The Gaming Den

You've heard me rant about it before, and now you'll hear me rant about it again.

Defender: Lasts the longest in combat, non-fighter defenders do less damage than everyone.
Controller: Lasts the shortest in combat, best at reducing enemy turns that reduces the volume of enemy attacks taken.
Leader: Lasts as long as a melee striker, gives bonuses to what other people are doing. Also is the only class allowed to heal for some bullshit reason.
Striker: Lasts only slightly less long than a defender. Takes out enemies the fastest, reducing volume of enemy attacks taken.

Have you figured out the difference yet, folks? That's right, there isn't a fucking difference. You've just moved a sliding scale around. You either bump up the number of rounds you can survive against the enemy or you reduce the number of rounds an enemy gets. And that's fine, that's the goal of combat, but these aren't different roles. They're the same bullshit guy who adjusts the scales.

I have found previous discussion on this to be enlightening as I myself have never been overly fond of specific roles for classes.

I do have one question I don't recall seeing answered though; do you feel that roles shouldn't exist at all? That is, that everyone should get to do whatever they feel like, or that the roles chosen are simply not actual roles (and if so what would consider actual roles)?

What about one class, and only one class whose stick is to take people out asap/do the most damage.

Since that one class is one dimensional, it seems to me like it would make a good meter to help balance the rest of the classes. As in, if any class does more damage than this dude, there is something wrong.

I can get behind a system with good role protection. I can also get behind a system that doesn't have roles at all.

The problem is that 4E thinks that it has the former but it has the latter. So it has the disadvantages of systems with strong role protection (people in the same role perform very similarly and have restricted access to effects that they would like or are thematically appropriate) while not actually offering any advantages (people who sign into it have a guaranteed reason to be in the party no matter what their friends are doing).

So what happens is that you get this 4E crap where paladins are awesome if they're in an all-paladin party, since it doesn't matter who the monsters target they're all ridiculously hard to take down, but they suck in any other kind of party. Or if one person wants to be a ranged combatant then everyone has to since having a wizard, a warlock, a bow ranger, a swordmage, and a warlord in the party is just going to get the swordmage and warlord killed--or if you're a crossbow rogue in a party of melee monkeys you're just going to end up doing less damage for no reason.

What about one class, and only one class whose stick is to take people out asap/do the most damage.

Since that one class is one dimensional, it seems to me like it would make a good meter to help balance the rest of the classes. As in, if any class does more damage than this dude, there is something wrong.

That's a dumb way to make game balance. If you have a class whose only thing is 'I do the most damage', then you have a guy whose friends don't really care or pay attention to what he's doing if you're in a system with role protection and if you don't have role protection then you have an option that is just going to make the other choices obsolete.

Clearly there are two roles: melee man and distance dude. And it's not best to divide the roles up - the roles are essentially coloured teams, and the actual *role* describes the entire party - melee mob or ranged rabble.

And here's the most damning question:

If the roles are supposed to be so important, then how the fuck did the game last for over six months with only having one dedicated controller class? A lot of groups I were in did not have wizards.

This heavily indicates to me that the controller role is either superfluous or unimportant. Either is completely damning to the role system.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:And here's the most damning question:

If the roles are supposed to be so important, then how the fuck did the game last for over six months with only having one dedicated controller class? A lot of groups I were in did not have wizards.

This heavily indicates to me that the controller role is either superfluous or unimportant. Either is completely damning to the role system.

Because it took them that long to figure out what the hell a 'controller' was? Not that they know what it is suppose to be now, but the Invoker and Druid ended up a bit more focused than the Wizard was. (the tacked on druid shapeshifting crap notwithstanding)

Because it took them that long to figure out what the hell a 'controller' was?

