So Wizards have put up a further explanation of how the different "PC roles" will end up working (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a), and I have to say it looks good to me. The idea that a) each class will be explicitly associated with one of these roles, to help people understand how the class is intended to be used and b) thought will be given to how you're going to run adventures for parties who, say, have no heals-and-buffs types, or no big combat tanks, or whatever will work fills me with hope.
PC roles are nothing new. In Classic D&D, they were called 'classes'.
Quote from: HaffrungPC roles are nothing new. In Classic D&D, they were called 'classes'.
Very true.
I like the "back to the basics" mentality the design team seems to be working with. This will help make sure 4E is still "D&D."
Considering that not everyone is willing to subscribe to the new D&D service, would you care to cut-and-paste the article?
RPGPundit
It's not a pay site, at least not yet. I was concerned too, but signing up for it was just like signing up for any other forum.
That's not the point. If people have to register to see the article, then over here the article should be cut and pasted.
That's whether its from the D&D site, Tangency, Storygames, the NY Times, or anywhere else that this sort of thing happens. If you can't view it publically, cut and paste it out of courtesy for those who don't WANT to have to register on some other site just to have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
RPGPundit
I'm beginning to wonder if maybe they aren't emphasizing this "role" thing too much. I mean, I'm beginning to think it's more a design philosophy thing. I get the feeling that people will be getting 4e and expecting the "roles" to be a specific mechanic that differs from something they're already familiar with, rather than a way for the designers to group classes to make designing them easier, and to make it easier to point out what combos are better for a party. I mean, it's an interesting thought exercise, but they might be making more of it than the average gamer sitting at the table will care about.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonI'm beginning to wonder if maybe they aren't emphasizing this "role" thing too much. I mean, I'm beginning to think it's more a design philosophy thing. I get the feeling that people will be getting 4e and expecting the "roles" to be a specific mechanic that differs from something they're already familiar with, rather than a way for the designers to group classes to make designing them easier, and to make it easier to point out what combos are better for a party. I mean, it's an interesting thought exercise, but they might be making more of it than the average gamer sitting at the table will care about.
Well, it was my assumption that this was mostly a design thing. I hadn't thought they would actually appear explicitly in the books until I read your post. I certainly hope they won't. But during the design process? I think this is invaluable.
There were still too many overlaps in 3e, or useless classes. It's good that they really highlight the differences in the design process. Hopefully they aren't going to put too rigid a structure in the actual books, though.
I'm hoping this "role" structure is just strong guidelines and reminders during the designing.
Here is the copy-pasted article:
Quote from: WizardsLet me tell you about my character, Nils, and how he contributed a few grace notes to 4th Edition’s concepts of character class roles.
Nils isn’t a 4th Edition character; he’s my old 3.5 character from Mark Jessup’s “Nine Chords” campaign. There are nine deities in Mark’s homebrew world, one deity each for the nine alignment slots. Each of the gods is a great bard whose personal pleasure and cosmic power flows from ritual bragging in front of the other gods about the kickass accomplishments of their worshippers. (Perhaps this arrangement will seem even more fitting when I mention that Mark is the director of marketing here at Wizards of the Coast…)
In a world like this, someone in the party has got to play a bard. But when the character class draft went down, everyone stepped back toward fighter or cleric or wizard or rogue, and nobody was willing to jump on the lute grenade. Mark was disappointed with us. I hate to see a disappointed DM, so I vowed to detour into bard-land just as soon as I was comfortable with Nils as a fighter.
Four greatsword-swinging levels of fighter later, Nils entered the path of lute-n-flute. My roleplaying opportunities increased because I was now the spokesman and PR agent for the PC group. But in encounters that focused on combat instead of roleplaying, Nils was forced into a mold pro basketball analysts call a “tweener,” too wimpy to play power forward alongside the ranger and the barbarians, and not capable of long-range shots like the wizard.
