It seems I started a little bit of a mess on twitter recently by tweeting this:
“What I want to see more of now in #dnd are builds for character classes that break the roles, like the slayer did & the ranger will as well. I want role to be a choice, not a label of a class.”
Now twitter not being the most ideal place to hold conversations that require a bit of explaining, I thought I’d write about it and frame it as a Warstories article, because these issues affect us DM’s as well.
I’ll start by saying that I’m a big fan of what I’ve seen so far in the Essentials line. If I were a player, I’d want to play the new Thief. I like what they did to the fighter also, with the Slayer build. This is because in my mind, and in all my years of playing D&D 1e & 2e specifically, I always played fighter who did a buttload of damage. I like the fact that we are getting new builds to existing classes that change the role of the class in combat. I think 4e needs more of that.
It took me a bit to get used to the fact that the guy who was playing a fighter in my 4e game wasn’t doing nearly as much damage as we thought he should have been, based on my preconceived notions of what a “fighter” is. Right or wrong, that was my thinking, and to an extent it still is–it’s why I’d play a slayer if I were going the “fighter” route.
Which leads to the context of the article as a “Warstories” piece. As DM’s, it’s our job to manage the table, and also manage several different personality types all at the same time. Like it or not it’s part of the gig.
My group is one that’s known each other for years, so there is a comfort zone between them to tell each other things or otherwise be blunt with each other that there may not necessarily be with other groups. I remember when we started 4e, the Wizard wanted to blast guys and do tons of damage. He certainly wasn’t too crazy about the amount of hurt he was piling on his enemies. It got to the point where one of the more tactical players basically had to say “it’s not your role!”.
And that’s what led me to think some time ago about class roles, and their effect on the table. I think that there’s an expectation of how a player is “supposed” to play a class, based on his assigned Role, and other players expect that player to embrace that “Role” while playing. As a DM, I often had my game disrupted due to party arguments about what X should be doing versus what he’s doing and that sort of thing. But what if a player wants to play a “defender””class a certain way, and not just as a marker nor a body to flank for the Rogue’s combat advantage?
We had a Swordmage that was desperately trying to deal damage every round. He grew frustrated at the fact that he just wasn’t dealing damage, and eventually switched to a Rogue. Now, he could have just studied beforehand and really looked at the class to see that no matter what, he wasn’t going to get the damage output he wanted, but imagining his guy with a sword, while casting magic seemed cool to him. That’s fine, I get that. The problem arose that when he wanted to play him as a damage dealer first, then defender second, he faced the same types of comments from the table.
Some groups sit and discuss what kind of characters they want to bring in, how they want to play them, and what the expectations are. Other groups ask “what’s missing, a leader? Defender?” and bring in a character based on that.
So rather than provide answers, because I don’t have them, I’d like to hear from your groups’ experience with this issue. Were the formal introduction of roles in 4e a problem for your group? Do you face these types of situations at your table? How do you handle it?
I look forward to your responses. And remember you can find more Warstories here.
www. Newbie DM .com 
Rod Spellman
October 13, 2010
Our first try through 4e, we played a “balanced” party–one of each role. Everyone accepted their role and tried to play it, all players are veterans of RPGs where party composition almost always involves some balancing of roles–magic, healer, fighter, skills-guy…. or hacker, hitter, grifter, thief for more modern games. What my players found a bit complex was the variance within the roles–a cleric is a leader, but can put out some solid damage (maybe leader/striker), a shaman is more leader/controller. So, what we found more complex was not knowing what fell after the slash for each class type.
Our second try, we let everyone play what they wanted, and eschewed the idea that 4e needed specific roles; the party is three strikers (avenger, sorcerer, barbarian) and a bard leader. The bard is happy with his role, and the others like their high damage outputs. And our game, if broken in any way, is that monsters have a hard time lasting more than a couple of rounds.
Rev. Lazaro
October 13, 2010
I think the problem with roles is that they seem to have more of a precedence than the class in 4th edition. We’ve had issues before where players were wanting to roll up separate classes but then you can really feel the overlap of 2 roles in the party (For instance, a Cleric and a Warlord.) And like your Wizard friend, it doesn’t always mesh with past edition views of what a class is.
I remember one of my old friends going “When were thieves and rogues the DPS (striker) of the party? In my day that was the Fighter’s job.” And, in a sense, I kinda agree that the sneaky backstabber maybe could be more often viewed as a Martial Controller than someone who explodes damage every round. Looking at old Fighter concepts (especially from 2E kits) there was definitely room for them to do more than be a meat shield for their comrades.
