My response in another thread got me thinking about the concepts of "class" and "role" in 4e. The following ideas have been ruminating at the back of my mind for a few months, and I finally decided to articulate them. Not wanting to threadjack the other thread, I decided to post a new one.
I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding about the purpose of "roles" in 4e and I think it comes from the confusion of what "class" represents in 3e/3.5 with what it represents in 4e. A good way of understanding the 4e idea of "class" is by thinking about where we get the use of the word "class" in the first place. "Class" implies a collection of things, grouped by common attributes.
For example, in 3e/3.5 "fighter" is a rather generic term for the metagame concept of a person who fights (generally in melee, but also possibly at range). I doubt that in the game world, anyone ever says, "I'm a fighter" in response to a question of what one does for a living. The term "fighter" is specifically used at the metagame level to classify a collection of people by their common attributes (which are metagame aspects such as weapon proficiency, base attack bonus, available feats/abilities, etc).
Now, certainly, the term used for some classes can also be used in the game world to describe what one "does for a living," but one doesn't have to. A cleric could be a priest, a wizard a mage, or a rogue a thief. In fact, you could be a priest whose "class" is bard, or a thief whose "class" is fighter.
The design of 4e recognizes that "class" is better understood as a collection of common metagame attributes, rather than a description of one's profession or place in society. This design standpoint does result in more focused and seemingly restricted classes, but because the purpose of "class" in the game is different, this is not really a bad thing. The idea is that you use these focused elements as building blocks for an already designed character concept, not as the starting point for designing a character.
For example, in 3e/3.5 you might decide to make a fighter, and then you decide what you want that fighter to do, such as focus on archery. In 4e, you decide that you want a character who is primarily a ranged combatant, so you look at the building blocks and determine that the ranger best suits the concept. In 3e/3.5, you might decide to make a cleric, and then you decide you want the character to focus on melee combat. In 4e, you start with the concept of a battle-priest, and then you might decide the best fit is a little from fighter, a little from cleric, or maybe a paladin instead.
The point is that "class" is a metagame concept used to describe a character's abilities (both in and out of combat). The personality, role in society, and general flavor of the character is not dependent on "class." It is certainly likely they will be related, but the former determines the latter, rather than the other way around, which is more how 3e/3.5 views "class."
In this context of the meaning of "class," the concept of "roles" becomes much more appropriate. Classes are designed more specifically, and therefore more specifically fill certain roles. You design a character based on what you want to be able to do. Hence, you are in control of which role(s) you want to fill. The categorization of classes into roles merely helps you figure out which class(es) will best model your concept. If you choose a class irrespective of what you want your character to be able to do, and then try to use that class to do something it can't, it should be no surprise that you feel restricted.
For example, while in 3e/3.5 one might choose to play the class wizard and then use feats/spells to fight well on the front lines, this would make little sense in the context of 4e. Instead, one might use abilities from *both* the wizard and fighter classes (or perhaps the upcoming Swordmage class) to model the concept of a front-line arcanist. In game, one could still refer to the character as a wizard (or mage, or whatever), but mechanically (on a metagame level), it would be different.
To sum up, I believe in order to understand (and fully appreciate) the concept of "roles" in 4e, we must alter our preconceived notions of "class." I don't think it is possible to use the 3e/3.5 meaning of class to understand correctly how 4e is supposed to work. I wish that WotC had been clearer about this shift in concept in their previews, as I think it would have resulted in less misunderstanding regarding the new edition. Perhaps when the rules come out, this will be more explicit.
What do you think about this? Is my assessment valid? Please share your thoughts on the concepts of "class" and "role."
I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding about the purpose of "roles" in 4e and I think it comes from the confusion of what "class" represents in 3e/3.5 with what it represents in 4e. A good way of understanding the 4e idea of "class" is by thinking about where we get the use of the word "class" in the first place. "Class" implies a collection of things, grouped by common attributes.
r...
The roles have always been there. Everything you just described was just as prevalent in 3.x as it is in 4th Edition. The only thing different now is WotC has "defined" what the roles were so that they can create encounters that assume those roles. They are basically saying, instead of you needing a Wizard, Fighter, Rogue and Cleric to form a party, you instead need a Controller, Defender, Striker and Leader. And those roles can be filled by MANY different classes because they are all modeled after those "roles". In 3.5 edition it was harder to decide what role a "spellsword" fit, because it wasn't defined... So, you couldn't really decide if it took the place of a fighter or a wizard. In 4th Edition, EVERY class will be defined in a certain role. That way you know that you can have any class as long as you fill up the basic 4 roles.
To sum up: it's always been there. Now, it's just clearly defined and used as a design mechanic.
Yes, but there is a difference. They assume that a wizard, for example, is/has to be a striker - and that is the only "role" a wizard can fill.
That's complete and utter Bravo Sierra.