The PC group appreciated the singing bonuses Nils provided, and they appreciated his eventual haste spell, but supplying those bonuses meant that I spent at least two rounds at the start of combat making everyone else better without doing much of anything myself, except maybe moving around. Once I entered the combat, I survived by making judicious use of the Combat Expertise feat.
By the time the campaign slowed down to once or twice a year sessions, I’d played Nils for seven bard-only levels and obtained a much clearer perspective on the problems faced by D&D characters who don’t feel a clear niche. Fighters, rogues, clerics, and wizards all occupy pivotal places in a D&D PC group’s ecology, while the bard is singing from offstage reminding everyone not to forget the +1 or +2 bonuses they’re providing to attacks and saves against fear.
When Andy (Collins), James (Wyatt), and I put together the basic structure of 4th Edition, we started with the conviction that we would make sure every character class filled a crucial role in the player character group. When the bard enters the 4th Edition stage, she’ll have class features and powers that help her fill what we call the Leader role. As a character whose songs help allies fight better and recover hit points, the bard is most likely to fit into a player character group that doesn’t have a cleric, the quintessential divine leader.
Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode. A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions. A certain amount of healing flows from the Leader classes even when they opt to focus on slaying their enemies directly.
Does every group need a Leader class? Not necessarily. Is it worth having more than one Leader in a party? Maybe.
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.
One last thing before I go, since I started this note off by talking about Nils. This time, let me say a few things to Nils directly: “Nils, it’s been fun playing you. But I’ll see you again in a future incarnation, and this time around when Al-Faregh the wizard and Jum the barbarian are chopping up beholders, you’re going to be fighting on the same playing field instead of handing out Gatorade cups and singing the national anthem.”
About the Author
Rob Heinsoo was born in the Year of the Dragon. He started playing D&D in 1974 with the original brown box. More recently, he designed Three-Dragon Ante, Inn-Fighting, and a couple incarnations of the D&D Miniatures skirmish system. He’s the lead designer of 4th Edition and captains the D&D mechanical design team.
Quote from: Consonant DudeWell, it was my assumption that this was mostly a design thing. I hadn't thought they would actually appear explicitly in the books until I read your post. I certainly hope they won't.
They will do. It's apparently for the benefit of inexperienced players putting a party together, to help people decide which classes to play.
I think it's a smart move, so long as they follow through on the promise of making sure there are options available to parties who don't have a character fitting a particular role. So long as the guidance in the books is on the level of "be aware that a party without a character in role X will tend to face this, this and this problem, but if your group is cool with that roll with it" then that's fine by me.
Quote from: WarthurThey will do. It's apparently for the benefit of inexperienced players putting a party together, to help people decide which classes to play.
I think it's a smart move, so long as they follow through on the promise of making sure there are options available to parties who don't have a character fitting a particular role. So long as the guidance in the books is on the level of "be aware that a party without a character in role X will tend to face this, this and this problem, but if your group is cool with that roll with it" then that's fine by me.
Yeah, that's along the lines of what I've been thinking. I think a lot of people on various websites are making too much of it, overthinking it. It strikes me as being more for the inexperienced player to get a grasp on things than anything else.
Quote from: WarthurThey will do. It's apparently for the benefit of inexperienced players putting a party together, to help people decide which classes to play.
Sounds like the old AD&D formula. If you have 10 PCs then you should have:
4 Ftrs
3 MUs
2 Clerics
1 Thief
Quote from: ColonelHardissonYeah, that's along the lines of what I've been thinking. I think a lot of people on various websites are making too much of it, overthinking it. It strikes me as being more for the inexperienced player to get a grasp on things than anything else.
Yep. There seems to be far more transparency in the design process this time. D&D has always had strong tactical elements. This time around Wizards are being more explicit about how they work in play, giving both players and DM's the opportunity to exploit the system possibilities straight out the box.
At least that's how it reads to me.
Quote from: HaffrungPC roles are nothing new. In Classic D&D, they were called 'classes'.
Does rather smack of reinventing the wheel.