I think the comment that splashed cold water on me was the statement “If you’re wanting to be a damage dealing Wizard, why not play a Sorcerer or a Warlock?” The obvious answer, for me, was “Because I don’t want to make pacts with forces or be a spontaneous casting mutant?” But then, you realize that stuff is just fluff and flavor text. Which, looking at that conversation yesterday, was put to the wayside for build discussions, and even a rambling from ChrisSSims about “playing ineffective builds”. So I guess the moral here is damn the story telling potential, this is a ROLE playing game (as in, KNOW YOUR ROLE.) Wizards do this, Sorcerers do this. We’re no longer in d20/3.5 land where we pull from the same spell lists. A question of role-playing potential is easily answered in re-skinning. But mechanically, you’re locked.
Rev. Lazaro
October 13, 2010
Wanted to re-comment on something…..I wasn’t ChrisSSims out, like my post may come off as (damn internet text lacking emotion!) His comments about playing “ineffective builds” was well put and not intent of saying good/bad, right or wrong, and he did say in the end whatever is fun is playing right. I was just referencing the point in the convo where I kinda felt my wavelength is obviously on a different track from where most peeps are looking (story, role-playing, style of character and variety in talents.)
Chris
October 13, 2010
My table’s evolved a bit. It’s still the same game (and also happens to be the first time I’ve ever DM’d), but one player left after a breakup with another player to keep peace at the table and was replaced, and last week I had another player join the game after the group made the decision they wanted another player. That makes five players at my table. To set the stage, I have two Strikers (Rogue and Monk), a Leader (Cleric) and two Defenders (Warden and Swordmage). The game started out slightly differently: Cleric, Warden, Swordmage and Wizard, so no Striker. The Controller (Wizard) was the one who left the table.
What I’ve found is that there’s enough damage between the various classes to handle the lack of a Controller so far. I’ve also tuned the combats a bit to not be them versus overwhelming numbers (unless there’s a good reason for it, but the story hasn’t warranted that just yet). I tend to give them challenging combat, though: the encounters are at least one or two levels over the party level. They’ve proven to work well as a team, and the Cleric is a seriously skilled healer so far, although I had to lecture them on focusing their fire after I watched three wraiths damn near kill all five of them because they weren’t hitting any one of them enough to get past both Regeneration 5 AND Insubstantial. Ouch.
I happen to have a group that likes fighting against overwhelming odds, though, so most of my encounters can be tuned to add or remove a creature if I think it’s too much for them at that point in particular. I actually had four wraiths planned for that fight (plus the pale reaver lord that came with the wraiths), but I chose to pull one wraith after they got their asses handed to them in the previous encounter. A fourth wraith would have killed them, no questions asked. However, occasionally they’ll prove to be more than a match for my forces, so I’ll test them by having another monster appear. An example would be having a Fang of Yeenoghu barge out of a hut barking orders and waving his wicked club around after two rounds of the players curb-stomping the rest of the gnolls in that camp. (It was worth it for the “Oh crap!” look on their faces alone.)
In either case, that’s how I handle encounters with the group: I plan them against the demonstrated abilities of the players, and keep a few wild cards on the site just in case the specific circumstances warrant a change. As for helping the players pick what to play, with the last two players that joined (and one who might join soon), I explained the roles on the table already and what was missing, but I don’t force ’em into anything they don’t want to play. I figure I’d rather let them play what they think will be fun for them, and my job as the DM is to tailor the game to the players. (My campaign is completely self-written and guided, I’m not using any published encounters.)
Kevin Carpenter
October 13, 2010
I think it helps to consider more extreme roles rather than the distinction between striker and controller, as those two do have some overlap. One role that has always been pretty clear cut was that of the party healer, and in previous editions you really couldn’t run without one unless the DM decided to lard you up with healing potions and take it easy on you. So, you can imagine that if the party healer decided that they really wanted to be a striker and ignored the duties of healing the party so he could boost his damage output, the rest of the party would be pretty miffed. Of course, if that player said, hey, I’m playing a class that can heal but I’m building him as a striker and I don’t plan on healing the party, then at least that expectation was stated at the start.
I followed the conversation between yourself and Sims, and from what I could tell, it was as much an issue of expectations and overall party success. If everyone is up front about what they want to do in the party, then at least no one is surprised in the course of play when the ‘healer’ charges into the fray instead of focusing on what everyone thought his role was.
It’s also important to remember that, at least in the traditional format for D&D, you’re supposed to be a party with common interests that is working towards a goal. If everyone decides they want to all be strikers and no one wants to tank, heal or control, or everyone wants to play some off-the-wall build that doesn’t play to the strengths of the class they’ve chosen, to me you’ve missed out on the cooperative aspect of the tabletop RPG experience.
However, if everyone really does want to do that, and everyone is having fun, then you’ve still accomplished the most important part of a game – having fun. But these are all things that should be hashed out ahead of time and explained to the group and the DM. I’d think a party that was all damage output but no control or heals would require a redesign of most encounters, lest they be picked apart and overwhelmed.
