|
I was debating on weather I would post this because I will be asking most of the work be done by others because I am not suited for it, But I decided it may be helpful enough to warrant posting it.
I have seen many posts about this class being too powerful or this class being too weak, to me most of these posts seem to look too much as the classes as a single class and not a class in a group and how that class fits in the group.
The way I see it a Fighter is supposed to do what a Fighter is made to do, that fit a specific role that the Wizard can't do and the Fighter should be the best in that role.
To that end I would like to ask the community to help me Name those roles and define them to see how each class fits in each role.
Once that is done we can look at and see if a class that should do well in that role is not doing well how we can fix them to excel in that role while still keeping the rules we have at hand and looking at backwards compatibility.
I am not looking at adding new powers ore reducing certain classes, but more to adjusting what is already there.
If someone does not agree with this please feel free to add that and why, but please No arguments or rudeness.
If you don't understand what I am asking please feel free to bring that up so I can try to make it more clear.
At first I would like to stick only to The Main Classes at first then move onto other WotC 3.5 Classes that fit well in Pathfinder RPG.
|
In many online games, the roles are broken down as;
Tank - Fighter type, whose job is to taunt the monster(s) and keep them hitting only him. He will have the best armor, most hit points and wouldn't do much damage, but would be able to keep the monsters 'stuck' to him and attacking only him by generating 'hate.' By doing this, he protects his squishier comrades, who are doing much more damage, as they couldn't survive more than one hit from the monsters they are facing.
DPS / Damage-dealer - This has two sub-categories;
Ranged DPS - Wizards (and other 'cloth casters,' aka unarmored arcanists) and Rangers (archers). They stand at a distance and inflict great amounts of damage, but aren't able to take a hit as well as the Tank, and, when not in a group, use different tactics (involving crowd control or stealth abilities) to fight single monsters.
Melee DPS - Rogues, Monks, etc. They have to close in to deal their superior damage, some of which might require positionals (must be behind foe, etc. which they couldn't do as well when alone, since the monster would always turn to face them). Also not as capable of taking a hit as a tank, and benefitting from being able to pummel the monster(s) without getting pummelled in return.
Healing - One job and one job only, keep the Tank standing. This starts by casting buff spells, mainly on the Tank, and then turns into spamming (casting over and over again) his heal spells on the Tank, as, in a group, the only way to effectively get experience superior to what one could get solo is to fight monsters that could kill any of them on their own, which means that the Tank needs the Healer keeping him alive, and the Damage-dealers need the Tank keeping the monsters distracted so that they don't get killed. Some games, such as City of Heroes, augment the 'Healer' to include classes that *prevent* damage instead of just healing it after the fact, such as Force Field Defenders. The role is the same, prevent the Tank (and the rest of the party) from dying.
D&D has never really worked like this, as Fighters don't have any sort of 'Taunt' or hate-generation, aside from a use of Intimidate or Bluff or something (which they would generally suck at). Healers in D&D have rarely been assumed to be 'spamming their heals' every round, and Clerics have a wide range of other things they can be doing, and the Wizards spend as much time doing crowd control as 'DPS.'
The Rogue, whether a 2E Backstabber or a 3E Sneak Attacker is about the only class that fits the 'role' of an online game, and even then is generally *much* more capable than an online Rogue, who usually lacks the social skills / 'face man' role that a D&D style Rogue picks up.
I've played EQ, EQ2, DAoC, WoW, CoH/CoV, AoC, DDO, etc. and enjoyed all of them to some extent, but I'd *hate* for D&D classes to be shoved into these niches and become this one-dimensional. The pre-defined and limited roles of online games are necessary for what they do, because the majority of groups you end up in will be total strangers, often not of the ideal classes you require, and they will have no concept of whatever tactics you may find most effective (and, sometimes, won't even speak your language!). Every single 'Tank' must therefore be able to Taunt and hold the monsters away, while every single Healer must be able to spam multiple different heal spells every few seconds for several consecutive minutes, because the players can't be assumed to be able to coordinate their tactics, or take a few minutes to discuss the next combat rounds actions, or even *see the map,* since they may be in first-person view and not have any idea that a monster has run around the Tank and is beating the stuffings out of the Wizard in the back, or even the Healer!
D&D, played offline, has none of these limitations, and therefore doesn't require these accomodations.
|
|
Sets Concerns
Though I understand your concerns about defining the classes in roles like a MMO, that is not what I am looking for.
