an unarmed class, which would make more sense then having the monk as it's own class.

Agreed, as much as I like Monks, I think the Swordsage Unarmed Variant was really a much better version of our good ol' wire-fu badass.

Falconsflight

2007-08-31, 03:09 PM

Nevermind Eladrin, where are people getting the "fact" that Tieflings are a core race in 4E? From the PHB cover? Art doth not the core rules make, IMO.

There is a thread called "4e: Collection of Facts" either on the first or second page of this board. On it, there are a bunch of links attributing to the fact that Teiflings are supposed to be a Core race.

But actually, From the way the other article was written, (The one where they are level 1's, looking for goblins, fighting wolves and them.) It sounds like a brand spanking new campaign made for 4th edition. And there is an eladrin and Warforged.Now, since I highly doubt they have anythign beyond the PH, MM, and DMG, It seems Eladrin and Warforged are Core or are one of the few "Monster" races allowed to PC's.

Now for ontopic talk: I remember an older article, I think it was one of the first mentioning a combat in 4E, The Cleric attacked the dragon, thus healing the Wizard or somethign along those lines. I guess this is the explanation for that ability. Which I think is really cool. It helps you have the "Healing Cleric" without needing that to be your primary use.

Jarlax

2007-09-01, 09:15 AM

as far as the races go, if you listen to the D&D podcasts you might be aware that the wizards staff have a habit for home brewing a LOT in their campaigns. classes, races, even new caster systems for wizards and clerics (one DM completely reworked spells to have 19-20 spell levels instead of 9). so it is not strange that they might choose to incorporate a few non core races as part of their 4E testing. especially since warforged will have to be addressed sooner or later for the eberron 4E books, so it might as well be during core testing.

as for the class roles. there not really anything new, we have always had tanks(defenders), healers(leaders), casters(controllers) and skill monkeys(strikers).

the leader role is really pleasing. what i am hearing from wizards for bards is exactly what they needed. there was nothing wrong mechanically with the class, except that bard songs wasted actions. it was the fluff around the class of a lame lute playing sissy that NO-ONE wants to be playing in a combat heavy game that was holding it back from being that really useful 5th man class. im guessing that the warlord takes up the bards former role, using his leadership in combat to provide better buffs than a cleric but less healing power in combat.

Matthew

2007-09-01, 09:25 AM

I think Jarlax has the right of it, there. They weren't playing 4e, but a Homebrewed D&D Game which incorporated a bunch of new 4e Rules. Drawing conclusions about which Races are available from that is unwise.

That said, I hate the new titles: 'Defender, Leader, Controller and Striker'. Don't really know why, they just rub me the wrong way. I also find the idea of a Cleric healing his companion by hitting a Monster loathesome. Still, it's unsurprising that there are going to be things about 4e that I don't like. even if I were the one designing it, I bet there would be things I wouldn't like. :smallwink:

Beleriphon

2007-09-01, 09:34 AM

That said, I hate the new titles: 'Defender, Leader, Controller and Striker'. Don't really know why, they just rub me the wrong way. I also find the idea of a Cleric healing his companion by hitting a Monster loathesome. Still, it's unsurprising that there are going to be things about 4e that I don't like. even if I were the one designing it, I bet there would be things I wouldn't like. :smallwink:

Keep in mind that the "titles" aren't titles, or even classes. They are character roles that the design team is using to determine how a particular class will fit in with a group. Thus a controller could be a cleric, wizard, ranger, paladin, fighter, rogue, etc. so long as he performs the "controller" role, while the "striker" could be any of those provided it performs the "striker" role. I'm sure that the rogue and the ranger will be better "strikers" than a paladin who presumably makes a better defender or leader, but that doesn't mean that those roles can't be exchanged between party members.

Mewtarthio

2007-09-01, 09:46 AM

That said, I hate the new titles: 'Defender, Leader, Controller and Striker'. Don't really know why, they just rub me the wrong way. I also find the idea of a Cleric healing his companion by hitting a Monster loathesome.

I'm fairly certain that the class roles won't be mentioned in any WotC material save that which directly relates to the design process. I recall a recent article on monsters (which now use a similar role system) that stated WotC designers intentionally use jarring, modern-sounding terms to ensure that nothing bleeds over into the fluff.

Also, I'm not sure if a Cleric can heal his companion by hitting a monster. It may very well be that a Cleric heals his companion while hitting a monster. That being said, HP is now apparently going to be tied to morale, so that would make a bit more sense.

Fhaolan

2007-09-01, 09:46 AM

Beleriphon

2007-09-01, 09:54 AM

I do hope they don't regiment the roles too much. Otherwise you'll get the situation where the players have to sacrifice their character concepts to fit the required roles.

"I want to play something like a Mongol horse archer."

"We've already got a Striker. You have to play a Defender."

"What about me? What roles are left?"

"There are four roles, and we've already got four players. Sorry. You'll have to sit this one out."

WotC wouldn't write it that way, of course, but sometimes players do take things a bit literally.

I hate to do this, but I suspect its going to be similar to the MMO style of raiding in terms of concept. To take WoW as an example: a properly specced druid, paladin or warrior can all be quite passable tanks in a dungeon. A rogue, warlock or mage are all DPS classes, while the shaman and hunter are sort of in between filling in as necessary and the priest is a healer. That said a paladin can make a very, very good healer as can a shaman or druid. A shaman can be a very good damage dealer just like a warrior and oddly enough a priest. In the long run there are roles that some classes default to because that is where they are strongest, but that doesn't mean they are the only roles a particular class can play in game. It seems that this is the design aesthetic going on with 4E. Now, that isn't to say its going to be as strict as an MMO (I sincerely hope it isn't), but the basic concept holds. In fact it holds well enough that most groups take on similar roles by default when they play ever since D&D first came out.

Jarlax

2007-09-01, 09:55 AM

I do hope they don't regiment the roles too much. Otherwise you'll get the situation where the players have to sacrifice their character concepts to fit the required roles.

"I want to play something like a Mongol horse archer."

"We've already got a Striker. You have to play a Defender."

"What about me? What roles are left?"

"There are four roles, and we've already got four players. Sorry. You'll have to sit this one out."

WotC wouldn't write it that way, of course, but sometimes players do take things a bit literally.

thats the problem i have always had with WOW and other MMOs, the game comes to a standstill every time you don't have someone filling every role if your short a tank or healer you just don't do the dungeon.

but i think these classes will be about as flexible as they are in 3.5 like the article says, you will be able to play without every role, it will just make some fights harder. i think the idea in 4E is to make those classes like bard and cleric that often turn into a healing drone or a buffing machine into something that gets to mix it up in combat almost as often as the wizard or fighter, in other words make the classes more appealing so people want to play all the different roles.

however the article also hints that if your the type of player who doesn't mind being a dedicated healer, that option is open to you at high levels as well rewarding your dedication to the team with superior healing abilities. just like the radiant servant prestige.

Pokemaster

2007-09-01, 10:14 AM

Matthew

2007-09-01, 10:27 AM

Keep in mind that the "titles" aren't titles, or even classes. They are character roles that the design team is using to determine how a particular class will fit in with a group. Thus a controller could be a cleric, wizard, ranger, paladin, fighter, rogue, etc. so long as he performs the "controller" role, while the "striker" could be any of those provided it performs the "striker" role. I'm sure that the rogue and the ranger will be better "strikers" than a paladin who presumably makes a better defender or leader, but that doesn't mean that those roles can't be exchanged between party members.

