Post/Author/DateTime	Post
aramis80 08-19-07, 07:05 AM	From this Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs Their are 4 roles Tank (Fighter, Paladin, ?) Healer (Cleric, ?) Controller (Wizard, Warlock (a joke?), ) Striker (Rogue, Ranger, ?) D&D goes WoW, the Rogues are the damage dealers :( Thoughts? PS: I hope this is the right forum
Elemental_Elf 08-19-07, 07:09 AM	I think Druid is supposed to be in the Healer category. And I wonder what a Warlord is and will do... EDIT: Rogues are already damage dealers. Wyatt specifically said that Strikers are the people who maneuver around the battle field and selectively target foes and deal loads of damage to them. So really, in 3.5 that means the rogue is tumbling around and getting in flanking position. What that means in 4e is yet unkown but the basic concept is not just 'WoW,' its been a core part of 3.x since the start.
aramis80 08-19-07, 07:13 AM	I think Druid is supposed to be in the Healer category. And I wonder what a Warlord is and will do... EDIT: Rogues are already damage dealers. Wyatt specifically said that Strikers are the people who maneuver around the battle field and selectively target foes and deal loads of damage to them. So really, in 3.5 that means the rogue is tumbling around and getting in flanking position. What that means in 4e is yet unkown but the basic concept is not just 'WoW,' its been a core part of 3.x since the start. Does it really says "Warlord"? Then I should change the thread title.
Elemental_Elf 08-19-07, 07:18 AM	Does it really says "Warlord"? Then I should change the thread title. I could have swore he said Warlord... Could have been Warlock though... I'll go back and look. :embarrass EDIT: At 5:37 Wyatt says 'Warlord Class' So yea, Warlord!
aramis80 08-19-07, 07:21 AM	I thought Rogues to be the skill monkeys :rolleyes: and clerics the damage dealers :D
bkdubs123 08-19-07, 10:42 AM	I'm not sure about this whole "roles" thing... I've been following the discussion of 4e for a while now, but haven't posted any opinions about it yet as I am already ages behind the other threads. BUT seeing how this one is only a few posts long I suppose I can jump in and make some magic happen. I enjoy what everyone has been preaching about and that is versatility in build and also versatility in role. I am getting the sneaking suspicion and fear that R&D may have gone the route of giving each character class great versatility in build (nothing wrong with that, quite respectable actually), but ignoring, or possibly even outright purposefully eliminating, versatility in role. It is of course far too early to be complaining about this kind of thing, but when we have execs expressly saying things like "there are 4 roles" it can be a little scary. HOWEVER, if the "4 roles" theory are really just the 4 traditional roles and that TRULY any of the (however many classes there are) can fill one of those traditional roles (with some working around, obviously the fighter/paladin is a better tank out of the box than a rogue or wizard) THEN we have a system we can all be proud of. Darn. Just when I was REALLY getting excited about 4e, I get a shot back to make me a bit worried.
DM Zoc 08-19-07, 02:06 PM	I also must doubt the necessity of "roles" as presented in this topic. Particularly, why is a "tank" necessary? In MMORPGs, a tank is there for the enemy to beat on while the rogues and the mages do their thing; in D&D or any other such role-playing game, armored types are a valid character choice for someone who wants to sacrifice some damage potential for the ability to take a hit (to whatever extent they choose to focus on offense and defense). In no way, however, does a fighter or paladin have the ability to prevent the squishier party members from getting hit (aside from the threat of an AoO, or possibly a trip attempt). My fear, with the official designation of the "tanking" role in 4E, is that they will attempt to give the fighting man some sort of mind-control powers. Someone in another thread utilized the phrase "Spells Disguised as Maneuvers"; I'm afraid they're going to implement "Spells Disguised as Mundane Abilities" in regards to tanking. There are already two examples that I know of where they tried to give fighters the ability to control the actions of others: the Goad feat, and one of the Knight's challenge abilities. Such things will be significantly harder to ignore if they show up in 4E core rules.
thepsionicbard 08-19-07, 03:05 PM	no monks ????? i thought they were ezpanding classes not redusing them to WoW:headexplo :headexplo :headexplo hasbro better step off and let us geeks do our thing :banghead:
Ecureuil_Diabolique 08-19-07, 03:24 PM	I wonder how the warlord is going to work. Maybe it'll be like a paladin without an alignment restriction or maybe like Mkill's Overlord.