MMOs define the classes to narrowly and 1 sided and D&D is not that narrow and the 'Roles' have more definitions then a an MMO.
D&D is a classed based RPG which in itself defines that that class has Role. There are RPGs that have no classes but D&D is not one of them.
There are specific roles in a Group and the classes fit that role and to best see how well a class fits that role is to name and define that roll.
If we keep comparing classes with other classes without realizing that a class has a Job that they should excel in then we will not get any where because we will only be seeing 1 side of the picture and not the whole as a group.
As an Example a Clerics role in D&D is not just to heal as it is in an MMO, they are also supposed to use spells that Buff themselves and the group and control the battleground and also melee.
The different roles are too many to list and describe, I think, and many classes fill out different roles at once, in different intensities (full-time, part-time, dabble), that you'd either have to write quite a bit about each class, or do some half-assed approach and call everyone Striker or Controller or something like that.
The way I see it a Fighter is supposed to do what a Fighter is made to do, that fit a specific role that the Wizard can't do and the Fighter should be the best in that role.
Summons.
The main topic is too vague to give anything to go off of at the moment. *fades back into the shadows with HiPS granted from the Umbral Collar*
In many online games .../... D&D, played offline, has none of these limitations, and therefore doesn't require these accomodations.
Agreed 100%. Nothing to add.
Set, i hate you. I don't like to agree with people.;)
|
|
If we keep comparing classes with other classes without realizing that a class has a Job that they should excel in then we will not get any where because we will only be seeing 1 side of the picture and not the whole as a group.
And that's my point. This is D&D, not EverQuest.
Each class doesn't have a 'job' that it's supposed to be doing, other than accomplishing the adventure. If the party Cleric pulls out the Righteous Might / Divine Favor / Favored Weapon-palooza and beats the bad-guy into submission, *he's doing his job,* even if he isn't 'fulfilling his class role.' If the party Wizard uses Tenser's Transformation and Polymorph Self (war troll) to do the same thing, he's also 'doing his job' even if he isn't throwing Black Tentacles or Glitterdusts or Sudden Maximized Empowered Arcane Thesised Scorching Rays around. If the Rogue or Bard bugs out during combat and goes to close a portcullis, preventing reinforcements from arriving, he's 'doing his job,' even if it's not what he was expected to be doing (sneak attacking / rocking out on his harmonica).
There are tons of people, usually frequent CharOps posters, who will confidently tell a player that he's 'doing it wrong' and 'made of fail' if his Fighter takes Dodge or his Cleric channels negative energy or his Wizard goes Evoker. That's the exact same logic that's used when one tries to get into an EverQuest group and one isn't the exact class that they want, or have exactly the right gear, or certain specific AAs.
D&D isn't an online game. We have living sentient GMs who can adjust encounters to be challenging to the group that shows up, unlike a computer game. If the players want to play a *character,* and not just a specific combat 'role' that has been pre-selected for them, with their feat choices and combat round actions already pre-selected on the basis of that role, D&D is the game to do that.
Roles are a necessary limitation for a game with no DM. They are about as necessary as t#%$ on a bull for D&D.
I don't think in roles, I think in tasks, where some classes are able to fulfill more than one, and some exceptionally bad characters fill none at all.
Out of combat tasks:
Interaction Skills
Finding Traps
Arcane Utility - E.G. Casting overland flight on the group
Healing
In combat tasks:
Taking Damage
Dealing Damage
Battle Field Control - In its simplist form giving the PCs and advantage or disadvantaging the opposition.
Status Modifier - The mirror opposite of battle field control, casting spells which negate any debilitating effects on other PCs.
For instance, Bards get a reputation for sucking because they can't do any in combat task better than another class, and what they do best in a fight (battlefield control) can be done so much better by a Wizard. In RP heavy games however a Bard pulls his weight a lot more because he can do a few different tasks.
|
|
Let me make something clear I did not make in the beginning.
I am talking about a Classes role in Combat, not non-combat.
The whole idea about this is I am sick and tired of everyone complaining about this class should be better then this class in combat, but I have never seen a baseline to base that on.