As far as I can see, controller to them means 'ranged status effects or damage to multiple people'. That's not a role, that's you refusing to give good things to melee people, since the rogue and fighter have quite a few 'status effects to multiple people' powers as is.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:{4e} has the disadvantages of systems with strong role protection (people in the same role perform very similarly and have restricted access to effects that they would like or are thematically appropriate)

So... the problem with 4e roles is that, because Defenders tank, and Leaders heal, you are restricted from playing a character that can both tank and heal. Unless you play a Paladin, in which case you can. Also, because Defenders tank, and Strikers do DPS, you are restricted from playing a character that can both tank and DPS. Unless you play a Tempest Fighter, in which case you can. Also, it restricts you from playing a character who can do AoE without doing debuffs. Unless you play a Wizard and only pick AoE powers, in which case you totally can.

I'm really not seeing the restricted access to effects. Do you have an example in mind?

Powers are thematically restricted as if there was something to protect. Spiral Tower or no, you'll never make a character who swings their sword to meaningful blow raining effect and still casts balls of fire on large groups of enemies. Ostensibly this is to protect the controller and defender roles from each other, but in reality there is nothing game mechanical to protect. It's just some weird hiccups.

No hammer fighting pit fighters because. Um... No reason?

-Username17

From what I can tell, "Controller" means AoE in 4e.

Other than that, I think the real problem isn't the role per se, but how those roles are implemented between and within classes of the same role.

Multi-attack Fighters fuck that up pretty bad by not only doing Striker damage but laughing at the other Defender archetypes in doing so. Battlerage Fighters make other Defenders look silly, though I've heard that a well-built Warden can do an awesome, similar job. But then, I've heard that that same Warden can end up doing Control-style AoE stuff.

I haven't seen this Warden or bothered to build one, but even without it you have an invulnerable character and a powerhouse DPS character in the same class and same role.

Warlords > Clerics is another problem, but maybe that's only my own bias.

I think the solution would be strictly having a fat pool of powers separated by role but I imagine that unless the powers are balanced internally against each other you'll just end up with one or two builds per role.

I'm really not seeing the restricted access to effects. Do you have an example in mind?

Oh Jesus, Martin Harper.

How about the fact that if you want to use a longbow competently, you have to be either a Bard (with a heavy emphasis on sucking, since there aren't enough longbow powers) or a ranger.

Or if you want to have reliable access to ranged AoE, you have to be a spellcaster of some sort.

Or if you want to summon something (actually summon something, not just put tokens on the field), you need to be either that Artificer class from an optional book or a controller.

And as you've correctly noted, there are already classes in the book that step on the toes of roles. Fighters do DPS and 'tank'. Paladins tank and heal, probably because conceptually there's no fucking difference between doing these things. Wizards do DPS and lay down powerful AoE. Rangers, if they're specced for it (which they can with the right stat array and power selection), do DPS and status effects.

So not only does this mean that there aren't really roles, but the role system also enforces arbitrary restrictions on people.

FrankTrollman wrote:Spiral Tower or no, you'll never make a character who swings their sword to meaningful blow raining effect and still casts balls of fire on large groups of enemies.

That's because of the six-stat system. If casting balls of fire is Int-based, and swinging a sword is Str-based, then you can't do both effectively at once. However, you can certainly play someone who is a tank with AoE effects, because you can build a Fighter with Cleave, Spinning Sweep, and Sweeping Blow.

FrankTrollman wrote:No hammer fighting pit fighters because. Um... No reason?

Because hammer fighters are Str/Con and Pit Fighter's 16th level ability is Wis-based? Again, that's the six-stat system, and has nothing to do with the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller stuff.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:The role system also enforces arbitrary restrictions on people.

No, the stat system and the class system enforce arbitrary restrictions. The 4e roles are not a restriction because you can totally play a Martial Defender and multiclass into an Arcane Controller and provided they both use Str/Cha, you're fine, and presto: you're both a Defender and a Controller and nobody cares.

No, the stat system and the class system enforce arbitrary restrictions. The 4e roles are not a restriction because you can totally play a Martial Defender and multiclass into an Arcane Controller and provided they both use Str/Cha, you're fine, and presto: you're both a Defender and a Controller and nobody cares.

