Roles are not a role playing tool, it is a designer tool, to help create the class and fit it into a particular place within a party structure.
Defender, Striker, Controller, or Leaders, it makes no difference. I look at the class.
Are you going to dedicate a separate forum for each class next? I know there are going to be less of them, but still...
I know I always talk about my Level 6 Demihuman Striker, because that is easy for people to understand exactly what I am talking about.
Defender, Striker, Controller, or Leaders, it makes no difference. I look at the class.
Currently, you do. You do so by habit and tradition. Those just coming into the game are more likely to have the Role association that is the foundation of 4e class development.
It may take a little getting used to, but we older folks can do it.
I don't (And won't) look at the role of the class according to party structure. I am making one character to play, not several.
-- humans, dwarves, eladrin, and other races
-- A specific question about the Stealth skill?
-- A specific question about one of the generic feats?
-- A specific question about a magic item?
Right now, it seems to me that all those need to get dumped into hybrid, but that seems like a really inefficient use of that forum to me.
Character Building is simple to look at and decide what will be dicussed. Look for the biggest section on the character sheet, and those are the topic that people will want to talk about. Also include thing in smaller areas than have the biggest impact on playing.
Race, Class, Feats, Skills, Powers
5 forums just as it is now, and by gosh they cover eerything the current CB ones do!-- A specific question about a magic item?
Either Rules Q&A, or Equipment and Magic Items forum.
The point remains, though, that the forums could be organized in a much more natural manner.
That's fine and dandy. I understand that character role is now supposed to be an integral part of how you think about your character. But under the current forum setup, where would I discuss questions about:
-- humans, dwarves, eladrin, and other races
-- A specific question about the Stealth skill?
-- A specific question about one of the generic feats?
-- A specific question about a magic item?
Right now, it seems to me that all those need to get dumped into hybrid, but that seems like a really inefficient use of that forum to me.
If you are asking those questions in the context of building a character, the first question is going to be: "For what role?" So the appropriate role area is where you should ask it.
If it's a general question about any of those things and not related to character building, you can ask in General. (or the equipment and magic items forum for your last question)
If it turns out that we have enough discussion about races (unrelated to character building) in the general forum, we can always add a races forum. Same with any other topic.
If you are asking those questions in the context of building a character, the first question is going to be: "For what role?"
No it won't. That is what people are trying to say. You don't sit down to make a striker. You sit down to make a ranger. What you do with it is up to the player.
The game should not tell the player how they are supposed to play their character. Role in roleplaying is not meant to be one of those 4 video game archtypes, but the role as in what an actor plays. Assuming to be someone else is what role in roleplaying means.
No matter what they do to D&D that is all it will mean or otherwise it truely isn't D&D anymore.
Now you have a forum that is wasted by the terms of the split/merge criteria because it only has one class, and not enough posts to support the forums existance. Not sure which class that is, but you know. And you have another forum with like 3 classes that needs to be split because it has more than enough per split/merge criteria to do so.
So these "combat role" based forums violate your own criteria for split/merge, unless they will be split or merged.
The community was asked what it thought, and is still telling what it thinks about these role forums, and in all accounts are being ignored. The forum structure and sdesign should be for the users, not the game creators. If R&D wishes to sit around and talk about what combat role they want to make a character for, then that is not someone I want to have a discussion with about D&D, because it is not a discussion I would have. I would rather discuss why I want a fighter for those specific things a fighter offers over a wizard. Both can perform any of the combat roles with proper roleplaying in the game.
There seems to be geting a bigger gap between the community and the creators by not listening to the community and trying to understand what they are saying and instead dictating to them what you want them to discuss. That is how these combat role based forums feel.
Why not just make a single forum to discuss the roles, one for races, and one for classes.
I see these forums going the direction of GW forums before the year is out and for the same reasons. The company refusing to listen to the customer.
Not all on you Mike, just responding to your post, so the "You" is WotC as a whole.
No it won't. That is what people are trying to say. You don't sit down to make a striker. You sit down to make a ranger. What you do with it is up to the player.
Honestly, it should be. If someone is coming to the forums to ask about how to build their character, they're not going to be able to get much help unless they have some idea what they want their character to do.
If roleplaying and backstory is what's really important to them, they should go to the Character Development forum, as the character building forums aren't going to really help them.
I'd encourage people to go through the forums and look at the posts being made now (and by now, I mean now that the books are out and people are having discussions based on what's in them, instead of based on speculation about what might be in them), and find some examples of ones that are unclear or don't have a place they can be posted or asked.
If you can find enough, we'll adjust the forums to support them.
Honestly, it should be. If someone is coming to the forums to ask about how to build their character, they're not going to be able to get much help unless they have some idea what they want their character to do.
If roleplaying and backstory is what's really important to them, they should go to the Character Development forum, as the character building forums aren't going to really help them.
I'd encourage people to go through the forums and look at the posts being made now (and by now, I mean now that the books are out and people are having discussions based on what's in them, instead of based on speculation about what might be in them), and find some examples of ones that are unclear or don't have a place they can be posted or asked.
If you can find enough, we'll adjust the forums to support them.
So if someone wants to be an elf that shoots arrows you would tell them to be what role? Or would you tell them they may like being a ranger?