I dunno about that. James Wyatt seemed fairly clear on the subject. The four roles even appear to roughly correspond to Warrior, Wizard, Rogue and Priest. It would be nice if any Character Class could fill a particular role, but that's not the vibe I am getting off them.

I'm fairly certain that the class roles won't be mentioned in any WotC material save that which directly relates to the design process. I recall a recent article on monsters (which now use a similar role system) that stated WotC designers intentionally use jarring, modern-sounding terms to ensure that nothing bleeds over into the fluff.

Well, let's hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find this terminology in the Core Books.

Also, I'm not sure if a Cleric can heal his companion by hitting a monster. It may very well be that a Cleric heals his companion while hitting a monster. That being said, HP is now apparently going to be tied to morale, so that would make a bit more sense.

I think it's fairly clear from the example that it is a case of Attack a Monster to restore Hit points to a Party Member, though the exact mechanic is not described. I could be wrong, but that's what seems to have been said in that Dragon Article.

Dreamwolf

2007-09-01, 10:38 AM

They seem pretty intent on making sure that no class can be 'outdone' in their own role, which is something I tend to support. Anyone who played a fighter in 3.5 has seen situations where the cleric is the better tank, or has seen that the druid can be just as effective a tank while still casting spells.
The way I read it, you can choose to play a character with a role that isn't he primary role of his class, but he will be less effective in that role than someone else. A cleric can still play defender if he so chooses, but he won't do it as well as the fighter. A ranger could potentially be a controller if he focuses his skills on controlling the battlefield, but he won't be as good at it as a wizard of the same level.

Starsinger

2007-09-01, 10:43 AM

I do hope they don't regiment the roles too much. Otherwise you'll get the situation where the players have to sacrifice their character concepts to fit the required roles.

"I want to play something like a Mongol horse archer."

"We've already got a Striker. You have to play a Defender."

"What about me? What roles are left?"

"There are four roles, and we've already got four players. Sorry. You'll have to sit this one out."

WotC wouldn't write it that way, of course, but sometimes players do take things a bit literally.

We settled on crucial roles rather than on necessary roles. 4th Edition has mechanics that allow groups that want to function without a Leader, or without a member of the other three roles, to persevere. Adventuring is usually easier if the group includes a Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller, but none of the four roles is absolutely essential. Groups that double or triple up on one role while leaving other roles empty are going to face different challenges. They’ll also have different strengths. That’s the type of experiment you’ll be running in eight months. Before then, we’ll have more to say about the other roles.

Maybe the MM will say stuff like "This monster is significantly harder without a Leader" or "This monster is much easier if you have a Controller." Y'know, instead of 3.5 which is just made on the assumption that you have the 4 classes they want you to have.

Draz74

2007-09-01, 10:49 AM

I just hope they don't limit archers to rogues and rangers, which Person Man's theory seems to imply.

I really hope there's more room for customization of classes all-around than these "quick" theories are implying.

A Fighter really should be able to be a controller or striker, in addition to a defender, if he picks the right maneuvers.

A Wizard should definitely be able to be a decent striker if she learns the right spells.

Not every class has to be able to fill every role. I'm fine if the Rogue can't be much of a defender (and I can't imagine how a Rogue would be a great controller either). Sometimes roles should be possible to an unusual class, but only if you have especially high ability scores (a Ranger with high enough Con can be a defender, etc.)

Green Bean

2007-09-01, 11:09 AM

I do hope they don't regiment the roles too much. Otherwise you'll get the situation where the players have to sacrifice their character concepts to fit the required roles.

"I want to play something like a Mongol horse archer."

"We've already got a Striker. You have to play a Defender."

"What about me? What roles are left?"

"There are four roles, and we've already got four players. Sorry. You'll have to sit this one out."

WotC wouldn't write it that way, of course, but sometimes players do take things a bit literally.

Thing is, you can get that here in 3.5 as it is.

"I want to play a wizard."

"We've already got an arcanist. You'll have to be a cleric."

"What about me?"

"We can't take a fifth player; it'll throw off all of the CRs. You'll have to sit this one out."

Certain classes are going to be just plain better at certain roles. A fighter is a decent frontliner (at early levels) right out of the box. You'd have to be one heck of a character builder to do that with a low-level wizard. I think all of this talk of 'Strikers', and 'Defenders' is simply a label for what role a class is easiest to build for; you could build a frontline rogue, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the simplest build.

horseboy

2007-09-01, 12:09 PM

Why? Don't we use golems in D&D... I think Golems have existed since first edition.
Living (intelligent) Golems: while new, aren't impossible.

Not really new (http://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=fullsize&issue=33164653214%202) either. Halaruaa or Thay could have some. Is it a good idea? Well, this is D&D we're talking about. It's not like they're known for good ideas.

Orzel

2007-09-01, 02:21 PM

To me it seems like the roles are:

Leader: Empower the group (buffs, heals, and cures)
Striker: Cause large chunks of damage (sneak attacks, skirmishes, favored enemy, rapid shots, TWF)
Controller: Depower the enemy (debuffs, battlefield control, major condition placement)
Defender: Combat survival and reliable damage (high AP and HP, good base damage, minor condition placement)

Each role aids the party but each one isn't needed. For example there could be some kind of huge constructs that has saves and resistances too high to be effected by a controller but is easily defeated if you have a defender to stand in front of him so the rest of the group can gang kill it. If your party has two strikers, a controller, and a leader; you could fake it with whoever has the best defenses and have the leader focus his buffs/heals on him. OR buff the two strikers with the leader and pray the controller's debuffs stick. OR buff the controller with the leader and while the strikers have the construct chase them monkey in the middle style.

You have 4 roles but you don't need all of them. Like the RTS race with poor air, your strength lies somewhere else... like your near invincible cheap infantry.

Jarlax

2007-09-01, 07:23 PM

Maybe the MM will say stuff like "This monster is significantly harder without a Leader" or "This monster is much easier if you have a Controller." Y'know, instead of 3.5 which is just made on the assumption that you have the 4 classes they want you to have.

i don't know that it will explicitly say "this encounter is hard without X role" but i think it will be clear in its own way. using current rules, a creature with godly DR/- requires a controller because their spells don't rely on DR. or it will be a long winded battle trying to get enough damage to overcome the damage reduction

the same goes with a creature with a high SR. if you don't have a striker the role that deals more physical damage then the battle is more difficult because your controller is out of action and your other roles don't deal that same high level of damage as a striker.

and obviously lacking a leader means less heals and buffs, so it makes combat in general more difficult and places more importance on healing wands and potions to survive.

Hawriel

2007-09-01, 10:04 PM

Draz74

2007-09-01, 11:08 PM

Im just wondering why being a leader has to be a class feacher. Any character regardless of class have leadership potential. Its a total roll playing thing. yes I am aware of the leadership feat. Back in second ed even though there was a rule for gaining followers it still was considered a rollplaying dependand trait.

[Scrubbed]

Yes, experienced roleplayers will quickly determine that you are right. Real leadership ability is based on a character's Charisma score, any Leadership-like feats he has, and (most of all) his individual personality and the way he is played. Not his class.

So what would you call the "buff and heal" guy instead of "leader"? Not that it really matters what the players call it. The actual characters, in-game, might understand "leader, controller, defender, striker" even less than they understand "Swashbuckler, Knight, Batman wizard, and Swordsage."