Shame that they've had to go through the process of de-valuing the archetypal class system before realising that it is that very system that defines D&D. Its also a shame that they're stripping out some of what makes the classes distinctive while reinforcing the statement that class is important.
Quote from: CabDoes rather smack of reinventing the wheel.
Shame that they've had to go through the process of de-valuing the archetypal class system before realising that it is that very system that defines D&D. Its also a shame that they're stripping out some of what makes the classes distinctive while reinforcing the statement that class is important.
The approach they seem to be using, as people on ENWorld have mentioned, is to view the archetypes as consisting of two components: the basis of their power, and their role in the group. So, a Fighter for example is a Martial Defender - they draw on their physical prowess and combat skills to stop monsters dead in their tracks, cutting the hordes of darkness down before they can reach the more vulnerable members of the party.
It seems like a sensible distinction to me: the role in the group is your tactical niche, and your power source is the particular flavour you give to that. Put the two together, you get an archetype.
Quote from: WarthurThe approach they seem to be using, as people on ENWorld have mentioned, is to view the archetypes as consisting of two components: the basis of their power, and their role in the group. So, a Fighter for example is a Martial Defender - they draw on their physical prowess and combat skills to stop monsters dead in their tracks, cutting the hordes of darkness down before they can reach the more vulnerable members of the party.
It seems like a sensible distinction to me: the role in the group is your tactical niche, and your power source is the particular flavour you give to that. Put the two together, you get an archetype.
Indeed. It's how the classes interact in tactical scenarios that defines their "roles." I think too many people are seeing the system as some kind of all pervading straitjacket that disallows PC's to do anything other than what their respective keyword(s) describe.
Quote from: WarthurIt seems like a sensible distinction to me: the role in the group is your tactical niche, and your power source is the particular flavour you give to that. Put the two together, you get an archetype.
Which is basically saying 'the fighter fights, the rogue does rogue things...'
Character class, archetype... Call it what you like, its just the same concept that has been in D&D since the early days. Odd that the class base system had to come under thread in 3rd ed before its value was appreciated by game designers.
Did anyone else get the feeling after reading that D&D Insider snippet that the WotC design team has been infiltrated by the White Wolf design team?
Quote from: CabWhich is basically saying 'the fighter fights, the rogue does rogue things...'
Indeed, but it goes further than that - it says "the fighter fights by drawing on his martial prowess and combat skill, the paladin fights by drawing on his inner faith and the careful training of his religious order, the cleric inspires the rest of the party to greater heights through his channelling of divine power, the bard inspires the rest of the party to greater heights through arcane, magical songcraft..."
The benefit seems to be that making new classes should be fairly easy - just pick from the skill trees associated with their power source, and the skill trees associated with their tactical role, and you're good to go.
I'm not a huge fan of these types of roles in P&P RPGs. To me, it's more of an MMORPG thing. In MMORPGs, the focus is on powergaming, assembling the optimal group of characters with the optimal specializations to overcome the mission (or "instance") at hand. In WoW, a 20 man raid would have X number of protection spec warriors, Y number of holy priests, Z number of shadow priests etc. When the first big fight came up each person knew his exact role and which two or three buttons he had to push. It was all carefully scripted.
This was entertaining and fine for a computer strategy game (or MMORPG rather), but not what I like in my table top game.
I like modeling characters after various fictional sources and thinking about the character as a whole, rather than what "role" they will play in a dungeon exploring party.
I like to take the approach of a group of memorable fantasy characters that get caught up in an adventure and find themselves in a dungeon, rather than a specific group of dungeon commandos born and raised to function together as a tightly integrated unit.
So what all this means is that I hope the new roles don't railroad players into playing a certain way, and I hope there is a great deal of latitude in character design and play.
Quote from: WarthurIndeed, but it goes further than that - it says "the fighter fights by drawing on his martial prowess and combat skill...
And that doesn't seem just a little bit contrived to you? Its just redefining the classes more or less the same way they were always defined (although this became more hazy in 3rd ed). Reinventing the wheel has rarely seemed a more appropriate analogy.