The thing is most people may "get it" that these role based forums are to seperate the classes amongst the role they are meant to perform, but the roles offer no real rules mechanics to work with. Are each of the roles tied to a power sources? I don't think they are or else cleric would be in their own forum away from other non-Divine power source users.
There is just so little common ground on which these combat roles are based to discus on rather than maybe a paragrpah in the PHB if that much. (Haven't found a store open today that carries gaming books to look through any of them.)
I understand that the fluff has a forum, but that is not what is meant as to the division of the term role as stated by the 3 archtypes given for combat efficiency and roleplaying. Acting is assuming the role of another. Not just the theatrics, and fluff, but the characteristics INCLUDING the position in the group orhow they work in the group, aka the combat role.
Any class should be able to be any of these roles, so the division thusly is not a good one.
So you just want people to go through the 4 role-based forums and collect the number of post that have the combat role as the topic versus classes as the topic, and if enough or a majority reolve around discussion of classes rather than these artificial roles then the forums will be adjusted to give classes or at least power sources to be grouped together and even a forum for races created?
It is not just speculation it is over 3 decades of playing and knowing people that play and what is talked about. I have never met any player that wants to be the general of an army and plays D&D for that purpose (leader). They play for the actual class and the ability to NOT be bound by such distinctions as having to always act like the general of the army, but can switch which combat or social role they wish to be at any time during the game.
It is not just speculation it is over 3 decades of playing and knowing people that play and what is talked about.
D&D is changing. One of those changes is that the class you play is no longer the primary focus of the character building. The role you wish to play in the party is the primary focus. Those of us that have been playing for three decades may have to make some adjustments, but those just starting are going to have very little difficulty making the focus adjustment.
It used to be, when you said you wanted to play a wizard, the next question was "what kind of wizard? Answered varied from school specialization to "artillerist". Everything within those answers was specifically wizard-based.
Now, the new player coming to the boards from the player's handbook will understand what a role is, will go to the proper role board, and indicate that he is playing a wizard, and wants help with fleshing that out. Or, if he wants to deviate from primary role, he'll go to that role-board and ask how best to build a wizard that wishes to fulfill that role in the party.
It isn't that hard. No more difficult than when we used to ask how many gallons filled up your tank, and today we tend to ask how many dollars fills up your tank. The end result is the same, but the language is different.
Some of us may find it easier to make the adjustment than others, but there are very few of us that can't manage. There will, however, be a vocal minority who just don't want to. Kind of like folks who don't want to own a cell phone, have an email address, or receive their primary bills online. The world won't end. Those folks can still call people, send letters from friends, and pay their bills. But they do so on a somewhat more restricted level.
Honestly, it should be. If someone is coming to the forums to ask about how to build their character, they're not going to be able to get much help unless they have some idea what they want their character to do.
That's a very good point. However, it doesn't support the breakdown by roles at all.
Let's say someone comes to the forums and says "Hi guys, we're doing an all-martial, low magic campaign. What's the best class for me?" They could ask in the Defender forum (Fighter), Striker (Rogue/Ranger), or Leader (Warlord) and get different answers in all of them.
Let's say someone comes in and says "Well, I want to make a character that does lots of damage, and my top two choices are a rogue or a wizard. Which should I do?"--do they post in Strikers or Controllers?
Let's say someone wants to be an elf-ish character; they come in and say "Hi guys, I want to play someone like Legolas. I like the whole woodsy thing for elves, but the whole eladrin teleport is cool too. Which should I do?" That's not a class question (ranger vs. warlock would cover archery vs. teleporting), but a race question.
Of all the forum divisions that could be made, splitting classes into 5 and leaving races, feats/powers/skills, and other things to General isn't a very efficient design. While Seeker makes a good point that roles are what new players will most likely be focusing on, that's only for classes--someone asking about races or feats might not know or care whether they're playing a Striker or Defender.
hellmute, you ended with the critical part...
It is not just speculation it is over 3 decades of playing and knowing people that play and what is talked about.
D&D is changing. One of those changes is that the class you play is no longer the primary focus of the character building.
I am sorry but you are sorely mistaken. So long as the game is class based, then the primary focus will be on the class. The roles have no mechanical purpose in the game. They themselves are fluff.
The class acutally determines the mechanics with it's abilities, and not all funciton the way the fluff of the roles go.
So in order to actually make CB a place for the mechanics, and CD the place for fluff, then all the roles discussion belongs in the fluff section or Character Development forum.
Look at the character sheet. There is not a single place to place "role", and there is no mechanical reason to have one. Thre is places for STR, race, class, etc all of which are mechanical.
Race Features
Class/Path/Destiny Features
Show me any place that a mechanic is represented on the character sheet that includes the role.
I can see only either Mannerisms or Character Background where it would fit, and they are fluff based sections.
Why the forum gods decided that roles was important enough to waste forum space on them is forever a mystery to me.
I would like to add, and repeat myself, that Roles are a designer tool, not something that is important to the character. It is a direction for the class when it is designed.
Why the forum gods decided that roles was important enough to waste forum space on them is forever a mystery to me.
R&D Research and Development, aka the designers decided.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16020762&postcount=77
R&D Research and Development, aka the designers decided.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16020762&postcount=77
I think he knows who they are, just not why they did it that way.