Renegade Paladin

2007-09-01, 11:36 PM

CasESenSITItiVE

2007-09-01, 11:49 PM

Jarlax

2007-09-02, 12:04 AM

Yes, experienced roleplayers will quickly determine that you are right. Real leadership ability is based on a character's Charisma score, any Leadership-like feats he has, and (most of all) his individual personality and the way he is played. Not his class.

these are not separate things though. the cleric and bard classes which fit the leader description have always used CHA as a class stat and also come with most of the social skills as class skills, this is unlikely to change in 4E if these classes are expected to fit the leader role.

while in an individual party any class could become the party Faceman, the PC who always does the talking, those classes in the leader role are the best equipped to do it with the skills and the stats as a natural function of their class.

Starsinger

2007-09-02, 01:15 AM

while in an individual party any class could become the party Faceman, the PC who always does the talking, those classes in the leader role are the best equipped to do it with the skills and the stats as a natural function of their class.

Purely mechanically, Fighters have a hard time being faces simply because they have 2 skill points and face skills are cross class. Likewise a Cleric is most likely the face due to being the only one with a decent charisma score.

But I agree with everyone who says that "Leader" is probably a title, and that the class isn't necessarily the leader of the party.

Orzel

2007-09-02, 01:53 AM

Plus the terms PC roles shown are mostly combat roles. Things like party face and lockpick are "noncombat roles" based on optional items within the class via skill and spell choice.

Fhaolan

2007-09-02, 02:33 AM

Thing is, you can get that here in 3.5 as it is.

True, and I have experienced that. Which I why I'm concerned about it possibly become even more entrenched in 4th edition.

As editions have come and gone, players have been given more options, more choices, and more freedom to play the characters they *want* instead of what the game requires of them. However, with the last few editions it really looks like the game structure itself is requiring players to move back to the old Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric, and Thief quartet to play the game. These new terms really do just look like different labels for the exact same roles as the original D&D (plus Greyhawk, as Thief wasn't in the first version until the Greyhawk suppliment was published.)

Orzel

2007-09-02, 02:58 AM

True, and I have experienced that. Which I why I'm concerned about it possibly become even more entrenched in 4th edition.

As editions have come and gone, players have been given more options, more choices, and more freedom to play the characters they *want* instead of what the game requires of them. However, with the last few editions it really looks like the game structure itself is requiring players to move back to the old Fighting Man, Magic User, Cleric, and Thief quartet to play the game. These new terms really do just look like different labels for the exact same roles as the original D&D (plus Greyhawk, as Thief wasn't in the first version until the Greyhawk suppliment was published.)

The fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard happened because you needed them. Only rogue classes could sneak around well and only wizards flew. Leader/striker/defender/controller are combat roles. You don't need any one of them because every class has a decent combat role now. Before an all fighting guy team didn't usually work because you lacked skills and spells. Now you could have 2 rogues and 2 wizards without cheeseing because rogues and wizards can do stuff in combat except "end it or die".

They finally separated combat and noncombat roles and I'm happy.

Matthew

2007-09-02, 07:51 AM

The fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard happened because you needed them. Only rogue classes could sneak around well and only wizards flew. Leader/striker/defender/controller are combat roles. You don't need any one of them because every class has a decent combat role now. Before an all fighting guy team didn't usually work because you lacked skills and spells. Now you could have 2 rogues and 2 wizards without cheeseing because rogues and wizards can do stuff in combat except "end it or die".

They finally separated combat and noncombat roles and I'm happy.

I'm not really following you here. In what way did they finally seperate noncombat and combat roles?

Zincorium

2007-09-02, 07:56 AM

I'm not really following you here. In what way did they finally seperate noncombat and combat roles?

I think he's looking optimistically at the choice each class will have as to what combat role to play, it's doable if WotC is sufficiently interested.

If a wizard can be a striker, controller, or leader, and the rogue can also fill multiple roles, then while you probably won't have all roles (tank would be a stretch), wotc has stated that's okay.

With malleable combat roles, you wouldn't have to be a bard to be a leader, you could just be a paladin with the right feats or abilities. That'd be kind of nice if it didn't detract from the game in other ways, I personally don't think it's worth much in trade.

Matthew

2007-09-02, 09:42 AM

Okay, but at what point have Wizards indicated that any Class can fill any Role? All I have heard so far is that certain Classes are associated with certain Roles [Ranger and Rogue with Striker, Paladin and Fighter with Defender, etc...]; was there an Article, Blog or Post about this that I missed?

Orzel

2007-09-02, 10:09 AM

I was referencing to classes that can do tons of noncombat things like constant back flips, instant poetry, and turn invisible but can't help the party kill anything important without investing 75% of their nonbonus feats. By creating combat roles and applying them to each class we might not get a bunch of "3/4 BAB classes with tons of skill points, weapon finesse, and a bow who hog the spotlight whenever the party isn't in combat".

Starbuck_II

2007-09-02, 02:33 PM

The reason I don't like intelligent golems is that it defeats the profound contradiction of golemhood: a body, and the semblance of an intelligence, without a soul.

No, Golemhood is: one body, 1 elemental spirit, and semblance odf intelligence (with a soul technically).

Golems always had a soul, but it wasn't in 100% in control.

The question of "just what makes a soul, and can an artifical being have one?" I also profound, but it it is a question more in line with science fiction, at least from my experience. Yes, I know that D&D isn't a literary excercise, but I'm still a bit of a mythological traditionalist, as a matter of personal preference. I know I could ban warforged in games I DM, but as a player, the thought of my wizard, cleric, or rogue adventuring alongside Commander Data is jarring (and I love Commander Data, by the way.)

Horay, the link worked!
Well, since Golems have elemental spirits (all do): they have souls.

Ceres

2007-09-02, 03:12 PM

Just a thought: We have four roles (Leader, striker, controller, defender) and three power sources (martial, divine and arcane) as well as psionic, which is soon to come. When combining roles and power sources we get an interesting table. I've taken the liberty to speculating about where the different classes will fit in this grid. Please feel free to change or add to it if you think you can fill in the blanks, or think of any 3e classes that don't fit in the grid:

CLASSES
{table=head] |Martial|Divine|Arcane|Psionic

Leader|
Warlord|
Cleric|
Bard|
?

Striker|
Rogue|
Ranger|
?|
Soulknife

Controller|
?|
Druid|
Wizard|
Psion

Defender|
Fighter|
Paladin|
Duskblade|
Psychic Warrior[/table]

horseboy

2007-09-02, 04:10 PM

CLASSES
{table=head] |Martial|Divine|Arcane|Psionic

Leader|
Warlord|
Cleric|
Bard|
?

Striker|
Rogue|
Ranger|
?|
Soulknife

Controller|
?|
Druid|
Wizard|
Psion

Defender|
Fighter|
Paladin|
Duskblade|
Psychic Warrior[/table]

Well, if they're still there, the trip fighters would be a controller, wouldn't they? It is one of the more popular fighter builds, so maybe there's going to be a new class, or the monk will become it. Speculation is always fun.

Kurald Galain

2007-09-02, 04:26 PM

Arcane striker == warlock.

But I doubt having sixteen classes in the core rulebook (or indeed, anywhere) is a good idea.

Ceres

2007-09-02, 04:34 PM

Arcane striker == warlock.

But I doubt having sixteen classes in the core rulebook (or indeed, anywhere) is a good idea.