Quote from: GoOrangeSo what all this means is that I hope the new roles don't railroad players into playing a certain way, and I hope there is a great deal of latitude in character design and play.
I'd go along with that, although I think that with a game like 3e with such a big, heavily integrated skill system then of necessity you get a bit bogged down with character statting. You have more latitude for character
design if you strip a lot of that clinker out.
Quote from: GoOrangeI'm not a huge fan of these types of roles in P&P RPGs. To me, it's more of an MMORPG thing. In MMORPGs, the focus is on powergaming, assembling the optimal group of characters with the optimal specializations to overcome the mission (or "instance") at hand. In WoW, a 20 man raid would have X number of protection spec warriors, Y number of holy priests, Z number of shadow priests etc. When the first big fight came up each person knew his exact role and which two or three buttons he had to push. It was all carefully scripted.
This was entertaining and fine for a computer strategy game (or MMORPG rather), but not what I like in my table top game.
I like modeling characters after various fictional sources and thinking about the character as a whole, rather than what "role" they will play in a dungeon exploring party.
I like to take the approach of a group of memorable fantasy characters that get caught up in an adventure and find themselves in a dungeon, rather than a specific group of dungeon commandos born and raised to function together as a tightly integrated unit.
So what all this means is that I hope the new roles don't railroad players into playing a certain way, and I hope there is a great deal of latitude in character design and play.
Hasn't D&D always had a certain implicit amount of optimum party building, though? I still hear people refer to the bard as a "fifth-class", because it's one you don't mind someone playing once you already have your fighter (hit point guy), cleric (healing guy), mage (damage guy) and rogue (skills guy).
Quote from: HaffrungPC roles are nothing new. In Classic D&D, they were called 'classes'.
If roles were classes, we'd only have 4 classes today.
Which honestly, is part of the problem that I have seen in the new class glut that came with 3.5. Many of the new classes like Swashbuckler and Spellthief really don't support the party and stand up to the typical challenges in a standard D&D-style adventure.
Not that such a thing is inherently wrong... there are ways to put an adventure together other than the standard. But many players went into the game -- and many DMs allowed in the game -- such characters on the assumption that they would serve the role of a standard PC in such a game, when such is not the case.
I think their thinking for the 4e classes is sound.
It´s just a little bit useless discussing the behind-the-scenes-abstractions with the proles like us. It destroys a little bit of the magic.
I like a cleric, but a "divine leader" is just a little bit too technocratic for me. But hell, the game had MUs it will stand this addition of idiosyncratic technocracy too.
Quote from: BrantaiHasn't D&D always had a certain implicit amount of optimum party building, though? I still hear people refer to the bard as a "fifth-class", because it's one you don't mind someone playing once you already have your fighter (hit point guy), cleric (healing guy), mage (damage guy) and rogue (skills guy).
Yes, definitely. Prior editions with their limited choices in character creation were particularly stifling. Which is why customizable skill based systems like Runequest and GURPS became popular alternatives. These games gave you the option to create more complex characters, rather than just "OK, I'll play the tank". I'm hoping 4E has options enough to make nuanced characters who can do different things rather than just assigning people roles like "You're playing the tank, you do this."
And the hateraid continues to flow...
Why not think of this from the perspective of a GM and not a player?
I simply don't think that this kind of meta-game thinking is for the players' benefit, but rather for the DM's. If I were designing an adventure it would be really nice to be able to quickly determine what the basic capabilities of the PCs are so that I can match them up against appropriate challenges.
Oh hey, lookit that! There's also a brand new monster classification system that sort-of kind-of parallels the PC classification system. I wonder if I can use them together to quickly cobble together a reasonably fun scenario?
Let's say I have a Fighter, a Wizard, a Sorc, and a Cleric. Hmm, seems a bit heavy on the artillery, but we cover three power-sources. Fairly straightforward to figure out what each class' purpose is though.