D&D if you want to agree or not agree is a class based system and each class has his position in a group during combat based on their abilities and powers. I see people keep complaining that a fighter is a one trick pony and they can only melee and i say DUH!!! they are fighters that is what the class does and they should be the best at it, so I am looking at making a baseline of what a melee character is supposed to be to compare a fighter to to see where their weaknesses are so suggestions can be made to fix them. If you are adamant in not agreeing that a class has his place in combat, I will take that in consideration but please don't continue to argue with me about it. By the way I just used Fighter as an Example, there are other roles, Arcane Caster, Divine Casters, Melee or Physical combat *Not sure what to call that one because Melee fighters also have ranged ability* And there may be other roles I am not seeing. That is why I am asking for help in defining the roles to set a baseline to compare the classes to see how they fit.
A fighter should have Good AC, BAB the Ability to do Good melee Dmg *Something that needs to be worked on* And the ability to control the melee battle field *Another example of something that needs to be worked on* That is what I am looking for on how to Define the roles.
Roles. Roles. Roles. All silly. D&D is designed such that you don't need to define class roles. I'm serious about this. You can make a wizard that does a lot of damage, or one that does almost none - and both can be crucially useful in combat. You can make a rogue that does ridiculous amounts of damage in melee, or at range. Same with a ranger. Give them a few feats and suddenly they just don't miss with a bow. Fighters should be exactly what they sound like - they should be able to fight hand to hand better than anyone. And that doesn't include melee crowd control - that's not their job. The game doesn't really have, and shouldn't have IMO, a threat-hate generation mechanism. Not without a feat at least. You can make a brute force, 2-handed fighter. You can make a 2 weapon Dex based fighter. (2 weapon gets the biggest shaft of all though, I really think that's where the fighter needs the most improvement) Clerics can be pure healers, they can cause all kinds of trouble on the battlefield, they can be battle clerics that can hold their own on the front line.
Point is, roles are silly. You build the character to do what you want it to do. There's some definite basics - wizards aren't going to be front-line fighters, and fighters aren't going to be lobbing spells from the back. That's obvious. But within a class, there are numerous ways to tailor their abilities to do what you want. You can have a party with 4 wizards who don't step on each other's toes. You can have a party with 3 different kinds of fighters that all have different roles.
You make the role. The game lets you do that. The game doesn't define it - that's what I hate most about d&d 4 - the tight roles. It's too MMO, and d&d should be about giving more options, not fewer.
Classes should not be balanced against each other so that they all can do the same amount of X talent in combat. This is one of the hardest things I've had to explain to a new player in my group. He was upset that his sorcerer, at level 1, did less damage than the fighter. That he couldn't hit the enemy as often. After hours of discussion about how d&d works, he still said it was unbalanced - every player should be able to contribute in combat. His vision of a game comes from MMOs, and to him "contributing" meant damage. I don't even want to discuss that issue in this thread. Bottom line is, that's the mentality that wants every class equal in damage. But d&d isn't about just damage. You can do whatever you want with a character class - just pick one that has the kind of flavor you like.
Let me make something clear I did not make in the beginning.
I am talking about a Classes role in Combat, not non-combat.
The whole idea about this is I am sick and tired of everyone complaining about this class should be better then this class in combat, but I have never seen a baseline to base that on.
D&D if you want to agree or not agree is a class based system and each class has his position in a group during combat based on their abilities and powers. I see people keep complaining that a fighter is a one trick pony and they can only melee and i say DUH!!! they are fighters that is what the class does and they should be the best at it, so I am looking at making a baseline of what a melee character is supposed to be to compare a fighter to to see where their weaknesses are so suggestions can be made to fix them. If you are adamant in not agreeing that a class has his place in combat, I will take that in consideration but please don't continue to argue with me about it. By the way I just used Fighter as an Example, there are other roles, Arcane Caster, Divine Casters, Melee or Physical combat *Not sure what to call that one because Melee fighters also have ranged ability* And there may be other roles I am not seeing. That is why I am asking for help in defining the roles to set a baseline to compare the classes to see how they fit.
A fighter should have Good AC, BAB the Ability to do Good melee Dmg *Something that needs to be worked on* And the ability to control the melee battle field *Another example of something that needs to be worked on* That is what I am looking for on how to Define the roles.
If you are looking at Combat encounters, there is more than one way to defeat them. At what have been described as wuxia (11-15) and superhero (16-20) character levels, hp damage is often a suboptimal way to defeat an opponent. If you are playing E6, then the game is inherently different.