Sersa V
October 13, 2010
I can’t say I’ve had similar experiences. The addition of roles, for the longest time, actually went unnoticed by my players and I. A lot of my players were new to D&D or weren’t married to a particular vision of it, so we didn’t experience the same kind of dissonance other groups might have. In fact, my first reaction to roles were “so the finally just gave language to things me and everyone else I know have been thinking for almost a decade.”
I’m also big as a DM on “read your shit before you play.” If your class description says you’re a healer, not a killer, and your class features heal rather than kill, and your powers grant healing rather than deal death, I’m not going to be remarkably sympathetic when you try to kill the two-headed troll mummy and it eats you.
Of course, this says nothing about what I think is a valid point you make – games need to make allowance for a variety of interpretations of a class. I think that 4e (and even 3e and the editions before) did a pretty decent job of that, what with Essentials and Dragon/Dungeon magazine and all the 3rd party stuff. People are always expanding the purview of classes, sometimes in weird or unexpected ways. You could also, as Rev says, damn the fluff and just file off the serial numbers with little effort.
Of course, game style has a lot to do with it. I’ve played in/run storytelling-heavy games where the mechanics faded into the background and characterization was emphasized, and that probably mitigated some of those issues to a degree.
Also, since I’m compelled by the result of a lawsuit to link to TVTropes at least once per blog comment, I think issues like these touch on the extent to which Stop Having Fun Guys influence the dynamic of your/the game.
Captain Spud
October 13, 2010
If I had your Swordmage player in my group, I’d propose a simple solution– take away his Defender marking mechanic (and probably reduce the Warding AC bonus by 1) and give him a Striker damage mechanic in its place. Just about any of them would work– the Sorc’s +OffStat to all damage may be a bit much, but Quarry, Curse, and even Flurry would probably be fine. The powers of a Defender and a Striker tend to be pretty similar, with the only difference usually being the way their class mechanic modifies those powers.
Same deal with the Wizard; I’d toss him a simple Striker mechanic (say, +1/2 OffStat to AoE damage, and +OffStat to single-target damage) in exchange for, say, his implement feature and spellbook. This one’s a bit trickier to manage, but I’m sure you could find a happy medium with a few sessions of experimentation.
I’m always in favor of a simple houserule to solve fluff dissonance. Unless you’ve got a group of hardcore optimizers, the change is unlikely to disrupt the game too much, and on the other hand, you help improve the player’s immersion in the game by finding a better mechanical match to the concept that’s in his head. As long as you remember to take something away for everything you grant and are willing to do some practical playtesting and adjustment, you should be good to go.
Bartoneus
October 13, 2010
One of the points I’ve noticed time and again is that almost everyone is frustrated when their character can’t do as much damage as other characters (within reason). I don’t chalk it up to just an issue of roles or an issue with the fighter class or the wizard class, it can be just plain disheartening when you’re playing any class and someone else blasts a monster for huge amounts of damage that you feel like you could never reach. In general people seem more understanding when it comes to defenses being higher or lower between roles/classes.
The way I’ve always seen it is that one of the core designs of 4E is that no single class can “have it all” without sacrificing something to get close to it (typically feats). I haven’t compared side by side yet, but my big concern with the Slayer Fighter build is that it seems to have high HP, higher defenses, and still dish out a decent amount of damage. My question is: what does it sacrifice to have those? If nothing, then it’s probably imbalanced compared to most other 4E classes. Another issue this raises for me is the muddying of the roles, if I’m joining a game and they have a Fighter already, so far in 4E I expect that fighter to be good at holding enemies and defending, but now it has to be specified if it’s a Slayer fighter or not. Not a big deal, but still I can see it being an issue that arises quite a bit.
That said, overall I’m reserving full judgment until I get a chance to compare the classes side by side and see how they look.
j-man
October 13, 2010
My group loves strikers, especially rangers. We even have a ranger plus a rouge/ranger hybrid. Then there’s a fighter and a wizard. (my players just aren’t really into divine classes) We get along just fine though. The wizard stands back for long range, the rouge/ranger gets up in monster’s face’s (and backs), the fighter protects whoever is most surrounded, and the ranger…he’s all over the place.
Oh yeah, just thought I’d mention, the rouge should have been a striker from the beginning. It just seem to me like that fit it well. Before I thought rouges were pretty crappy because they couldn’t get near the action without dying.
