|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been following the forums, and I've noticed a repeating theme. People are complaining, over and over again, about Monks, Barbarians, and to a lesser extent Rogues. I would like to perhaps try and address this issue by looking at how characters in pathfinder fit together.
I've been around a while. I've played second edition, third edition, 3.5, 4th, and pathfinder, along with loads of other RPGs, like Exalted and Legend of the Five Rings. I currently play WoW. In all those games, there are Character Roles. generic slots that characters fall into and describe in general terms what that particular character does for the party.
Sometimes, like in second and third edition, these roles are rather vague. Other times, like in 4th and L5R and WoW, these roles are very explicit.
In second edition, you need a fighter to get hit, a rogue to deal with skills and sneaky stuff, a cleric to heal the party, and a wizard to kill stuff. But those roles aren't expressly called out in the system, and you can get by without one of them for most things.
In things like WoW and 4th edition, you can also get by easier stuff without one of those, but the really hard, cutting edge challenges require all of them filled and working well, or for very unusual tactics (in Wow, for instance, there was a time when the best way for dealing with Sarth (a big bad dragon) was for a warlock (squishy magic class) to 'tank' him; this was fixed in a patch. WoW discourages unusual tactics).
Like I mentioned at the very beginning, people are complaining. "Barbarians don't fight as well as fighters and paladins" and "monks can't hold their own in front line combat OR compete against rogue damage".
I think these problems come from a lack of understanding as to how each variant build of each class fits together within a party. I think these problems could be addressed by figuring out:
A) what are the various roles for characters in pathfinder? and
B) what roles can each class fill, and how should they go about it?
Here's the initial list that I see. Please help me expand it. Note that the class list is incomplete; I am particularly unclear as to what clerics can do.
Controllers: Also called Buffers, Debuffers, or Leaders, these guys make the enemies hit softer and the party hit harder. They limit the enemies options from afar and let the party do things they couldn't otherwise do.
Classes: Wizards, sorcerers, druids, clerics, bards.
Note: the traditional 'cleric' or 'healer' role is usually a waste of time in pathfinder; spells are better spent preventing the enemy from hurting the party in the first place. Regularly buy Wands of Cure Light Wounds and the party will be fine.
Tank: Also called "Protectors", these guys are there to be hit. They either do as much damage as Melee, or lesser damage but have certain Controller abilities like trip and disarm; without either of these abilities, their high AC and large hitpoint pools make them unattractive targets. They tend to have low mobility compared to melee and disruptors, but otherwise operate as melee.
Classes: Paladins, Fighters.
Note: Shields are a trap. They increase your AC (making you less attractive a target), reduce your damage (making you less attractive a target), and inhibit controller-like actions (making you less attractive a target).
Melee: short for "melee damage dealers", also called Strikers, these guys are the primary source of damage to enemies. They can one-round-kill a lesser monster and reliably handle an even level enemy in two or three rounds. They tend to be fairly mobile, but rely on Controllers for buffs and Tanks for flanking to be most effective.
Classes: Rogues, Rangers, Paladins, Druids, Bards. (see also: tank)
Ranged: short for "ranged damage dealers", also called Strikers, these guys tend to do less damage overall than melee characters, and also tend to be more vulnerable, but compensate by being harder for enemies to get to most of the time and by being able to strike at the entire battlefield, rather than just what is within melee reach.
Classes: Wizards, sorcerers, druids, clerics, bards, rangers, fighters.
Note: because they pretty much always do less damage than melee focused characters, and 'prevent' less damage than controllers (monster with 1 hp still hurts the party), these are usually sub-optimal roles. This does not mean they are 'bad', just not "minmaxed".
Disruptors: something that seems unique to pathfinder, these guys are there to disrupt the enemies plans, the "Anti-Controller". They move around or through the enemy lines, avoid or counter hostile terrain, and harass the enemy controller. Their damage is roughly comparable to ranged, lagging noticeably behind Melee and Tanks, and have unusual abilities like speed, escape tricks, and shut-down maneuvers instead of damage enhancing techniques.