In any combat encounter, the goal is to remove an opponent from the fight as quickly as possible. After about CR 8, if a melee is not doing massive damage level damage on a semi-consistent basis, then their damage does not matter until 0 hp, according to RAW.
If the Fighter/Paladin/Monk cannot apply their abilities, then they are a Warrior, or worse, in the case of the Monk.
So how does a Fighter take opponents out of the fight? Most frequently, it is through hitpoint damage, which is often meaningless. However, it is agreed that supposed to be a core feature of the Fighter. Perhaps giving Fighters some features that allows them to reach massive damage levels at appropriate SoD (save or die) levels? This doesn't address opponents immune to massive damage, but everyone has to have a weakpoint.
One way that other characters defeat encounters is with SoS, or Save or Suck, abilities. The CMB system does present Fighters with some abilities to control the battlefield, like Bullrush, Overrun, Grapple, Trip, Disarm, and Sunder. Improving these abilities for Fighters is not a bad idea, and might provide useful control. Changing the rules for Combat Casting might also help with this, to allow a Fighter to lock down a caster they are engaged in melee with.
The ideal role, as I see it, for a Fighter, is the ability to defeat a single opponent at range or melee. Ideally, they should be superior to any other class at defeating the broadest variety of single opponents within the limits of their feat selection. Increasing the HP damage a Fighter can do does not directly address this role, as it does not scale with level, and the Barbarian does it better.
If you are looking at Combat encounters, there is more than one way to defeat them. At what have been described as wuxia (11-15) and superhero (16-20) character levels, hp damage is often a suboptimal way to defeat an opponent. If you are playing E6, then the game is inherently different.
In any combat...
The key point on fighters is that they can pin the opponent away from the back. They walk up and stand next to the enemy. They're not getting by without free swings for the fighter. Fighters may not be about mass battlefield control - they shouldn't be - but they can control a zone on the field by preventing others from moving past them without punishment.
|
Honestly, I think the fighter should get a bonus on Combat Maneuvers. They should pull those off better than any other class, and they should be able to take them without meeting the prerequisites (just like a monk).
I can't count how many times I've made a fighter character, only to forget to give him Int 13 for all his Combat Expertise chain.
I believe this would go a long way to addressing the fighter as dominant at fighting.
For CMB, I'm thinking +1/2 level (rounded down). That would help them compete with some of the super-huge-HD monsters at high levels.
Ignoring the prereqs accomplishes two things: 1. Puts the fighter back as master of feats (my biggest concern with PRPG so far). 2. Makes creating a fighter even easier.
The key point on fighters is that they can pin the opponent away from the back. They walk up and stand next to the enemy. They're not getting by without free swings for the fighter. Fighters may not be about mass battlefield control - they shouldn't be - but they can control a zone on the field by preventing others from moving past them without punishment.
But is it useful punishment? How do you make it useful punishment, so that the Fighter can meaningfully contribute? Remember, if you have a tank of hitpoints, it means nothing unless a single attack does 50+ hp.
I'm not at all suggesting that single class Fighters should be multitarget wonders. They can't be without breaking RAW, and they shouldn't be. But I am of the opinion that the Fighter should be an expert at owning and defeating single opponents within the zone of the battlefield they have specialized in, whether it is 10', 5' or X, where X is their range increment. Defeat *should* have multiple values, and, shouldn't require the fighter to reduce the enemy's hp<=0.
Honestly, I think the fighter should get a bonus on Combat Maneuvers. They should pull those off better than any other class, and they should be able to take them without meeting the prerequisites (just like a monk).
I can't count how many times I've made a fighter character, only to forget to give him Int 13 for all his Combat Expertise chain.
I believe this would go a long way to addressing the fighter as dominant at fighting.
For CMB, I'm thinking +1/2 level (rounded down). That would help them compete with some of the super-huge-HD monsters at high levels.
Ignoring the prereqs accomplishes two things: 1. Puts the fighter back as master of feats (my biggest concern with PRPG so far). 2. Makes creating a fighter even easier.
Not bad. If the feats are beefed up, like adding back a sliding scale to Power Attack and Combat Expertise, and doing something with the MAD introduced by Combat Expertise, making the Fighter master of Combat Manuevers could fix a lot about his role.
The Fighter still has to contend with his mobility problems, but some of the armor fixes being thrown around might help with that.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Let me make something clear I did not make in the beginning.