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-19-07, 03:30 PM	I wonder how the warlord is going to work. Maybe it'll be like a paladin without an alignment restriction or maybe like Mkill's Overlord. I hope it's the paladin without a restriction. The last thing I need is some PC with loads of followers and crap. That'd suck. Combats take enough time to resolve anyway without a PC with his own personal army.
Francius 08-19-07, 03:32 PM	I could have swore he said Warlord... Could have been Warlock though... I'll go back and look. :embarrass EDIT: At 5:37 Wyatt says 'Warlord Class' So yea, Warlord! Yeah, Warlord is what I heard too.
Oakes 08-19-07, 03:41 PM	no monks ????? i thought they were ezpanding classes not redusing them to WoW:headexplo :headexplo :headexplo hasbro better step off and let us geeks do our thing :banghead: I never heard that. Unless it was hidden in the plugs at the beginning, I don't believe anyone in the video said that, either. My understanding is that it will be more similar to this article. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070727a) Roles are defined by their general roles in combat. Classes are NOT being exed and replaced by four or five generics. A Monk would be a Striker by any other name.
fatal error 08-19-07, 03:49 PM	I think the basic implementation of roles is like what we see in the Complete Adventurer classes. All three, the Ninja, Spellthief, and Scout, get Trapfinding. Why? So you can play one of those instead of a rogue and not have the party suffer for it. A Cleric and a Druid may play very differently, but they will both be able to heal equally such that you don't have group-mates resenting your decision that hurt their chances of survival. Although, I agree in hoping that they do not include some kind of Taunt mechanics for the "tank" classes.
Xeviat-DM 08-19-07, 04:02 PM	I'm not sure what's wrong with a Taunt mechanic. It really seems like a perfectly normal and mundane use of Intimidate; if you can use Intimidate to get someone to do something they don't want to, why not use it to make them attack you when they'd rather attack someone more squishy. While I don't like the idea of playing such a character, I know players who do.
Quijenoth 08-19-07, 04:15 PM	My concern is the fact that they are trying to pigeonhole classes into 4 categories required to adventure in such a similar vein to MMORPGs! If you know MMORPGs as long as I have you will know that 90% of the conversations on class forums is about balance. Why cant druids heal as well as clerics, why can't paladins tank as well as warriors, why cant warriors deal as much damage as rangers, why can't ... the list goes on. But what worries me the most is what happens when A) they add new core classes into the mix, and B) what happens to all those custom classes people have already build for their personal campaign world? In MMORPGs the first thing that happens with new classes is that they get evaluated. once that happens they either get nerfed or enhanced. after another evaluation session they get nerfed or enhanced. and so the process goes on. eventually though the balance issue cannot be solved with the new class but its difficult to make it just go away, so you start balancing all the other classes to fit... You see where I'm going with this... 4E would become a continueous and very annoying series of updates and revisions as new material is added to maintain the balance of the game. The first big test of this will be the introduction of Psionic classes which as it stands is not on the cards for 4E yet. then you have all the other favorate classes from 3.5 that people will likely want to see migrated into 4E. the warlock (hopefully this will replace the sorcerer), the ninja, and the favored soul. This inability to be flexable may well be reflected via the limits of the character generator and digital gaming table and would immediately turn off many D&D fans as they find it difficult to continue playing D&D the way they have been for years.