One of my good friends likes to play transumters. His favorite trick, when of a high enough level, is to polymorph into a troll, enlarge himself, maybe pick up a buls strength or other such buff, and wade into melee.
Hardly a striker. Or even a controller, for that matter.
The problem is that they assume certain classes will perform certain roles. Yes, you are right that the roles have always been there. The problem is that they are now forcing people, [i]whatever their class,[i]into fulflling a cartain role, and only that role, in the party.
Maybe that's why bards and druids are gone. They are too good at going "cross-role," so to speak - and bust this silly role stuff wide open.
Bards and Druids - PHB 2. Not gone.
I agree with Lefric. So far, the implication of 4e is that certain casses always fill certain roles and should never step out of them. Possibly once we actually see the PHB that will not be the case, but so far, I'm not holding out any hopes for flexibility.
I do suspect that's why certain classes were not in the PHB1. Oh, they will release them as a sop to the customers, but they don't fit the 'roles' and thus have to be severely modified first.
I'd also feel much better about the 'roles' if every sample character from Experience didn't look the same. 101 ways to do a d6 of damage.
Yes, but there is a difference. They assume that a wizard, for example, is/has to be a striker - and that is the only "role" a wizard can fill.
That's complete and utter Bravo Sierra.
One of my good friends likes to play transumters. His favorite trick, when of a high enough level, is to polymorph into a troll, enlarge himself, maybe pick up a buls strength or other such buff, and wade into melee.
Hardly a striker. Or even a controller, for that matter.
The problem is that they assume certain classes will perform certain roles. Yes, you are right that the roles have always been there. The problem is that they are now forcing people, [i]whatever their class,[i]into fulflling a cartain role, and only that role, in the party.
I agree, but I believe one of the exact purposes of roles is to achieve class balance.
On 3/3.5E, probably all of us already heard complaints like:
"Why the wizard can fly and teleport, create rains of meteors, stop the time, buff the entire party, insta-kill his enemies with save or die spell, shapechange into a dragon, and the fighter can only do physical attacks?"
"Why the cleric can heal and ressurect, buff the entire party, insta-kill his enemies with save or die spell, and use apropriate buffs to superpass even the fighter on melee combat, and the fighter can only do physical attacks?"
On 3E/3.5, on high levels, there were really no roles, as you mentioned. As there was no balance.
Some classes (wizards and clerics) were capable of doing a lot of things with average to extremly high competence.
Some classes (like fighters and rogue) were capable of doing a few things with average competence.
Some classes (like bards or multi-classes fighter/wizards) were capable of doing a lot of things with barely any competence.
And some classes (like swashbucklers) were capable of doing a few things with barely any competence.
4E attempts to provide the otherwise unrealistic "balance at all levels". But such a thing comes at the cost of losing versatility for some classes. (Remember that many classes were never versatile at all)
For instance, unlike on 3E, a player probably can't come up with a cleric focused on self-buff spells and domains that can laugh at fighters on melee combat. This reduces the choices of players, but for a balance perspective, it makes sense, because on 3E it wasn't possible to make a fighter who heals his allies or crushes multiple enemies with area attacks. Much less, a fighter who heals better than the cleric or possesses area attacks stronger than the wizard.
P.S.: Let's try to not get back to the "Good mechanics vs. 30 years of D&D history" discussion, right? I'm pointing out that roles help a lot to provide class balance, but I perfectly understand that for many people tradition is more important than balance, and that's OK.
Yes, but there is a difference. They assume that a wizard, for example, is/has to be a striker - and that is the only "role" a wizard can fill.
That's complete and utter Bravo Sierra.
One of my good friends likes to play transumters. His favorite trick, when of a high enough level, is to polymorph into a troll, enlarge himself, maybe pick up a buls strength or other such buff, and wade into melee.
Hardly a striker. Or even a controller, for that matter.
The problem is that they assume certain classes will perform certain roles. Yes, you are right that the roles have always been there. The problem is that they are now forcing people, [i]whatever their class,[i]into fulflling a cartain role, and only that role, in the party.
Maybe that's why bards and druids are gone. They are too good at going "cross-role," so to speak - and bust this silly role stuff wide open.
You need to understand that in 4th Edition that classes are being refined towards fulfilling a certain role. Your friend who changes into a troll? Well polymorph (or even trollform) might not be available to the average wizard anymore.
The fighter is no longer a feasible class to make the ultimate in ranged firepower: in 3rd Edition you could make a fighter that was vastly superior in archery to even an archery-themed ranger with the sheer number of feats. Not so anymore. If you want a ranged character, pick the ranger class (or multiclass, or take Ranger Training).Now, this is good because you dont have to really stretch some classes to fulfill a concept that you wanted to do (such as running around with a sucktacular AC because you wanted to play an armor-lite fighter, or some such).
This is ALSO good because now classes like bards will have some form of focus and be actually useful in combat encounters now. As it stands they are mainly relegated to the back of the bus, cheering the rest of the party on.