I am talking about a Classes role in Combat, not non-combat.
The whole idea about this is I am sick and tired of everyone complaining about this class should be better then this class in combat, but I have never seen a baseline to base that on.
D&D if you want to agree or not agree is a class based system and each class has his position in a group during combat based on their abilities and powers. I see people keep complaining that a fighter is a one trick pony and they can only melee and i say DUH!!! they are fighters that is what the class does and they should be the best at it, so I am looking at making a baseline of what a melee character is supposed to be to compare a fighter to to see where their weaknesses are so suggestions can be made to fix them. If you are adamant in not agreeing that a class has his place in combat, I will take that in consideration but please don't continue to argue with me about it. By the way I just used Fighter as an Example, there are other roles, Arcane Caster, Divine Casters, Melee or Physical combat *Not sure what to call that one because Melee fighters also have ranged ability* And there may be other roles I am not seeing. That is why I am asking for help in defining the roles to set a baseline to compare the classes to see how they fit.
A fighter should have Good AC, BAB the Ability to do Good melee Dmg *Something that needs to be worked on* And the ability to control the melee battle field *Another example of something that needs to be worked on* That is what I am looking for on how to Define the roles.
A fighter should also be able to do good ranged damage. Fighters are not necessarily all about melee.
Therein lies a bit of the problem with D&D in that, in 3rd Ed, there are 10 melee-boosting abilities for every 1 ranged-boosting one, so unless you have a supplemental ranged attack trick (like sneak attack or skirmish) then you will be light years behind the melee masher in damage dealing ability. I suppose this is intentional, to prevent D&D from feeling like Squad Leader with everything about the enfilade and defilade, but still...
This actually was the straw that snapped me in reading the 4th Ed PH. If you are a "Fighter" you are a MELEE combatant and nothing but. You can't TWF. You can't make ranged attacks of any consequence. Same with the Paladin. Same with the Warlord. Here you have 3 "martial" classes that are basically incapable of performing a basic function on the battlefield - whacking something that is not right next to you.
All rangers are martial shooters (or TWFers) - yknow, I can be okay with that.
But what I can't get with is the converse:
In 4th Ed, all martial shooters are rangers (or rogues).
Ick.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The key point on fighters is that they can pin the opponent away from the back. They walk up and stand next to the enemy. They're not getting by without free swings for the fighter. Fighters may not be about mass battlefield control - they shouldn't be - but they can control a zone on the field by preventing others from moving past them without punishment.
If you are looking at Combat encounters, there is more than one way to defeat them. At what have been described as wuxia (11-15) and superhero (16-20) character levels, hp damage is often a suboptimal way to defeat an opponent. If you are playing E6, then the game is inherently different.
In any combat...
The problem with this logic is that, while true, it's only true at lower levels, and in certain circumstances:
1. It is more true in dungeons than wilderness. In 1st Ed/Basic days, most adventures WERE dungeons. Nowadays, dungeons are a much smaller slice of the game than they used to be. Give opponents room to maneuver, and they can just go right aruond the fighter's zone.
2. At lower levels, it is harder to slip past defenses, as Tumble checks are low enough to not auto-succeed, feats like Spring Attack are not in play yet, nor are special movement types (flight, burrowing, earth glide, incorporeal creatures, ethereal, blink/teleport), and spells that impede targeting aren't as good. Fairly low-end defensive spells like invisibility (ignore AoO unless target can see you), mirror image (go ahead, take a shot and hope for the best), or displacement start to make it really hard for the fighter to connect on AoOs even if the enemy runs right through his wheelhouse.
3. At lower levels, few opponents will have reach. At higher levels, big monsters may be able to reach right over the fighter's head and nail the people behind him.
The fighter's (and by fighter I include all melee-brick types) blocking ability works fine when you are starting out, but the ability of people to bypass him increases waaayyyyy faster than his ability to keep getting in their way.
I'll post some feat ideas later on. See what you think.
A fighter should also be able to do good ranged damage. Fighters are not necessarily all about melee.Therein lies a bit of the problem with D&D in that, in 3rd Ed, there are 10 melee-boosting abilities for every 1 ranged-boosting one, so unless you have a supplemental ranged attack trick (like sneak attack or skirmish) then you will be light years behind the melee...
