4E Charcter roles- The Leader as healer?

[Nota Biene]

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.

Any thoughts?

[Ceres]

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]

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.

Any thoughts?

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.

[Skyserpent]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Here's the link to the party role article. It requires that you login to the site.

So, according to the James Wyatt's interview, 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]

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]

Here's the link
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]

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!

The link isn't working for me...

[Dausuul]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Dausuul]

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.

[TheOOB]

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]

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

[Skyserpent]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Beleriphon]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Beleriphon]

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]

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]

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.

Even in 3.5E though, the 'standard' party configuration is one tank, one rogue, one healer and one heavy spellcaster. If none of the players in the group want to play a cleric/druid or a wizard/sorcerer, the party just has to make do without them.

[Matthew]

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]

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.