You got that completely backwards.

The roles are designed to have certain bullshit like only leaders being able to heal others, only controllers having ranged AoE, tanks can't summon shit, etc. There are no such as powers in a class that would let the warlock plop down extra tokens on the battlefield if they somehow weaselled a good Wisdom score, otherwise it would be be a failing of the class/stat system.

The fact that if you find a magic stat array to let you step out of that role is a weird feature of the multiclassing system and the biggest reason why roles don't work.

MartinHarper wrote:That's because of the six-stat system. If casting balls of fire is Int-based, and swinging a sword is Str-based, then you can't do both effectively at once. However, you can certainly play someone who is a tank with AoE effects, because you can build a Fighter with Cleave, Spinning Sweep, and Sweeping Blow.

Excuse me while I tell you to fuck right off. The problem is not the six-stat system; the problem is RNG issues.

Let's say I have a fighter with 18 Strength and 10 Int. He can swing his sword and hit a monster 70% of the time with his +4 Strength modifier, but his spells only land 50% of the time with his Int modifier. In a good game, the fighter could drop his Strength to 14 and raise his Int to 14. This would reduce his chances of hitting with his sword to 60%, but it would increase his chances of landing a spell to 60%. It's an even trade-off.

However, in 4e, the fighter's useful stats are going to fall farther and farther behind on the RNG with half of the stat boosts, and then he's going to have to rape his WBL by spending twice his residuum on both a magic sword and a magic implement--again, just so that he can stay on the RNG. (He can opt not to do this by being shoehorned into paragon multiclassing or whatever the clusterfuck is into WotST.)

There are a few ways to fix this.

1. Make the RNG work. But this is 4e, where the devs claim they're fixing the RNG, and then they fuck it up anyway.

2. Allow the fighter to substitute his Intelligence modifier on his Strength-based attacks (or substitute his Strength modifier on his Intelligence-based attacks). But this runs into the problem of allowing the fighter to have one stat and thus be pretty awesome (in 4e terms, mind you) at both wizarding and fightering.

3. Make a class that combines defending and spellcasting and fighting all into one. HEY THIS WILL SELL BOOKS KA-CHING

Guess which one WotC chose?

Because hammer fighters are Str/Con and Pit Fighter's 16th level ability is Wis-based? Again, that's the six-stat system, and has nothing to do with the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller stuff.

No, it's shitty class mechanics.

No, the stat system and the class system enforce arbitrary restrictions. The 4e roles are not a restriction because you can totally play a Martial Defender and multiclass into an Arcane Controller and provided they both use Str/Cha, you're fine, and presto: you're both a Defender and a Controller and nobody cares.

A not-shitty system would a) not have roles, and b) allow you to be an Int-based caster without being a piece of shit.

FrankTrollman wrote:Powers are thematically restricted as if there was something to protect. Spiral Tower or no, you'll never make a character who swings their sword to meaningful blow raining effect and still casts balls of fire on large groups of enemies.
-Username17

Half Elf Valor Bard. Take the Warlock multiclass feat and some power swap feats for some con/cha based aoe striker powers, grab Twin Strike as a Dilettante power, Versatile Master, Arcane Implement proficiency and Dual Implement Proficiency so he could dual wield swords as implements and pump up the damage on his spells and finally Melee Training so he can use Cha to make basic melee attacks. Also some damn White Lotus feat that I forget the name of that arcane gishes love the shit out of.

Granted that takes three damn books to do a character concept that should be doable with just core, and he has to set a crap ton of feats on fire, most of which are spent on stupid bandaid feats that shouldn't even need to exist in the first place... but it does fill the concept of a guy who stabs people in the face a whole lot and blows shit up with fire. He's not amazingly good at it, but it is enough to be viable especially when combined with all the temp HP and bonuses he's handing out inbetween doing this. It's probably also possible to pull off the same concept with a Cunning Bard and Wizard powers, but he'd be a little less of a melee fighter that way.