RobTzu 08-19-07, 04:20 PM	I also must doubt the necessity of "roles" as presented in this topic. Particularly, why is a "tank" necessary? In MMORPGs, a tank is there for the enemy to beat on while the rogues and the mages do their thing; in D&D or any other such role-playing game, armored types are a valid character choice for someone who wants to sacrifice some damage potential for the ability to take a hit (to whatever extent they choose to focus on offense and defense). In no way, however, does a fighter or paladin have the ability to prevent the squishier party members from getting hit (aside from the threat of an AoO, or possibly a trip attempt). My fear, with the official designation of the "tanking" role in 4E, is that they will attempt to give the fighting man some sort of mind-control powers. Someone in another thread utilized the phrase "Spells Disguised as Maneuvers"; I'm afraid they're going to implement "Spells Disguised as Mundane Abilities" in regards to tanking. There are already two examples that I know of where they tried to give fighters the ability to control the actions of others: the Goad feat, and one of the Knight's challenge abilities. Such things will be significantly harder to ignore if they show up in 4E core rules. I agree 100%. We do not want a holy trinity type of combat system in DnD. I want a perfect strategy game, where ever tactic has a counter, and there is no 1 "best" method.
nightside_samurai 08-19-07, 04:26 PM	I agree 100%. We do not want a holy trinity type of combat system in DnD. I want a perfect strategy game, where ever tactic has a counter, and there is no 1 "best" method. That's impossible because you can't measure what every person who plays the game will do with any given mechanic. Sure a Fireball can be used to blast a whole in the enemy army 20' wide. Or it can be used to set the forest said army is in, aflame so that the whole thing goes up in smoke. No matter how many possible strategies are balanced and counter-balanced the players will always find a way to do something new with it, and that's what makes D&D awesome, the players.
nonsi 08-19-07, 04:55 PM	4E would become a continueous and very annoying series of updates and revisions as new material is added to maintain the balance of the game. Just one word: M O N E Y. To my better judgement, WotC designed ALL classes (and will continue doing so) to be just almost satisfactory, always tilting the balance somewhere else and changing which dipping would grant the greatest advantages, so they can endlessly add more and more materials for people to buy. If they'd build the classes in such a way that minimaxing would suffer from multiclassing, no one would buy all their extentions.
Xeviat-DM 08-19-07, 05:31 PM	I'm curious as to which classes are getting the boot: they said there will be less than 11 classes, and we've already seen that the Warlord is in. I suspect that the Barbarian, Monk, and Bard could be removed from core. I suspect the Monk to reappear in an OA type supplement, along with a Samurai (which I feel is unnecessary when there is a Fighter and a Paladin), a Ninja, and a priest variant (also unnecessary I think). Barbarian could easily be a direction to take the Fighter, though I don't particularly like this. I'm fond of the core 4 and their wild counterparts: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Druid, Barbarian, Scout/Ranger, Sorcerer.
ssvegeta555 08-19-07, 05:44 PM	I'm curious as to which classes are getting the boot: they said there will be less than 11 classes, and we've already seen that the Warlord is in. I suspect that the Barbarian, Monk, and Bard could be removed from core. I suspect the Monk to reappear in an OA type supplement, along with a Samurai (which I feel is unnecessary when there is a Fighter and a Paladin), a Ninja, and a priest variant (also unnecessary I think). Barbarian could easily be a direction to take the Fighter, though I don't particularly like this. I'm fond of the core 4 and their wild counterparts: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Druid, Barbarian, Scout/Ranger, Sorcerer. If Saga was any indication, less classes will be the key. But each of those classes will be able to be molded into a variety of class concepts. The fighter as you said could very well be a barbarian, replicating rage and so forth through class abilities and/or feats. IMO I prefer the less classes, more versatility approach. It would allow me to shape my character with more flexibility than playing a class with a predetermined role.
Salla 08-19-07, 05:47 PM	If Saga was any indication, less classes will be the key. But each of those classes will be able to be molded into a variety of class concepts. The fighter as you said could very well be a barbarian, replicating rage and so forth through class abilities and/or feats. IMO I prefer the less classes, more versatility approach. It would allow me to shape my character with more flexibility than playing a class with a predetermined role. Exactly. The Monk would be a Fighter (or, using the above, a Striker) on an 'unarmed combat' talent tree, possibly with feat backup.