Have you thought of good missile boosting abilities which do not stretch the range of the credible (ie, without magic)?
We have a fighter in our group who went the archer path: focus, specialization, rapid shot, etc... He ended up multiclassing as ranger to get some boost (especially the favored enemy bonuses, which stack with specialization, the Big Game Hunter feat, etc). A fighter 4/Ranger 4 is quite a capable option and powerful indeed for an 8th level character; AC suffers but that's not so serious for a missile-focused guy (and a good old Chain Shirt is still light armor).I find the concept of "roles" quite limiting as a whole. Some players like playing "against-topic" whereas others like having different roles available (even if they are not so good at all of them) and change tactics from encounter to encounter. We have a cleric of Desna who plays "wizard-style", casting damaging area spells, counterspelling enemy casters, etc., and has seen very few days of melee in 3+1/2 RotRL adventures. Our bard/wizard changes from ranged attacks (with wands) to subterfuge tactics of "flank and support". Some others like to have defined roles, but, again, they occasionally find the need of breaking them, especially in unusual circumstances (think flying monster attack, where the monk "striker" has to become the monk "grappler").
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
A fighter should also be able to do good ranged damage. Fighters are not necessarily all about melee.Therein lies a bit of the problem with D&D in that, in 3rd Ed, there are 10 melee-boosting abilities for every 1 ranged-boosting one, so unless you have a supplemental ranged attack trick (like sneak attack or skirmish) then you will be light years behind the melee...
Have you thought of good missile boosting abilities which do not stretch the range of the credible (ie, without magic)?
We have a fighter in our group who went the archer path: focus, specialization, rapid shot, etc... He ended up multiclassing as ranger to get some boost (especially the favored enemy bonuses, which stack with specialization, the Big Game Hunter feat, etc). A fighter 4/Ranger 4 is quite a capable option and powerful indeed for an 8th level character; AC suffers but that's not so serious for a missile-focused guy (and a good old Chain Shirt is still light armor).I find the concept of "roles" quite limiting as a whole. Some players like playing "against-topic" whereas others like having different roles available (even if they are not so good at all of them) and change tactics from encounter to encounter. We have a cleric of Desna who plays "wizard-style", casting damaging area spells, counterspelling enemy casters, etc., and has seen very few days of melee in 3+1/2 RotRL adventures. Our bard/wizard changes from ranged attacks (with wands) to subterfuge tactics of "flank and support". Some others like to have defined roles, but, again, they occasionally find the need of breaking them, especially in unusual circumstances (think flying monster attack, where the monk "striker" has to become the monk "grappler").
I'm not big on the "roles" concept the way 4th Ed has it, where each class is hermetically and exclusively sealed WITHIN a role.
There are certainly are types of roles that characters play in combat and noncombat senses of the word, but I like the ability of D&D to emulate a game wherein one character can take on different roles.
As to your first question - what do I have to bring to the table? That'll have to wait until after work. I've already burned up enough goof time on the boards! Quickly, though, there are options, and they are good ones, but they lose ground steadily over the levels. What is great at 1st is good at 5th is okay at 10th is kinda weak at 15th is why bother at 20th. In this sense, I am referring specifically to what a martial ranged attacker can do apart from sneak attack/skirmish. I'll try to post some things later on.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Have you thought of good missile boosting abilities which do not stretch the range of the credible (ie, without magic)?
We have a fighter in our group who went the archer path: focus, specialization, rapid shot, etc... He ended up multiclassing as ranger to get some boost (especially the favored enemy bonuses, which stack with specialization, the Big Game Hunter feat, etc). A fighter 4/Ranger 4 is quite a capable option and powerful indeed for an 8th level character; AC suffers but that's not so serious for a missile-focused guy (and a good old Chain Shirt is still light armor).
How about...
1. Allow Combat Expertise to work when using a ranged weapon. Same principle of 'dodge and attack.'
2. FEAT: Volley - pre Dex 13, PB Shot, Rapid Shot, Quick Draw (may substitute Rapid Reload for light or hand crossbow), BAB +4. Effect: When making a full-attack action, you may attack all targets in a 5-ft. burst at your full BAB. One attack per target. Must have enough ranged weapons/ammunition to make all attacks.