Now let's try: Swordsge, Monk, Psychic Warrior, and Warlock. I'd guess that's pretty tough for most DM's to plan for, but if those classes fell within certain class-groups (or "roles") it might be a bit easier to quickly assess what their capabilities and approach might be.
I could see this kind of thing helping published adventures, both for the writer and the purchaser.
Just a thought.
Quote from: GoOrangeYes, definitely. Prior editions with their limited choices in character creation were particularly stifling. Which is why customizable skill based systems like Runequest and GURPS became popular alternatives. These games gave you the option to create more complex characters, rather than just "OK, I'll play the tank". I'm hoping 4E has options enough to make nuanced characters who can do different things rather than just assigning people roles like "You're playing the tank, you do this."
I think you've got that backwards :)
If I was playing, say, classic D&D (lets say its the BECMI line, pre-Gaz, pre RC) then I might say to the DM "I want to play a cleric, I want him to be from the coast, lets say he's from Ostland, he's an outcast from a fishing village", and my DM would say "Okay, whats he like?". I'd describe the character, and that would be it. Then maybe in an adventure we'd have to pilot a small boat across a sea loch, the DM would ask "Anyone ever sailed a small fishing boat?" and I'd say "Yes, my character was a fisherman, rememner?". And thats all you have to do, you have a character who has background knowledge within reason. You don't really need to customise the class at all because you're playing a character who makes sense in the context of the setting.
If I'm playing 1st ed AD&D I might be using proficiencies for the same thing or just background skills.
2nd ed codified that more, as did RC, but still, its a background set of skills allowing a high degree of flexibility and control in character design; where 2nd ed and RC really started specifying what characters could do, though, they also explained in more depth what a character
couldn't do. You were
more likely to be a tank because unless you'd bought the skill 'fishing' then you couldn't be an ex fisherman, at least not one who ever caught any fish... You'd also have to have the skill of boat piloting, perhaps navigation, haggling, unless you'd specified each of the skills (or just had a sensible DM!) your character design was limited... And then came 3rd ed, which took us further in that rather restrictive direction.
Statting in that which more reasonably lies within the narrative doesn't give you more control over character design and abilities, it gives you less. It appeals to a certain element of the gaming community 'cos its also munchier, unfortunately.
I see what you're saying Cab, and agree with it in the context you've put it.
I think, though, your reasoning works fine for the specific example of background type skills but less so for general class type abilities (like the skill with a weapon and the ability to cast magic).
What I was trying to say is more along the lines of this:
I wouldn't like to play the tank where my only abilities were being able to wear armor and swing a sword effectively. Perhaps I want to be more of the swashbuckler type, maybe even cast a spell or two. That wouldn't fit into a narrowly defined "role".
The more the rules try to focus me on a role, the less likely I'll be to create the character I want.
Roles work for tactical dungeon crawls where you try to optimize your 4 man party to overcome various tactical challenges of mostly combat, some traps and possibly even a social negotiation. When I make up a character, I want to start with a concept of something I think would be cool, who I could picture watching in a fantasy movie or reading about in a book. I don't start by thinking of the challenges ahead in the dungeon and how I can optimize a character to best interact with the other party members to suceed in our dungeon delving. I think the concept of "roles" tries to focus attention toward this style of tactical roleplaying too much.
(I'm not trying to rip on D&D 4E or having a "hate-on", I'm eagerly looking forward to the new edition. I'm just discussing theory here more than anything else.)
Quote from: GoOrangeWhat I was trying to say is more along the lines of this:
I wouldn't like to play the tank where my only abilities were being able to wear armor and swing a sword effectively. Perhaps I want to be more of the swashbuckler type, maybe even cast a spell or two. That wouldn't fit into a narrowly defined "role".
The more the rules try to focus me on a role, the less likely I'll be to create the character I want.