BlackHalfDragon 08-19-07, 06:28 PM	why don't we just buy wowd20. its actually rather good adn i don't even play wow...
kalstrand 08-19-07, 09:44 PM	I just watched the video and the warlord class is not confirmed and judging by the tone of Jame's voice (one of the designers) he had never heard anything of the sort. What he said was that he had read on either here or on enworld that there was a warlord class and it was kind of a joke to them who knew better. He said that someone had watched the teaser video and kept pausing and in one place when they were showing the character visualizer the word warlord appeared with the character they were showing off. I remember that part in the teaser video and to me it looked like the space that had warlord in it would be the space for the character name if there had been a character name in place.
Clawhound 08-19-07, 09:47 PM	Based on their other products, I think they've spent great amounts of time working on the core concept. In short, they are narrowing the focus in order for each class to stand out more distinctly. The firmer the idea that you have for a class, the easier it is to design for it, and the easier it is to identify inappropriate abilities for that class. Clearer roles means better design. Clearer roles mean less useless characters.
heftyj 08-19-07, 10:04 PM	If the Warlord is what it sounds like, I think I,ve found my new favorite melee character. As of right now the Warblade is the best, hm wonder if the Warlord has Maneuvers...
MagickHobo 08-19-07, 10:25 PM	I think the fighter is going to be like the Warblade, except instead of choosing maneuvers from Stone Dragon or Iron Heart, he'll choose from a list of (very vanilla and completely lacking any offensive "anime hootenanny" :rolleyes: ) Axe Abilities, or Spear Abilities etc. The Warlord will possibly be like the fighter is/supposed to be now, being a super generalist at combat. Lording over wars with versatility.
kyros_the_spawnslayer 08-19-07, 10:35 PM	Yea there was no mention of Barbarians, Monks, and Bards but that might just be that those roles are obvious. But if I will take a bold guess maybe the Warlord my be a new type of Barbarian, the name of it seems to fit.
RobTzu 08-19-07, 10:56 PM	That's impossible because you can't measure what every person who plays the game will do with any given mechanic. Sure a Fireball can be used to blast a whole in the enemy army 20' wide. Or it can be used to set the forest said army is in, aflame so that the whole thing goes up in smoke. No matter how many possible strategies are balanced and counter-balanced the players will always find a way to do something new with it, and that's what makes D&D awesome, the players. You must have misread my post.
Salla 08-20-07, 12:59 AM	Well, according to one of the latest infobits, it looks like the developers are considering martial skill to be a power source. About freakin' time. The fighter may actually be able to do something interesting!
fatal error 08-20-07, 03:29 AM	Yea there was no mention of Barbarians, Monks, and Bards but that might just be that those roles are obvious. But if I will take a bold guess maybe the Warlord my be a new type of Barbarian, the name of it seems to fit. I think he said something like, "And the Warlord will be the other leader class." Which was right after talking about the Cleric, so maybe those two are "Leader" classes. Whatever that really means. Either way, I'd guess the Barbarians Rage schtick will be available as a type of fighting style, most likely to the Fighter, but maybe also to the Warlord, if the Barbarian itself doesn't make it in. Maybe the Warlord will end up being like a Combat Bard. With Bardic-Music like abilities that he can do as swift actions and still fight. I sure hope it doesn't involve followers, unless they come up with some incredible system to streamline them with combat.
PoorHobo 08-20-07, 07:26 AM	I think followers and low level combat will be a lot more streamlined. In the Design and development article it mentioned mooks and minions. Mooks that gain bennies for grouping Minions: We want our mooks to group well. Three good ways to do that? Mooks that group well with other mooks (like goatfolk and kenku in MM3). Mooks that grant extra mojo to a leader (like skeery skeletons that can sacrifice themselves to give their necromancer creator +1 spell level). And leaders that give bennies to their mooks (like the commander effects from the D&D Minis game). A leader class may very well be a revamped marshal. I sure as hell hope so. On the main topic, there aren't 4 roles in solid stone, there are 4 stated roles - and we're 8 months out so there is still room to grow. I think the designers know we don't want an MMO and I don't think we're gonna get one.