Mike Brady
October 13, 2010
What I like about the Roles system is that it provides useful archetypes for thinking about more obscure classes. Let’s say I want to create a new character that’s Cleric-like without being a Cleric. I immediately know what the most obvious options are, which is nice for a game with a lot of classes. What I don’t like, as you mentioned, is the way a few people respond to those roles. I had someone state unequivocally that a good Leader must manipulate initiative and provide saving throws, which is a very limited view of the role.
The biggest issue with the mechanics is that too many people want their character to be a Striker, regardless of their Role. There are a few people that have the eye (and spend the time) to really allow their character to find that role, but generally the sacrifices that you have to make to your “home” role don’t justify the modest increase in damage. It’s generally much more satisfying to optimize a theme within your class, but that doesn’t really pay off until you begin approaching Paragon tier.
As for party balance, I’ve found the role that is least missed in a party is Controller. The squishier members like the Defender keeping the monsters’ attention; the Defender likes the Leader to keep him conscious. And nobody minds the damage output of a Striker. The Controller is most missed when dealing with swarms or hordes of minions.
I’ve also found that party “balance” is only crucial at lower levels. At higher levels the strength of your powers overcomes absences in roles. I’ve been in a party that was mostly Controllers that was extremely effective, because the Controllers were very good at what they did and their controlling abilities generally didn’t overlap. Likewise, I was in an effective party of only 4 Leaders (!), again because we were higher-level and the bonuses/penalties we applied didn’t conflict (though the battles did take a little longer). A Striker-heavy party works at any level – even without a Defender – because they finish the battle so quickly.
So while I don’t think any party should feel restricted by role balance – nor any character by role – I’ve found that parties benefit from specialization in some form.
Thunderforge
October 13, 2010
I think it would be really great if you had a class and then a “template” for your role, each with a new ability. So your Wizard could be a Controller, Striker, Defender, or Leader and would each get cool unique powers based on which you choose.
This could also get interesting with some other classes. A Controller Fighter (maybe a Dervish build) would attack many enemies all around him. An Assassin Defender (Shadow Ghost?) would be able to goad enemies into attacking him and avoid taking too much damage from being insubstantial most of the time. A Leader Avenger (Instigator?) would inspire others to do the Striking while leading by example. And a Striker Cleric (the Holy Warrior) would be on the front lines dealing damage while helping keep others alive to do the same.
Colmarr
October 14, 2010
I disagree. The reasons why are lengthy, so I’ve created my own post about it here.
j-man
October 14, 2010
@ Thunderforge:
Wow, that’s an awesome idea! I never thought about something like that. I soooooo wish they had rules for that.
Michael
October 15, 2010
I like the flexibility with the character creation system, but I think it’s a bad idea to try to “break” the system to reach a certain end. I’ve been playing a straight-up Rogue for 8 levels now and have enjoyed that. My role in the party is simple, and I like it that way. My wrinkle is that I’m Dragonborn; I just like the idea of a massive 6’4 humanoid dragon being stealthy. 🙂
Question for all – is there a way to create a custom magic item in Character Builder? As a DM, I’d like to create some custom potions and other items for the party and print them out in Character Builder. Is there a way to do this?
Please contact me at Alive30@aol.com. Thanks!!
Ace42
October 17, 2010
I think the question here is not about “roles”, nor really about “classes”, but about “builds”. The way the “X Power” supplements have added fundamental mechanics to builds provides an easy way to completely modify how a class functions, and the PHB2 classes reflect that (For example ‘Striker with Leader as a secondary role’ for one of the Barbarian builds) functionality.
I agree that it must be very frustrating to have you idea of a character (Pure martial fighter dealing big damage) rejected and needing to do a cosmetic reskin; but really I think that just means you should be making proposals to WOTC for updates in Martial Power 3, etc, for alternative build options.
Brian
October 17, 2010
“Same deal with the Wizard; I’d toss him a simple Striker mechanic (say, +1/2 OffStat to AoE damage, and +OffStat to single-target damage) in exchange for, say, his implement feature and spellbook. This one’s a bit trickier to manage, but I’m sure you could find a happy medium with a few sessions of experimentation.”
I would be extremely hesitant to implement this house rule. The spellbook doesn’t have a mechanical benefit in any given encounter, and the implement mastery (or the Mage schools) class feature wouldn’t be missed too much. The problem is, a controller fulfills its role through its powers. If you give Wizards a striker mechanic, you’ve just tacked damage onto spells that still likely have a strong control mechanic (at least I’d still pick the control spells as a player). This would make the Wizard too potent, and the Sorcerer very jealous.
Cord the Seeker
November 29, 2010
Thunderforge – the way I see it, this has already been done, by the role/power source interface.
You want a controller wizard? – Wizard.
A Striker wizard? – Warlock or Sorceror.
A Defender wizard? – Swordmage.
A Leader wizard? – Artificer.
Not exactly what you’re thinking of, I know, but it does the job for me.