Classes: Monk, Rogue, Bard, Barbarian.
Note: these guys require intelligent enemies and interesting settings to be effective. If every fight takes place in a perfectly swept square dungeon room or on a perfectly maintained lawn, and the enemies do nothing but stand in place and try to kill the tank, these guys are going to be rather boring. In dynamic locations against intelligent foes, they steal the show.
So Tanks are on a sliding scale of Melee vs Controller, along with high hit points and AC. Ranged deal less damage but also take less, and can cover somewhat for an Disruptor. Disruptors get stuck with the same low damage as ranged, but without the range, which looks really bad on paper, but thanks to their various odd-ball tricks they can actually do quite a lot in anything outside of the stereotypical arena.
Class Breakdown List:
Barbarian: Disruptor. Their damage isn't high enough for the Melee position, and they can't afford to trade hits like a Tank. It's not the same role they had is 3.5, which is imensely frustrating to many barbarian fans.
Bard: Controller, Melee, Ranged, Disruptor. Bards are their usual flexible selves; as Melee they don't do as much damage on paper, but make up for it with their buffs and debuffs; well chosen spells also let them move around the battlefield in Disruptor fashion.
Cleric: Controller, Ranged. I honestly don't know much about what clerics can do in pathfinder, so my information may be completely wrong.
Druid: Controller, Ranged, Melee. Druids can no longer do everything, due to how wildshape works, but are still a flexible, unique class.
Fighter: Tank, Ranged. Fighters fight. They exist to hurt the enemy, by limiting their movement options, setting up flanking, using combat maneuvers, and beating their enemies to death with pointy objects. They can either deal competitive melee damage, or shut down enemy melee, or deal competitive ranged damage.
Monk: Disruptor. Monks continue to fill the unique role they occupied in 3rd edition, only without the option to just do a bunch of damage instead. Again, many players are upset about this.
Paladin: Tank, Melee. Paladins tank just like always, only now they don't use a shield. They can only compete as melee if they are mounted. Fighters can technically try the mounted thing too, but their horse / dog will get one-shot, so it's not really an option. Also, the mount limits mobility as much as it enhances it by requiring open areas with high ceilings to function.
Ranger: Melee, Ranged. They've got enough mobility and staying power to get into position as Melee and stay out of trouble as Ranged, but not enough to Tank or act as Disruptors.
Rogue: Melee, Disruptor. A duel-wielding rogue is perhaps the highest-damage-dealer in the game, if he has a full round action, a flanking buddy, and a Controller to pile on the spells. A rogue who picks up some speed enhancing magic items has the tricks (uncanny dodge, evasion, skills) to get next to controllers and the tactics to shut them down.
Sorcerer: Ranged, Controller. Stand in the back and blast away. Tend to make better Ranged than wizards, thanks to metamagic and more spells per day.
Wizard: Ranged, Controller. Stand in back and blast away. Tend to make better Controllers than sorcerers, thanks to large spell selection and flexible preparation.
Note that all of the above are broad, sweeping generalizations. Your mileage may vary.
I think these problems come from a lack of understanding as to how each variant build of each class fits together within a party. I think these problems could be addressed by figuring out:
A) what are the various roles for characters in pathfinder? and
B) what roles can each class fill, and how should they go about it?Here's the...
1) You're dipping your toes in 4E territory, a land much maligned by followers of the gods of 3.x.
2) I dislike the entire concept of "roles" and the idea that I am expected to play a certain something a certain way in order to be successful or to contribute effectively. For me, the act of roleplaying a different person, and different personality, and exploring the world through the choices that character makes, are what define success for me. My idea of a fighter may be far, far from ideal, and even counter to all that is logical. I don't care, I don't want logic, I want a character I can believe in and enjoy playing, regardless of whether or not he plays a *role* well.
That's just me though.
Awesome post
I love this post... you have spared me the time in posting in all the threads of that kind with this :)
and i think that you covered pretty much all the options...jreyst: i hate 4ed with every inch of my tainted soul, but telling in the book that the party MUST have some roles filled was priceless, this concept is deeply within D&D from the very beggining, D&D IS a teamplay rpg, not like others products (Vampire of withe wolf or the entire line of world of darkness) that are played with a more "personal" view in the motivations and "end-game situations"...