runestar 08-20-07, 07:35 AM	I though the new iconic party for 4e would consist of an artificer, cleric, druid and wizard...:( :hides:
StarFyre 08-20-07, 07:36 AM	They clarified this in another video....i can find the link later. What they mean is, they are not trying to place people in a mold that they can't get out of. They are instead, looking at the game in terms of roles. Most parties need a heavy duty warrior (espec at low levels), a wizard, a healer, and a scout/spy/do it all. The thing is, at low levels, a druid was great as a healer, but later, he's much better at heavy support combat (due to awesome summons and nature affecting/world altering spells) than healing. So parties sometimes suffered (if the DM's style was pure combat all the time, since more healing was needed). Same with combat, a pure fighter is better than having a ranger or paladin in that regard. Now what they are doing is, defining roles for general classes, but building it so that any class in that list, can fit that role just as well overall, than another class. The example they gave in that video is a druid and cleric. Now, in 4E, a druid will still be able to do all the druid stuff they normally do BUT they will also be able to back up the party in terms of healing the way a cleric could. THis way the party could have a druid in the party and not miss out on healing in the long run. Sanjay
Karla 08-20-07, 08:00 AM	Although, I agree in hoping that they do not include some kind of Taunt mechanics for the "tank" classes. There are several maneuvers in Tome of Battle, especially for the "tank" Crusader class which basically give an adjacent enemy the choice of attacking the tank or suffering for attacking anyone else - Defensive Rebuke means you get an AoO if they attack someone else, whilst Iron Guard's Glare means they get -4 on attacks against anyone but you. (In both cases "the enemy is aware of the consequences" so they get to make the choice.) I could easily see either of these or similar maneuvers becoming more generally available for 'tank' roles - yet neither is really a 'taunt', merely a recognition that turning your back on a skilled combatant has its consequences.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 08-20-07, 12:00 PM	I'm thinking that they're using "Tank" in the sense that DnD uses it - A character with powerful defensive and offensive abilities.
fatal error 08-20-07, 03:26 PM	I could easily see either of these or similar maneuvers becoming more generally available for 'tank' roles - yet neither is really a 'taunt', merely a recognition that turning your back on a skilled combatant has its consequences. Exactly. I'd be fine with abilities resembling the Devoted Spirit maneuvers in Tome of Battle. But I don't like the idea of an ability that should practically have the [Mind Effecting] tag stuck on it, as a non-magical attention gathering ability.
Khadmus 08-20-07, 03:37 PM	bla bla The example they gave in that video is a druid and cleric. Now, in 4E, a druid will still be able to do all the druid stuff they normally do BUT they will also be able to back up the party in terms of healing the way a cleric could. THis way the party could have a druid in the party and not miss out on healing in the long run. Sanjay I hope they fix the druid's abilities that are more powerful than the whole rogue class. (I can't find the OotS right now).
Jamesruglia21 08-20-07, 03:49 PM	*Sigh* Fewer, more generalized classes is something I like. But by "fewer", I was thinking "not a hundred alternate base and prestige classes". I like the makeup and overall "deal" behind the Monk and the Sorcerer(Lawful alignment due to discipline, spell charges due to "innate" magic rather than alchemic, etc.), and the Bard is simply indespensible-you can't "make" a Bard out of any other class like you could a Monk, Barbarian, or maybe a Sorcerer. But players in DnD aren't "roles", they're people who can do many things based on how they're set up. Clerics and Druids can deal damage, Wizards can handle traps and possess many skills, and so forth-trying to think of them as having specific "roles" only hinders the imaginative intent. Fighters and Paladins don't need to "Provoke" enemies constantly-that makes it all dronning and uninteresting. If they can already "Intimidate" people into fighting them with the appropriate skill checks, then let them do it that way if one really wants to do that. One of the things I liked about DnD was that I'm NOT just a "tank". I can focus on dealing damage or using cool spells too-I can think about an array of useful and interesting items rather than just making sure I have the best armor I can and hitting Alt+1 every 30 seconds in battle. I can ride in on my horse, or fire with a bow. I didn't think much about people's accusations before, but I'm wondering if they have some online game in mind about all of this. And World of Warcraft is the utter worst slop of an online "game" I've ever played. And being a leader is entirely about a person, not their class. In fact, among my favored NPCs it's the Paladin who's the leader and the Cleric serves under them for a specific example.