All of these will certainly not be in the core rulebooks. Psionics won't be around 'till later, and from what I've read it's unlikely that the druid, bard or duskblade will be included from the get go. However, power sources and roles appears to be the two factors in WotC's design philosophy on classes, and guessing what kinds of classes might fit the differant roles can be a fun mental exercise while waiting for more crunch :smallsmile:

Indon

2007-09-02, 04:38 PM

I hate to do this, but I suspect its going to be similar to the MMO style of raiding in terms of concept. To take WoW as an example: a properly specced druid, paladin or warrior can all be quite passable tanks in a dungeon.

This is the part of this 'role' prospect that fills me with dread.

WoW is a great game, but I'd never want to play anything like it (mechanically) as a tabletop with my friends.

There might be some way to correctly implement the role concept while still maintaining the versatility of character creation already present in the game, and without aggrivating the already-bad MMO mentality that every group needs just one person per function... but I don't see it happening.

Aximili

2007-09-02, 05:06 PM

All of these will certainly not be in the core rulebooks. Psionics won't be around 'till later, and from what I've read it's unlikely that the druid, bard or duskblade will be included from the get go.
Druids have been mentioned during an interview. Though that's nothing definitive.

There might be some way to correctly implement the role concept while still maintaining the versatility of character creation already present in the game, and without aggrivating the already-bad MMO mentality that every group needs just one person per function... but I don't see it happening.
According to the guys at wizards, there is, and that's what they're going for. They say that MMORPG has learned a lot from table top and that table top does have a few things to learn from MMO.

However, they say, D&D is far from becoming a table top version for WoW, so I'm gonna trust them on this one and not worry about it.:smallbiggrin:

And about the roles: in my group, we rarely ever had all the roles filled for the campaigns, and we managed to go along (though we didn't get to defeat monsters of CR four levels above our own).
Their previsions for 4e is that the roles, though helpful, will be less mandatory.

Beleriphon

2007-09-02, 07:22 PM

There might be some way to correctly implement the role concept while still maintaining the versatility of character creation already present in the game, and without aggrivating the already-bad MMO mentality that every group needs just one person per function... but I don't see it happening.

Group do this anyways, without or without an "MMO mentality" think about it for a second. What was the first edition party like? An elf, a warrior, a spell-caster, and a theif-acrobat. Second Edition? Fighter, thief, mage, and priest. Third Edition? Figher, cleric, rogue and a wizard.

The difference is that WotC is simply making it abundantly clear that these are roles that player took in a D&D group anyways and just clearly implementing that into the game. WoW is very different in that is has an extremely stratified way of doing things. You can beat certain encounters in that game without a certain group setup, in come cases needing a character of a specific class with a specific build with specific items for the optimum advantage. This doesn't really translate into D&D beyond the concept that a rogue is probably going to fill the damage dealing role the easiest, while a cleric is clearly going to be have the easiest time healing the group. Could a rogue heal the group? Probably if they had a wand with healing spells. Could a cleric do the same thing as a rogue? Probably with the correct selection of skills, feats and spells. However just because each class can fill multiple roles doesn't invalidate the concept that certain roles are filled in a group.

DSCrankshaw

2007-09-02, 07:22 PM

Nota Biene

2007-09-02, 07:27 PM

No, Golemhood is: one body, 1 elemental spirit, and semblance odf intelligence (with a soul technically).

Golems always had a soul, but it wasn't in 100% in control.

Well, since Golems have elemental spirits (all do): they have souls.

Excuse me Starbuck II, perhaps I should have been more clear. My description of golemhood was in reference to my understanding of golems in their original source material, not in D&D mythology. Their creation is a scary concept in that context, since it seems to smack of "playing God." I'm not an expert in mythology, however, so if someone wanted to correct any errors on my part, or recommend a good reference book on the topic, that would be cool.

In terms of party roles, I'd love to see a 4.0 duskblade, probably in the "striker" role. That would allow the tradition of the 1st edition elf to continue, and let V style arcanists continue to blast even as if wizards get placed more in the battlefield control slot- though the reference to "wizard blasts" seems to indicate they won't be all webs and slow spells.

Jarlax

2007-09-02, 07:43 PM

im beginning to doubt wizard's wisdom in releasing information about class roles. i think it is creating more confusion than anything else.

from the evidence presented in articles so far the concept of Roles is a purely design mechanic built to reflect the class roles players nominated themselves in 3.5. the tank is a defender, healer is now leader, caster is controller and skillmonkey is striker.

they are only titles given to a group of similar classes in the hopes of first, balancing the number of classes that fit each role in the core rulebooks and second to help define (but not restrict) what a class should be able to do to in its role. this is the same idea as the roles used to design the monsters in MM5 Link Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070727a)

for example being a defender does not mean a Fighter has to be designed to only stand and take damage. it means that he get a d10 or D12 worth of HP per level and have proficiently in all amours. the rest of the mechanics don't matter because the fighter now fits the defender role, high durability in battle.

he can take whips to help control battle, greatswords to try and do more damage than the strikers or a sword and shield to emphasize his role as a defender. because his weapon isn't the part that makes him a defender. its his high health and good armor.

Talya

2007-09-02, 07:53 PM

The "class role" system seems rather rigid, like an MMO design. I hope I'm wrong. 3.5's flexibility is wonderful, it surpasses every previous edition.

Star Wars Saga edition is fun for star wars, but very light on the customization and optimization. I get the impression a lot of the design decisions they used for Saga edition are also being worked into D&D 4.0.

Now, I'm not one to hate change just because it's change. I HATED AD&D with a passion, 3.0 was improved but rough, 3.5 was ideal.

I'm really hoping they don't mess too much with it...i might be one of those people who chooses to stay with a previous system because the new one doesn't give me what I want.

Orzel

2007-09-02, 08:13 PM

I think wizards is making the roles as more "out of the box" role. A fighter straight out the book is a defender. If you take 75% flavor and fluff feats, he'll play like a defender. If you want your fighter to be a controller you has to take the control style weapon powers and talents. To be a striker, you have to take a shock trooper/leap attack/stuff combo. But a ranger or rogue can strike just as well as you even if they took Skill Focus every other feat and play striker better if they focus on damage and movement. But if your ranger wants to play defender he better grab Toughness and favor defensive buffs and heals for spells.

Aximili

2007-09-02, 09:04 PM

The "class role" system seems rather rigid, like an MMO design. I hope I'm wrong. 3.5's flexibility is wonderful, it surpasses every previous edition.
It's not rigid, and it's not new. The class role system has always been here, specially during 3.x. Only now they are naming the roles right out of the book, instead of letting the players come up with names for them.

In fact:

"Party roles existed in 3rd Edition, but they were never discussed openly in the core rules. We simply assumed that a typical group of players would know enough to make sure their party included a front-line fighter-type character, a cleric or other healer-type character, a wizard or other artillery-type character, and so forth. In the interest of helping less-experienced players build stronger parties, we’ve addressed the issue of party composition more openly and directly in 4th Edition by explaining party roles and the importance of having characters who can fill these roles. Each base class in 4th Edition has been designed to fill a specific role, but that’s not all the class aims to do, and every base class has things that it can do outside of its primary role."

Jack Mann

2007-09-02, 09:50 PM

Aximili

2007-09-02, 09:57 PM

Jack Mann

2007-09-02, 10:11 PM

Indeed. Even CoDzilla's melee power starts to matter less at high levels.

Person_Man

2007-09-03, 06:17 PM

I just hope they don't limit archers to rogues and rangers, which Person Man's theory seems to imply.

Well, I think that anyone will be able to use ranged weapons one way or another.