There are plenty of games, take the time to know them.
Im not saying that you're in the wrong game, you could love the d&d mechanics, as i do, but if you want to play d&d in this "personal" way of motivations (and unique roles), you need a great storyteller, someone with more experience than D&D, 'couse the third edition has created a horde of players (and dm's) that play like the world is a roofless dungeon...
cheers!
Amen.
Awesome postI love this post... you have spared me the time in posting in all the threads of that kind with this :)
and i think that you covered pretty much all the options...jreyst: i hate 4ed with every inch of my tainted soul, but telling in the book that the party MUST have some roles filled was priceless, this concept is deeply within D&D from the very beggining, D&D IS a teamplay rpg, not like others products (Vampire of withe wolf or the entire line of world of darkness) that are played with a more "personal" view in the motivations and "end-game situations"...
There are plenty of games, take the time to know them.
Im not saying that you're in the wrong game, you could love the d&d mechanics, as i do, but if you want to play d&d in this "personal" way of motivations (and unique roles), you need a great storyteller, someone with more experience than D&D, 'couse the third edition has created a horde of players (and dm's) that play like the world is a roofless dungeon...cheers!
I've been playing D&D since about 1980 and never had a problem until 4E attempted to more formally codify "roles" for PC's to fit into. I preferred (and still prefer) a less formal "role" concept. If you enjoy/prefer that, more power to you. I guess I've just always been blessed with GM's who don't require that every PC be optimized to the nth degree and parties that cover every base perfectly. I've had a long and enjoyable playing career to this point, and will not be stepping into the 4E waters, even though I did take a brief swim. I decided its not for me and I am glad Pathfinder is around for me to play instead.
I think that the OP isn't meant to pidgeonhole the classes. I think that the spirit of the post is to dissuade people from thinking that a particular class ought to be optimizable to most or every role and, at the same time, perform optimally in most or every encounter.
It's just NOT going to happen and if a class can't do that, it's not a failing of the class. It's a failing of REALITY.
...it's a failing of REALITY.
or a player with Mary_Sue/angel-summoner complex issue :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranged: short for "ranged damage dealers", also called Strikers, these guys tend to do less damage overall than melee characters, and also tend to be more vulnerable, but compensate by being harder for enemies to get to most of the time and by being able to strike at the entire battlefield, rather than just what is within melee reach.
Classes: Wizards, sorcerers, druids, clerics, bards, rangers, fighters.
Note: because they pretty much always do less damage than melee focused characters, and 'prevent' less damage than controllers (monster with 1 hp still hurts the party), these are usually sub-optimal roles. This does not mean they are 'bad', just not "minmaxed".
True in 3.5 - not in Pathfinder.
Disruptors: something that seems unique to pathfinder
Explain.
these guys are there to disrupt the enemies plans, the "Anti-Controller".
What do they do in the 90% of battles where the enemy doesn't have a "controller" (UGH felt dirty typing that last word)
They move around or through the enemy lines, avoid or counter hostile terrain, and harass the enemy controller.
I've played many wizards - and I have to say, when I see an NPC Caster - I worry a bit. When I see an NPC Monk or Barbarian - I think, "Easy XP!!!" - Rogues worry me a bit.
Their damage is roughly comparable to ranged,
Rogues and Barbarians yes - Monks no.
lagging noticeably behind Melee and Tanks,
Rogues and Barbarians no, Monks yes.
and have unusual abilities like speed,
Not at all unusual. More classes have speed tricks than don't.
escape tricks,
How does this aid in harassment?
and shut-down maneuvers
But not as good as a fighter at that.
instead of damage enhancing techniques.
We're just talking about Monk's now eh?
Classes: Monk, Rogue, Bard, Barbarian.
Barbarians and Rogues don't have an offensive problem. Just Monks.
In dynamic locations against intelligent foes, they steal the show.
How so?