Lefric:
Please allow me to clarify a few factual errors in your post in hopes of stopping the spread of misinformation. First, wizards are not assumed to be strikers, they are controllers. Second, as FabesMinis points out, Bards and Druids are not gone. They've been all but directly confirmed for the PHB2. Third, the Druid has been described as a hybrid of roles, so the idea that "cross-role" behavior will "bust this silly role stuff wide open" is completely false.
Now, to address what I believe is your main point.
The problem is that they are now forcing people, [i]whatever their class,[i]into fulflling a cartain role, and only that role, in the party.
This is exactly what I was addressing in my original post. Your claim is based on the idea that one chooses a "class" first, and then is forced into a role. My point was that this is not how class works in 4e. You first decide what you want to be able to do (which goes along with what type of role you want to fill), and then you find a class that models your concept.
One of my good friends likes to play transumters. His favorite trick, when of a high enough level, is to polymorph into a troll, enlarge himself, maybe pick up a buls strength or other such buff, and wade into melee.
Again, the concept of "class" in 4e is different from in 3e/3.5. I would ask you, what is it about that character that makes it a "wizard?" What makes it different from say, a fighter being polymorphed into a troll, being enlarged, being buffed, and wading into melee? I would argue that the character concept you described is a "wizard" in name only. It is basically a character that changes shape into something bigger and stronger and fights in melee. Once in melee, my guess is that he acts much like a fighter would in 4e.
Unfortunately, since very little has been done so far with polymorph effects in 4e, it is difficult to emulate that concept exactly yet. However, ignoring for a moment the limitation on shapechanging, the concept you described would probably best be achieved with a combination of wizard and fighter powers. In fact, I would say completely fighter, but my guess is that even though you don't describe it, the character would probably want to be able to do some wizardly things as well.
Let me stress again that you *can* use a combination of abilities from different classes (filling different roles). The multiclassing rules have not been completely revealed yet, but they've hinted at them.
If one wants to use this thread to debate the merits of roles, one has the right to do so. However, I do not intend to do so any more than I have, and I'd ask that one keeps in mind that the point of the original post was to explore the meanings of the underlying concepts of "class" and "role." I believe that it is difficult to really understand (and therefore debate about) roles without understanding the shift in the concept of class. My point was to generate discussion of these concepts to provide a framework for understanding the broader picture.
P.S.: Let's try to not get back to the "Good mechanics vs. 30 years of D&D history" discussion, right? I'm pointing out that roles help a lot to provide class balance, but I perfectly understand that for many people tradition is more important than balance, and that's OK.
Yes, well the "Good mechanics vs. 30 years of D&D history" argument doesn't work if you are argueing against the roles concept, because roles have been are a part of D&D history from 1st edition.
We have always been told that the perfect party is supposed a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. Yes, people argue about whether that's true, but that is what the stereotypical D&D party has been from the very begining. Argue all you like about whether you really need a cleric or not, but the classic party is a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard.
Now, that class dynamic has been expanded and formalized into the four roles. The idea of roles comes directly from D&D history, and it really really burns me that people point at the class roles and say "That's not D&D!"
Yes, well the "Good mechanics vs. 30 years of D&D history" argument doesn't work if you are argueing against the roles concept, because roles have been are a part of D&D history from 1st edition.
We have always been told that the perfect party is supposed a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. Yes, people argue about whether that's true, but that is what the stereotypical D&D party has been from the very begining. Argue all you like about whether you really need a cleric or not, but the classic party is a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard.
Now, that class dynamic has been expanded and formalized into the four roles. The idea of roles comes directly from D&D history, and it really really burns me that people point at the class roles and say "That's not D&D!"
This is tangential to the thread (sorry!) but your comment made me think of something Teiran. In 2E, I remember the classes being placed into "groupings" that encapsulated what the class was supposedly about. Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins were all Warriors, for example.
Anyone else remember this? What were the other groups, and who belonged to them? I think one group was Cleric and Druid, another Bard and Thief, but then the Wizard was his own group? Or maybe him and all his school specialized friends?
My brain isn't equipped to go that far back I thinks ...
Any help? :)
If one wants to use this thread to debate the merits of roles, one has the right to do so. However, I do not intend to do so any more than I have, and I'd ask that one keeps in mind that the point of the original post was to explore the meanings of the underlying concepts of "class" and "role." I believe that it is difficult to really understand (and therefore debate about) roles without understanding the shift in the concept of class. My point was to generate discussion of these concepts to provide a framework for understanding the broader picture.
I think you've done a very good job in parsing the difference between the role and the class in 4E Paolo.
Roles describe the general funciton you serve in the party.
Classes describe how you perform that function.
While the Warlord and the Cleric are both Leaders, I expect them to fulfill that role in radically different ways. Just as the Rogue and Ranger fulfill the role of striker in vastly different ways.