But Controllers are no longer limited by Vancian spellcasting, and have fireballs and other area of effect and battlefield control spells. They've even specifically said that they don't want to force Wizards to ever have to touch a crossbow again. So its doubtful that we'll see a Controller archer, unless they introduce a non-retarded Arcane Archer PrC in 4th ed.

Defenders are clearly there to "hold back the monsters" and "make sure the Wizard doesn't get smushed." So all of their class abilities will most likely revolve around specific close combat weapons and defense. If they're lucky, they'll also get some 3.5 Knight like abilities. So while they might carry a bow as a backup, it won't make any sense for them to use one on a regular basis.

I think the best bet for non-Striker archers will probably be the Leaders. They're primarily there to heal, and will probably be given other nifty buff abilities so that they're not disdained like 2nd ed Clerics. So a Cleric archer would probably make a lot of sense in 4th ed, just as it currently makes a lot of sense in 3.5.

okpokalypse

2007-09-03, 06:55 PM

A rogue, warlock or mage are all DPS classes, while the shaman and hunter are sort of in between filling in as necessary and the priest is a healer. That said a paladin can make a very, very good healer as can a shaman or druid. A shaman can be a very good damage dealer just like a warrior and oddly enough a priest. In the long run there are roles that some classes default to because that is where they are strongest, but that doesn't mean they are the only roles a particular class can play in game. It seems that this is the design aesthetic going on with 4E.

I always hated that. The kicker was that while a "rogue, warlock or mage" were considered DPS classes, I put together an Undead Shadow-Specced Priest that out DPS'd all of em. And the worst thing was that I couldn't get in a raiding group unless I swapped out to be a healer. Sucked. Between my two DoTs and Face-Melter, I was pumping out > 400 DPS.

I see the same issue in 3.5 where the Cleric is concerned. They blast just as good if not better than Mage's. They have Save-or-Dies. They can also Heal, get into Melee and have a better overall utility. Yet, the vast majority of campaigns out there have players that want to pigeon-hole Clerics into "buff and heal" roles.

I just hope, whatever they do, if they intend an archetype to fill a role, don't enable them to be better at other roles than those other archetypes that are meant to fill them.

okpokalypse

2007-09-03, 06:56 PM

Anyone else notice these roles sound kinda similar to City of Heroes / Villians?

Hawriel

2007-09-03, 07:48 PM

{Scrubbed}

Aximili

2007-09-03, 07:56 PM

I just hope, whatever they do, if they intend an archetype to fill a role, don't enable them to be better at other roles than those other archetypes that are meant to fill them.
In other words: you just hope they learn from their mistakes, as do we all.

Kurald Galain

2007-09-04, 02:58 AM

I see the same issue in 3.5 where the Cleric is concerned. They blast just as good if not better than Mage's. They have Save-or-Dies. They can also Heal, get into Melee and have a better overall utility.

I'm not sure if I'm following you. This may be splatbook-dependent, but for instance compare Searing Light (cleric 3rd) to Fireball (wizard 3rd); the former does 5d8 to a single target, the latter 10d6 to multiple targets. So how does the cleric blast better than the mage? Clerics also don't get save-or-lose spells from level one, nor utility spells like Mage Hand, Invis, Fly and Teleport.

Khanderas

2007-09-04, 03:36 AM

Doesn't most people here say it is not good to have a casting class that can do everything a melee can do, plus spells after a few levels ?
Seems to me then this is a good thing because it SHOULD be that some classes are better then others at different things, by default. This system seems farily well thought up, to provide that usefulness for different classes and at the same time allow even a group of mostly the same classes to branch out by selecting the proper spells / feats.

A Wizard might not likely be a Defender (meatshield, damage soaker) as he is by default controller (a wall here, a daze effect here) but if the player so wishes go Blaster-Caster (with the upcoming /day /encounter /at will castings).

To have predefined roles based on class is no more strange then to have pikemen defend vs cavalry, archers are boned if they get into melee unsupported and so on with many examples in the pre-modern warfare in Real Life (tm).

Damionte

2007-09-04, 03:59 AM

The main difference in the new edition is that they're making sure each class is actually good at their role. Much of the problem in 3rd is that some classes don't fill their role very well, and some classes are great at filling roles they weren't really intended for. The Fighter/CoDzilla problem, for example. In 4th edition, hopefully, the fighter will be better at direct combat than the cleric (even if the cleric is still making a strong contribution in a fight). This is as it should be.

Mind you, I also think that each class will have multiple ways of fulfilling their roles, from what they've said (for example, fighters using different kinds of weapons for different effects).

My problem with the threads we have going now is that we just don't know.

We don't know that they've made all of these things work. We only know that they "think" they "may" have.

They "thought" the rules made sense when they put out 3.0 and 3.5 as well. only to learn that many of thier idea's didn't translate to other peoples games all that well.

Until we get the book in our hands we don't know what they've done right or wrong. I'm actually a bit annoyed at thier developers updates to this point. They've purposefulyl told us exactly Jack, about anything.

They havn't told us how anything works. All of thier updates are just full of boxed flavor text. They could use this same flavor text and describe 1st edition D&D and we woudln't know it till we opened the book.

Morty

2007-09-04, 07:40 AM

Well, I think that anyone will be able to use ranged weapons one way or another.

But Controllers are no longer limited by Vancian spellcasting, and have fireballs and other area of effect and battlefield control spells. They've even specifically said that they don't want to force Wizards to ever have to touch a crossbow again. So its doubtful that we'll see a Controller archer, unless they introduce a non-retarded Arcane Archer PrC in 4th ed.

Defenders are clearly there to "hold back the monsters" and "make sure the Wizard doesn't get smushed." So all of their class abilities will most likely revolve around specific close combat weapons and defense. If they're lucky, they'll also get some 3.5 Knight like abilities. So while they might carry a bow as a backup, it won't make any sense for them to use one on a regular basis.

I think the best bet for non-Striker archers will probably be the Leaders. They're primarily there to heal, and will probably be given other nifty buff abilities so that they're not disdained like 2nd ed Clerics. So a Cleric archer would probably make a lot of sense in 4th ed, just as it currently makes a lot of sense in 3.5.

My main concern is that "strikers" from your estimation are rogue and ranger. Both classes are bound to have major out-of-combat abilites like Track or whatever they'll give rogue. And I think there should be place for characters who concentrate on ranged combat but nothing else.
And if "defenders" get some Knight abilites I hope like hell it won't be Test of Mettle. It's just silly.

Jarlax

2007-09-04, 07:44 AM

Until we get the book in our hands we don't know what they've done right or wrong. I'm actually a bit annoyed at their developers updates to this point. They've purposefully told us exactly Jack, about anything.

They haven't told us how anything works. All of their updates are just full of boxed flavor text. They could use this same flavor text and describe 1st edition D&D and we wouldn't know it till we opened the book.

but that is exactly what they want. they have given just enough information to begin discussion on a few select topics but have also told us no rules are set in stone yet. basically they have announced 4E, but it wont be out till next year, this trickle of information can keep going for months to keep discussion and focus on 4E until release or until the "preview" books come out early next year to spark their own discussion.

because from what i am seeing there are no big releases planned, book-wise until the 4E PHB so if we didn't have 4E stuff to discuss what else would we talk about?

Journey

2007-09-04, 08:09 AM

My problem with the threads we have going now is that we just don't know.
....
They havn't told us how anything works. All of thier updates are just full of boxed flavor text. They could use this same flavor text and describe 1st edition D&D and we woudln't know it till we opened the book.