3. FEAT: Improved Volley - as above, Dex 15, BAB +8, all targets in a 10-ft. burst
4. FEAT: Greater Volley - as above, Dex 17, BAB +12, all targets in a 15-ft. burst
5. FEAT: Hail of Arrows - as the arcane archer class ability (shoot 1 arrow at everybody within range)
5a. Honestly, there's no reason that you couldn't adapt several of the ArcArc class abilities into feats. Make the "death arrow" into just a super-deadly hit. No reason that couldn't be done with extreme skill and no magic involved, just like an assassin's death attack. Even the "seeking arrow" concept (if not the Phantasm-style killer guided missile method) could work - you shoot, you ignore concealment. It's just Greater Precise Shot (Improved PS lets you ignore partial concealment, Greater lets you ignore total, as long as you attack the right square).
6. FEAT: Leg Shot - pre Dex 13, PB Shot, Precise Shot. Effect: Standard action. If you hit target, treat as if the target had stepped on a caltrop (extra damage + movement halved).
6a. You could easily enough create feats that emulated trip or grapple effects (there may be some in Complete Warrior already).
7. As far as concentrated massive damage from one or two attacks, things like the Vital Strike already in PF are a good step - feats that can be used for ranged or melee.
8. A 'piercing shot' that got through DR (like the Water Splitting Stone feat from PH2 for unarmed strike) would be especially nice, given that ranged attacks generally (Power Throw aside) don't have a built-in means for powering up to blow through DR.
The above feats are more special effects and more attacks, rather than punch-through with big damage. I'll have to think on it some more, but take the above as food for thought.
So, Dragnmoon, while I go with the people who posted, about how "roles" don't exist in D&D and all, I can understand your concern about the "combat roles".
Of course that "arcane" "divine" "combat" and "stealth" aren't even plausible (just look at the difference between the cleric and the druid...), but yet, some players like the idea of filling these four slots in a party creation.
While I don't see much use to these roles I'll describe here, they are what I and my group came up after a series of long and funny discussion in lunchs between sessions.
The Party-Man: This kind of character is versatile to the extreme. It may be a very resourcefull bard, a generalist wizard with a right spell or scroll for everything, or even just a char of a smart player. This character tends to be able to do just about anything the party would need. My players always want one of them in the party, but none ever makes one.
The Ninja: The archetypical character that is there to do things that aren't supposed to be done AND get away with that. It's the character who sneaks past enemies, steals spell-like abilities, put enemies into sleep or anything like that. Defeating enemies is meant to be done, but the Ninja is good at doing that in strange or uncommon ways (ambush, for example, is not a great surprise, but it's not the common way to fight a fight in D&D). There are always at least one Ninja in my games -players like the idea of being able to escape everything.
The Paintball Sniper: This is rather comycal, and refers to non-spellcaster ranged atackers. It began with so many archer that had such a great attack but such a low damage in my games. Later, it became the name of the role of the characters that specialized in attacking at distance, and with that helping allies to better manuever/hit enemies, like a ranger rogue with some mone-reducing sneak attack feat or anything like that.
Da Ogre: Any kind of character specialized at doing the greatest hp damage at the lowest time possible. This title goes to any kind of character, from blaster mage to heavy fighter to rogue who specializes in getting sneak attacks every round at every opportunity. Da Ogre tends to help the group only by dealing big damage.
The Multiprocessor: Any kind of character that specializes at making many attacks / hitting many foes, trading damage for more attacks or the like. It comes from Driz'zt sons and daughters with twin scimitars.
The Sidekick: Any kind of character that specializes at helping the tatics of other party members being more effective, like buffing Da Ogre, setting flanks for the rogue, or any other kind of character that helps the others shine in their roles, without taking a role of its own.
The Band-Aid: Any kind of character that specializes at getting the group to stay at their feat. From healing cleric to abjurer wizard. tends to do oly this, but very well.
The Slayer: Any kind of character that may be good at fights, but that only shines agains one kind of opponents. From rangers to paladins, to aberration destroyer druid.
The One-Trick Guy: A character that does something very well, but only do THAT very well. It may be one Da Ogre who only is Da Ogre when making jumping power attacks or a paladin way to specialized in mounted-charging-smite evil or anything like that. This title goes free to any elemental-exclusivist caster or anything like that.
The Guy who gets the Cheetos for Everyone: A character that specializes in nothing, and that is not a Party Man is one of this. It's the fighter with some two weapon and some archery feats, or the rogue in the undead-heavy capaign, or anything like that.