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 08-20-07, 04:12 PM	During the D&D Q&A on Saturday, Wyatt made a comment that currently as much as the fighter is supposed to stop the bad guys from getting to the squishies, they don't actually have anything to do that (unless you go combat reflexes with spiked chain). In 4E they will.
Naszir 08-20-07, 05:08 PM	From this Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs Their are 4 roles Tank (Fighter, Paladin, ?) Healer (Cleric, ?) Controller (Wizard, Warlock (a joke?), ) Striker (Rogue, Ranger, ?) D&D goes WoW, the Rogues are the damage dealers :( Thoughts? PS: I hope this is the right forum It is not surprising that Wizards is trying to tap into the WoW crowd. Look at how many people play WoW or other similar MMORPGs. It is far more than those of us who have played PnP RPGs. It looks like the 4 roles are just a way of drawing those who are interested in fantasy role playing to D&D but have only played MMORPGs. To those of us who have played PnP 4 roles is very limiting. A cleric with the War domain can often be very powerful in hand to hand combat. There are so many of us who like to play out of the norm. Not every fighter is a tank, not every cleric is a healer, not every rogue is a damage dealer and not every wizard is a controller. If that was the way then D&D would be very boring after just a couple of campaigns. This is just a way of simplifying things, making them more accessible. On the other hand I hope they maintain flexibility. That is very important. Archetypes have always been important too. However, I have always had a problem with the Barbarian. I like the class but to me a Barbarian is a cultural referance not a class. I'm probably just splitting hairs. Rage should be a feat, uncanny dodge should be a feat ect. that fighters can take. The Bard to me is just not an archetype. I could see this class as a goner.
ssvegeta555 08-21-07, 04:57 PM	During the D&D Q&A on Saturday, Wyatt made a comment that currently as much as the fighter is supposed to stop the bad guys from getting to the squishies, they don't actually have anything to do that (unless you go combat reflexes with spiked chain). In 4E they will. Yay, now fighters can pull agro. The knight class in PHBII screamed of MMO's and now the 4e fighter is taking some lessons from him. They better make is mechanically sound otherwise it's just the same old pulling agro trick done in MMO's today. Monster in D&D aren't idiots (well most anyways...), if the wizard is killing his men left and right with crazy spells or the cleric is healing everyone very well, I'm pretty sure the fighter can't stop the onslaught of pain the wizard/cleric will receive by the monsters. They're not just going to ignore them because of some kind of taunt or provoking. I can see this working on dumb monster who love to kill the person who insulted them in the slightest, but for intelligent monsters I doubt they'll be convinced that the fighter is more threatening to his chances of winning the fight. But who knows, we haven't seen the 4e fighter so he might have some nasty trick up his sleeves to be truly threatening. Even then, the bad guy has the choice of which threat to deal with first (IMO of course he's not being mind controlled, that's how I see it).
Lord_Tirian 08-21-07, 05:10 PM	It looks like the 4 roles are just a way of drawing those who are interested in fantasy role playing to D&D but have only played MMORPGs. Yeah... just as the Melee-, Healer-, Problemsolver- and Crowd Control-roles... just because of MMORPGs. also known as: Melee = Fighter Healer = Cleric Problemsolver = Rogue Crowd Control = Wizard Yep, Gary Gygax has seen the future thirty years ago! Cheers, LT.
kyros_the_spawnslayer 08-21-07, 05:13 PM	I hope they fix the Druid up with the Shapeshift ability presented in PHB2, alot of people prefer it because it gives you a general form that you can specify what it looks like. I hope they do expand on it just a little bit to add in other abilities, like poision bites when you take on a snake-like form.