While we don't have anything more solid than a few snippets from playtests that may or may not reflect "core" 4th edition material and some articles, we do have the 3.x precedent for moving D&D toward "DM = human dice-mechanics computer/arbitrator and PCs = Loot Gathering Combatants" MMOG-type play and this rhetoric that, it seems to me, just supports further travel down this path.

The whole point of a role-playing game, combat-oriented, diceless, or whatever, is to play roles in a story devised by the DM and players--not to play roles pre-defined and determined by the designers. That kind of narrow, restrictive classification scheme isn't what D&D or really any other table-top game is about. If I wanted to play the designers' version of a campaign, I'd join one of their gaming groups.

Person_Man

2007-09-04, 08:41 AM

My main concern is that "strikers" from your estimation are rogue and ranger. Both classes are bound to have major out-of-combat abilites like Track or whatever they'll give rogue. And I think there should be place for characters who concentrate on ranged combat but nothing else.

Everything they've said implies that Skill points have been eliminated, and that Skills will be consolidated and simplified to parallel the Star Wars Saga edition. Thus, non-Skill Monkey classes have a much easier time doing useful things out of combat, and traditional Skill Monkey classes really won't have many abilities out of combat that set them apart from others.

Also, archers are popular, and codex creep will always exist. So I imagine that various non-Striker archer classes/PrC will be made within a year or two, and you'll have a very large range of classes to choose from.

And if "defenders" get some Knight abilites I hope like hell it won't be Test of Mettle. It's just silly.

All right, I'll accept that Test of Mettle is a bit silly. But having played a mounted halfling Knight through a serious campaign, its really one of my favorite abilities. Before the birth of the Crusader, it made the Knight the best non-CoDzilla meat shield and battlefield controller in the game.

Morty

2007-09-04, 09:00 AM

Everything they've said implies that Skill points have been eliminated, and that Skills will be consolidated and simplified to parallel the Star Wars Saga edition. Thus, non-Skill Monkey classes have a much easier time doing useful things out of combat, and traditional Skill Monkey classes really won't have many abilities out of combat that set them apart from others.

I'm aware of that, but combat or non-combat, rogues and rangers will be played in entirely different fashion than fighters, at least if classes are designed properly.

Also, archers are popular, and codex creep will always exist. So I imagine that various non-Striker archer classes/PrC will be made within a year or two, and you'll have a very large range of classes to choose from.

True.

All right, I'll accept that Test of Mettle is a bit silly. But having played a mounted halfling Knight through a serious campaign, its really one of my favorite abilities. Before the birth of the Crusader, it made the Knight the best non-CoDzilla meat shield and battlefield controller in the game.

Other Knight's Challenge abilites make sense, and fit the flavor, yeah. It's just that things like Test of Mettle shouldn't rely on rolls. Or at least not on Will saving throws. It's kind of strange if there's bigger chance that you'll affect a rogue with this ability than other knight or paladin. And I can't imagine it being used on players.

psychoticbarber

2007-09-04, 09:01 AM

...at least if classes are designed properly.

That's really the main issue, right there. It all sounds pretty good, at least.

Kurald Galain

2007-09-04, 09:19 AM

Everything they've said implies that Skill points have been eliminated, and that Skills will be consolidated and simplified to parallel the Star Wars Saga edition.

While I wouldn't mind the elimination of the skill point system, I'm wondering where you've read that? Also, how does the Star Wars Saga edition work with respect to skills?

puppyavenger

2007-09-04, 09:20 AM

I'm happy with it as long as sorcerers(sp?) are the unnamed controller.

Tormsskull

2007-09-04, 09:27 AM

And if "defenders" get some Knight abilites I hope like hell it won't be Test of Mettle. It's just silly.

Is that the Growl Bear-form Druid WOW ability by another name? (Sorry, I don't know the warrior's gimmie aggro named ability) Yeah, when I heard that Knight was designed that way I was disappointed.

I think a lot of people miss out of the idea that a "meatshield" in D&D is not the same as one in WoW. Even in 3.5, an intelligent fighter can place himself between his opponent and his allies, forcing the opponent to go around him. In doing so he is acting out the role of meatshield. If the enemy tries to go through him he provokes attacks of opportunity, which the meatshield could use to initiate grapples and such if he is that concerned about the enemy getting passed him.

Instead of seeing a 4e meatshield proc an ability that forces the enemies to attack him, I'd rather see them give meatshield the ability to knock back opponents on successful AoO's (or their equivalent), or abilities to knock opponents down or hamper them in other ways. This would allow the meatshield to defend his allies in ways that actually make sense, rather than saying "Your momma smells like an ogre" and pulling the enemy's focus onto themself.

Dausuul

2007-09-04, 10:07 AM

I think a lot of people miss out of the idea that a "meatshield" in D&D is not the same as one in WoW. Even in 3.5, an intelligent fighter can place himself between his opponent and his allies, forcing the opponent to go around him. In doing so he is acting out the role of meatshield. If the enemy tries to go through him he provokes attacks of opportunity, which the meatshield could use to initiate grapples and such if he is that concerned about the enemy getting passed him.

In my experience, such tactics are generally ineffective, especially at the higher levels where most of your opponents are Large or bigger and have Strength scores in the upper 20s to low 30s. You're unlikely to manage a successful grapple against such a foe, and it's usually well worth it from the monster's perspective to eat one AoO if that gives it a chance to knock out the party wizard. One round of wizardry will cause the monster a lot more pain than a single attack of opportunity from the fighter.

Moreover, many monsters can move fast enough to whip around the fighter and never come within AoO range at all, unless the battle is taking place in very close quarters or the fighter is a reach-monkey.

I will agree that Test of Mettle has some problems with implementation, though I think it can be made to work with a little more thought. What I'd really like to see, however, is some kind of fighter ability to move as part of an AoO (or whatever the 4E equivalent is, I have the impression that AoOs as such are being done away with). That way, when a monster tries to slip past the fighter, the fighter can leap to plant himself squarely in the monster's way and knock it back.

Golthur

2007-09-04, 10:29 AM

While I wouldn't mind the elimination of the skill point system, I'm wondering where you've read that? Also, how does the Star Wars Saga edition work with respect to skills?

In a nutshell:
All skill checks for all characters are at +1/2 character level.
A certain number of skills are marked as "trained", depending on your class and Int modifier. These skill checks are made at +5.
The Skill Focus feat for a skill gives you another +5 bonus on any checks with the skill.
So, basically, there are no skill points. I don't really like it for D&D, overall, because it turns any high-level character into a jack of all trades. This is fine for the flavour of Star Wars, but not necessarily for D&D.

Starbuck_II

2007-09-04, 11:16 AM

Excuse me Starbuck II, perhaps I should have been more clear. My description of golemhood was in reference to my understanding of golems in their original source material, not in D&D mythology. Their creation is a scary concept in that context, since it seems to smack of "playing God." I'm not an expert in mythology, however, so if someone wanted to correct any errors on my part, or recommend a good reference book on the topic, that would be cool.

In terms of party roles, I'd love to see a 4.0 duskblade, probably in the "striker" role. That would allow the tradition of the 1st edition elf to continue, and let V style arcanists continue to blast even as if wizards get placed more in the battlefield control slot- though the reference to "wizard blasts" seems to indicate they won't be all webs and slow spells.

Ah, well D&D is not very much into any "playing God" mythology.

So Warforged make perfect sense in D&D.

Kurald Galain

2007-09-04, 11:29 AM

So, basically, there are no skill points. I don't really like it for D&D, overall, because it turns any high-level character into a jack of all trades. This is fine for the flavour of Star Wars, but not necessarily for D&D.