Thats rather a limitation of any class based systems, unless of course you broaden out the range of classes to accomodate that. Then the problem arises that its hard to keep the sprawling list of classes well balanced. I'd say that your best bet then is to keep the backbone of the system as simple as possible to make tailoring custom classes as easy as you can.
QuoteRoles work for tactical dungeon crawls where you try to optimize your 4 man party to overcome various tactical challenges of mostly combat, some traps and possibly even a social negotiation. When I make up a character, I want to start with a concept of something I think would be cool, who I could picture watching in a fantasy movie or reading about in a book. I don't start by thinking of the challenges ahead in the dungeon and how I can optimize a character to best interact with the other party members to suceed in our dungeon delving. I think the concept of "roles" tries to focus attention toward this style of tactical roleplaying too much.
(I'm not trying to rip on D&D 4E or having a "hate-on", I'm eagerly looking forward to the new edition. I'm just discussing theory here more than anything else.)
And its reasonable speculation based on what you like in a game. I'd say that the best way to obtain what you are after is by keeping the game simple; the whole focus on 'roles' in 4th ed could simply be a tool for letting novices know what a character class is good at
or it could be more narrowly defining what each class can do. I suspect that if its the latter, it'll go down like a lead balloon. The problem they have with d20 as it stands is that while the skills system they have is basically sound, it is restricting, and its hard to use it to break out of class restrictions.
I think, perhaps, the issue wasn't that you couldn't play a swashbuckler. It was that, as a swashbuckler, you weren't going to be running around in full plate with shield and long sword - all of whcih had mechanical advantages over floopy hat, big boots and rapier.
So people wanted to play these other kinds of characters, but not be faced with the inherent mechanical disadvantages. This is, I think, what Cab references as keeping all of the sprwaling list of classes in balance. It's one of my problems with 3.5, actually - the class system is broken, but not because you can play all of these wild classes and combinations, but that in order to model the character you want you have to do so.
I understand why that is - the balance issue. Who is going ot play the swashbuckler or the spell slinging thief if that character is set up to fail in the dangerous world of D&D?
There is a specific problem with being a 'swashbuckler'.
In a world with broadswords and heavy armour, its very hard to be a swashbuckler with a rapier, flouncy white shirt and buckler. You might be a bit quicker than the other guy, but the other guy isn't that slow, and he's only going to have to hit you once and he'll cut you in two.
So D&D in all of its incarnations really favours the tank-like fighter, and its quite hard to balance the 'swashbuckler' concept against that. Some would say that you just shouldn't do it, but I don't know, I quite like the idea that in a fantasy context it could work.
One way is to do your swashbuckling as a thief, so you're there to flounce about with a sword, hurl an insult at the enemy, and then back off... But ultimately, in a stand up fight, the guy clad in metal should still beat you.
Another way (perhaps the best I've seen) was in the Savage Coast/Red Steel stuff for 2nd ed, a curious little sub-system in the proficiencies section called 'panache', which gave you bonuses to subsequent rolls every time you did something with style.
But I think you have to be careful; sometimes you can faff about with something to make a concept fit and be balanced, but it isn't always a good idea to even try. If a player comes to me and says 'I want to be a fighter who carries a short sword, a buckler, wears leather armour and carries a bow, he's a swashbuckler type with a fether in his har' then I'll let him, but I'll make sure he is aware that alongside greater mobility comes greater vulnerability too.
Quote from: CabThere is a specific problem with being a 'swashbuckler'.
In a world with broadswords and heavy armour, its very hard to be a swashbuckler with a rapier, flouncy white shirt and buckler. You might be a bit quicker than the other guy, but the other guy isn't that slow, and he's only going to have to hit you once and he'll cut you in two.
Agreed. You can't divorce swashbuckling from the historical context which gave rise to that kind of story - and that's a historical context that includes cannons and musket. Gunpowder becoming widespread made personal body armour pretty much useless up to the invention of kevlar. Once muskets came onto the scene being light and quick became an advantage - you want to get up to the enemy's musket line and cut them down
before they get a chance to reload, otherwise you're toast.