Well, that's easily solved by stating that "not trained = +0, trained = +level" or something like that. It's an improvement, I'd say. The skill system in 3E really doesn't work and is overcomplex to boot.

Rex Blunder

2007-09-04, 11:37 AM

I don't really like it for D&D, overall, because it turns any high-level character into a jack of all trades. This is fine for the flavour of Star Wars, but not necessarily for D&D.

I've definitely heard other people with this same concern. I don't see it though. Why is it ok for star wars and not d&d? Aren't they both sort of high-pulp adventure? Why is it ok that Jar Jar knows how to ride tauntauns a little, but it's not ok that a wizard be able to ride horses a little? Or that Luke can swim a little, even though he's from Tattooine, but the cleric can't swim at all?

Is there any argument tht the 3.5 system is a better representation of heroic medieval fantasy, that doesn't also apply to star wars?

Person_Man

2007-09-04, 11:45 AM

While I wouldn't mind the elimination of the skill point system, I'm wondering where you've read that? Also, how does the Star Wars Saga Edition work with respect to skills?

You essentially have to watch all of the Gen Con videos and read through the 4th ed forums. It also helps if you know people who were at Gen Con, because they had an opportunity to physically talk to the game designers. They've basically said that Star Wars Saga Edition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Roleplaying_Game_%28Wizards_of_the_Coast %29) is a dry run for how they're going to model classes and Skills. However, at this point everything is just a guess.

In Star Wars Saga Edition, Characters have a number of trained skills they can pick based on their class and Intelligence bonus. When a character makes a skill check, they roll a d20 and add half their character level + any other bonuses. If they roll for a trained skill they get a +5 bonus to the die roll. Skills themselves have been simplified with such skills as Deception covering the former skills of Bluff, Disguise, and Forgery. Likewise, the new Perception skill combines the Spot, Search, Sense Motive, and Listen skills.

In my experience, such tactics are generally ineffective, especially at the higher levels where most of your opponents are Large or bigger and have Strength scores in the upper 20s to low 30s. You're unlikely to manage a successful grapple against such a foe, and it's usually well worth it from the monster's perspective to eat one AoO if that gives it a chance to knock out the party wizard. One round of wizardry will cause the monster a lot more pain than a single attack of opportunity from the fighter.

Moreover, many monsters can move fast enough to whip around the fighter and never come within AoO range at all, unless the battle is taking place in very close quarters or the fighter is a reach-monkey.

I will agree that Test of Mettle has some problems with implementation, though I think it can be made to work with a little more thought. What I'd really like to see, however, is some kind of fighter ability to move as part of an AoO (or whatever the 4E equivalent is, I have the impression that AoOs as such are being done away with). That way, when a monster tries to slip past the fighter, the fighter can leap to plant himself squarely in the monster's way and knock it back.

If your meat shield is ineffective at keeping enemies back, then he needs to take Knock-Down, Knockback, or Stand Still. That way, whenever an enemy tries to get past your meat shield, they are Tripped, Bull Rushed, or stopped in their tracks when you hit them with your AoO.

Journey

2007-09-04, 11:49 AM

I've definitely heard other people with this same concern. I don't see it though. Why is it ok for star wars and not d&d? Aren't they both sort of high-pulp adventure?

Is there any argument tht the 3.5 system is a better representation of heroic medieval fantasy, that doesn't also apply to star wars?
It's not okay for D&D because D&D isn't (or wasn't, prior to 3.x) a skill-based system. I have yet to see a hybrid system--including D&D 3.x--that is mechanically sound for role-playing purposes. Either it's all-skill-based or all-class-based. They attempted, very poorly, a hybridization in 3.x. Unless the 4th edition's reported "talent system" fixes this, it will be just as badly broken.

Also, D&D isn't necessarily "high pulp" adventure. In fact, a great number of D&D settings and campaigns are anything but "high pulp." Eberron is the only "high pulp" setting that is native to D&D.

Yakk

2007-09-04, 12:16 PM

I'm not sure if I'm following you. This may be splatbook-dependent, but for instance compare Searing Light (cleric 3rd) to Fireball (wizard 3rd); the former does 5d8 to a single target, the latter 10d6 to multiple targets. So how does the cleric blast better than the mage? Clerics also don't get save-or-lose spells from level one, nor utility spells like Mage Hand, Invis, Fly and Teleport.

You just compared an AoE reflex save-for-half elemental damage spell against a single-target, no save, no element, anti-undead spell.

Let's compare a 5th level reflex save for half spell:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameStrike.htm
To a wizard 5th level reflx save for half spell:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/coneOfCold.htm

Dausuul

2007-09-04, 01:11 PM

If your meat shield is ineffective at keeping enemies back, then he needs to take Knock-Down, Knockback, or Stand Still. That way, whenever an enemy tries to get past your meat shield, they are Tripped, Bull Rushed, or stopped in their tracks when you hit them with your AoO.

Trip and bull rush attempts are no more likely to work than grappling. Stand Still solves the problem... if the monster ever comes close enough to provoke your AoO in the first place. That's the problem. Fighters are much too easily outmaneuvered on the mid-to-high-level battlefield.

It's not okay for D&D because D&D isn't (or wasn't, prior to 3.x) a skill-based system. I have yet to see a hybrid system--including D&D 3.x--that is mechanically sound for role-playing purposes. Either it's all-skill-based or all-class-based. They attempted, very poorly, a hybridization in 3.x. Unless the 4th edition's reported "talent system" fixes this, it will be just as badly broken.

Not saying you're wrong, but how does this relate to the question of why it's okay for Star Wars characters to be jacks of all trades, but not D&D characters?

You just compared an AoE reflex save-for-half elemental damage spell against a single-target, no save, no element, anti-undead spell.

Let's compare a 5th level reflex save for half spell:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameStrike.htm
To a wizard 5th level reflx save for half spell:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/coneOfCold.htm

IMO, those two are about a wash. Flame strike has the advantage in range and the fact that it can do half damage to creatures with immunity to its element. However, it's not a lot better than a single-target spell, since a 10-foot radius usually won't catch more than one or two enemies. Cone of cold's advantages are a vastly superior AoE (a 60-foot cone covers a lot of ground), and the fact that cold resistance is somewhat less common than fire resistance.

However, flame strike is about the best direct-damage the cleric list has to offer, while cone of cold is only a middling-quality wizard blast. And then there's the fact that wizards have far more options for debuffs and battlefield control.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good stuff on the cleric list, but wizards have it all over clerics as far as offensive and utility magic are concerned.

Golthur

2007-09-04, 02:39 PM

I've definitely heard other people with this same concern. I don't see it though. Why is it ok for star wars and not d&d? Aren't they both sort of high-pulp adventure? Why is it ok that Jar Jar knows how to ride tauntauns a little, but it's not ok that a wizard be able to ride horses a little? Or that Luke can swim a little, even though he's from Tattooine, but the cleric can't swim at all?

Simply put, not every campaign I run is high-pulp cinematic adventure. :smile: Some are "grim-n-gritty", some are "unspeakable horrors from beyond", and some are out-n-out comedic. In some games/with some themes, you don't want everyone being capable of doing anything in a pinch.

I also don't like the two levels of skills that would result with untrained = +0, trained = +CL. I like having someone who's "sort of OK" at hiding, or who "knows a little bit" about religion - someone who knows a little bit more about something than everyone else in the group, but isn't a rock star.

That being said, the D&D skill system as it stands, is admittedly complex - not as complex as some (the old Top Secret comes to mind), but still complex, and results in too many verisimilitude-busting issues - e.g. a cleric who grows up in a canal town not knowing anything about swimming, a fighter who lives in the desert being the master of it, and druids from mountainous areas who can't climb.

Matthew

2007-09-04, 02:53 PM

Yeah, overall, that has been my experience of D&D. It can support varied tastes of play, but it may be the case that it is being shunted into a particular genre of play with 4e. Certainly, default 3e seems to support a very specific playstyle. That said, there are plenty of options provided in supplemental material and I imagine that the same will be true of 4e.

Journey

2007-09-04, 02:56 PM

Not saying you're wrong, but how does this relate to the question of why it's okay for Star Wars characters to be jacks of all trades, but not D&D characters?I don't specifically about Star Wars characters as it relates to the "role-playing" game WoTC created. It's not okay for D&D characters to be jacks of all trades because D&D characters are (were) created in a class-based system, where each class has a set of abilities and skills that are purposefully designed to keep characters training in it to be jacks of all trades.

Matthew

2007-09-04, 03:02 PM

It probably still will be the case, Journey. The way the Saga Skill System is set up, Trained and Focused Characters will be very much better at their chosen Skills than other Characters and I would imagine those options will be limited to certain Classes.

i.e. something like:

Rogue 1
Stealth: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Dexterity Modifier (5)] = +15

Fighter 1
Stealth: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Dexterity Modifier (2)] = +2

Rogue 20
Stealth: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Dexterity Modifier (10)] = +30

Fighter 20
Stealth: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Dexterity Modifier (5)] = +15

Yakk

2007-09-04, 03:02 PM

Unskilled: +0
Hobbies: +2 +level/2 (round down)
Expert: +2 +level, 1 reroll on failure.

So a L 10 fighter with a smithing hobby would be at +7.
A L 2 Expert smith would also be a +5, but would get to roll twice.

If the L 10 fighter upgraded her smithing from hobby to expert, she would have a +12, and get a reroll on failure.

Indon

2007-09-04, 04:02 PM

Rogue 1
Stealth: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Dexterity Modifier (5)] = +15

Fighter 1
Stealth: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Dexterity Modifier (2)] = +2

Rogue 20
Stealth: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Dexterity Modifier (10)] = +30

Fighter 20
Stealth: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Dexterity Modifier (5)] = +15

I think this example is more in-keeping with what people think the problem may be:

Rogue 1
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Intelligence Modifier (2)] = +12

Wizard 1
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Intelligence Modifier (5)] = +5

Rogue 20
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Intelligence Modifier (5)] = +25

Wizard 20
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Intelligence Modifier (10)] = +20

Dausuul

2007-09-04, 04:22 PM

I don't specifically about Star Wars characters as it relates to the "role-playing" game WoTC created. It's not okay for D&D characters to be jacks of all trades because D&D characters are (were) created in a class-based system, where each class has a set of abilities and skills that are purposefully designed to keep characters training in it to be jacks of all trades.

I'm not quite sure I understand you (you left a few words out), but if you're saying what I think you are, your point is that classes are supposed to force a character to specialize, rather than being good across the board.

However, that isn't really true. Classes force a certain amount of specialization, but they also provide across-the-board improvements as you level up. A 20th-level wizard has more hit points, better BAB, and a better Fort save than a 1st-level fighter. How is it any different to apply a similar mechanic to the skill system?

I think this example is more in-keeping with what people think the problem may be:

Rogue 1
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Intelligence Modifier (2)] = +12

Wizard 1
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Intelligence Modifier (5)] = +5

Rogue 20
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Intelligence Modifier (5)] = +25

Wizard 20
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Intelligence Modifier (10)] = +20

There's a crucial component that you're not including, however. As I understand it, in SW Saga Edition, being trained does more than simply give you a +5; it also allows you to use the skill in ways that an untrained person simply can't. It's like "trained only" skills in 3.5E, except that instead of some skills being purely "trained only" and others being purely "usable untrained," every skill has some "trained only" uses and some "usable untrained" uses. The wizard may be able to accomplish a lot on the basis of intellect and general experience, but the rogue will know specialized tricks the wizard never learned.

Jarlax

2007-09-04, 04:52 PM

if they really want to rework skills they need to go over to Spycraft 2.0 and have a gander at a sensible implementation of the current 3.5 skills.

- many skills are consolidated: swim, climb, escape artist etc. are a single skill so fighters don't need to choose if they can swim or if they can climb or both but not be able to ride. this opens space for more skills to get put in or to simply have a shorter skill list thats easier to run.

- there is no 1/2 ranks for cross class skills, you simply have to spend 2 points to gain 1 rank in a cross class skill

- class skills are a consolidated list, that means class skills can be bought at any level for one skill point no matter what level you are taking as long as its a class kill for one of your classes. in other words a paladin has diplomacy as a class skill, then he takes several levels of fighter. during those fighter levels he can still buy ranks in diplomacy as a class skill, he doesn't somehow "forget" how to learn that skill when he is not training as a paladin.

- skills have a maximum result based on the number of ranks you have in that skill. for example someone with no ranks in a skill can never do better than a 15 on a check, no matter what they roll or how many modifiers they have in place.

Matthew

2007-09-04, 05:19 PM

Honestly, I don't see that as much of a problem. Fighter 20s and Cleric 20s are similarly going to have a Disable Device of at least 10. The increments are presumably going to be more significant when they are starting at 10 and capping out at 30.

That said, I think that Attributes are probably going to have less differential in 4e. It remains to be seen, but less emphasis on magic items suggests less opportunity to increase Attributes. It may just be the case that Characters get to raise them more often, of course (in which case, 4e is going to suffer from the same Attribute Inflation problems that 3e suffers from).

horseboy

2007-09-04, 05:32 PM

I think this example is more in-keeping with what people think the problem may be:

Rogue 1
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Intelligence Modifier (2)] = +12

Wizard 1
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (0) + Intelligence Modifier (5)] = +5

Rogue 20
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Trained (5) + Focused (5) + Intelligence Modifier (5)] = +25

Wizard 20
Disable Device: [1/2 Character Level (10) + Intelligence Modifier (10)] = +20Casts "Summon Celestial Bison", smacks it on the rump.

Does it really matter anyway?

Orzel

2007-09-04, 06:18 PM

Trip and bull rush attempts are no more likely to work than grappling. Stand Still solves the problem... if the monster ever comes close enough to provoke your AoO in the first place. That's the problem. Fighters are much too easily outmaneuvered on the mid-to-high-level battlefield.

WoTCsaid that they will give the nonmagical classes more superhuman like abilities as they level. Combine that with the weapons powers, a warhammer fighter might get free Bull rush attempts on each hit over 20 damage with a bonus to his Str check equal to his level. That's enough to knockdown most thing within CR. A whip fighter standing 10ft in front of the party controller could trip anything that comes close to the controller. Same with the paladin whose smite evil stuns for 3 rounds.

I believe they are changing the regular weapon classes (defenders) from "chases the monster" into "a zone of butt whoop".

I think the basic combat strategy of 4E is:
Defenders lock down enemies who come within attack range with combat conditions (tripped, bull rushed, stunned, pinned)
Strikers dance around the defender's Area of Beatdowns, damaging enemies and making them bloodied.
Controllers pull enemies into the defender's range with their control then destroys them after the defenders and strikers get them bloodied and/or unable to fight.
Leaders make all of the above work.