Really, this whole post seems more like a thinly-veiled Monk apologist post...
|
stuff... Note: Shields are a trap. They increase your AC (making you less attractive a target), reduce your damage (making you less attractive a target), and inhibit controller-like actions (making you less attractive a target).
Sorry BobChuck you were starting to lose me earlier but I stopped reading right there.
D&D and Pathfinder do have class roles, but to define them as rigidly as 4E did was an outgrowth of how some people started gaming in 3.x. Yes, adventuring has always been a Team Sport and every class has it's position on the field but the minute you start stripping away choices from players with jibba-jabba key phrases like "This option is a trap" you need to STOP.
A sword and board PC is as iconic as a wizard with a long beard or a pointy hat. Don't muddy the communal waters with your MMORPG style and call it gospel. I presently play a "tank" style character (ok he's more of a Tower) and yes I give up some other options to focus on defense but it in NO way makes my character less than any other. I am both as effective on the combat grid as I am off it, and not all of that comes from build alone.
The numbers don't say it all, don't always rely on statistics. Builds don't rule the day. Only the Dice gods choose who is Gloriously triumphant and who'll need a "healer" to pull their heads out of their chests!!!
--We will, we will VROCK YOU!
|
|
A sword and board PC is as iconic as a wizard with a long beard or a pointy hat.It's a shame they suck so much.
The two of us disagree one how to deal with this problem, but it is a flaw with 3e that something so simple and iconic is also so suboptimal.
Your Philosophy of Optimization be damned!
Optimizers IMX wreck a gaming table. Not everyone is so gung-ho to squeeze every-last-single-drop of effectiveness out of a character. There are multitudes of other gaming styles that are perfectly legitimate in D&D and Pathfinder. Toons that are turbo charged with every bell and whistle easily distract from the fun of others. As a longtime DM who's seen min/maxers at his tables for years I can tell you that even reigning them in their characters can force the others at the table to play at the Optimizers pace rather than their own because they want to feel effective. It can also force game design to factor them above the others, meaning I'll probably have to make a monster that can destroy the party just to scratch the optimizer.
That my good sir is BAD for a gaming group and BAD for gaming in general.
--Vrocking around the Christmas Tree
|
|
At risk of being cliche, you are blaming the players for a problem that is caused by the game.
No that's wrong. The game is just a game. A set of rules and some dice does not make a player choose the crazy combination of classes, feats, skills, spells, magic items, and other combinations that I've seen come from the Optimization crowd. That's a choice that those players make.
The abuse of such options in 3.x, especially the Prestige Class, is part in parcel with a playstyle, not the game itself. In fact most opitmization builds from 3.5 totally disregarded the original intent of the game designers. In a sense the game designers seemed to kowtow to the player hunger for access to the cooler abilities of prestige classes, which led to the glut of splatbooks and the biggest offender in Power Creep the PrC. Crunch over Fluff is an old debate, but a poignant one.
No one's twisting your arm to play such exotic beasts like the Swift Hunter or the Chain Tripper, or the CoDzilla. Those are just tricks, chains of options that only represent the Game portion of Roleplaying Game. A character can't exist in a vacuum. You can't just plop a build in a Campaign and expect it to run without any consideration to the style, the setting, and the story. Just because the pieces fit together doesn't mean they should or will be allowed by the DM.
Now the point of the game is to have fun. There is no other reason for us to get together on our days off if the Game is gonna suck the fun out us. I have never seen the Game itself ever do that but I have seen players do it.
--Vrock of Ages
+1 to Vrock.
stuff... Note: Shields are a trap. They increase your AC (making you less attractive a target), reduce your damage (making you less attractive a target), and inhibit controller-like actions (making you less attractive a target).
It's incredibly how you guys (Vrock & MiB) can't see the point out of the mechanics...
Saying "Shields are a trap(making you less attractive a target" when you talk about a Tank, it means that Jhon EvilMonster will say "heck, this armored guy is hurting me, and is hard to hit (maybe the wall that carries with him have something to do with it), i will first deal with that annoying bastard in pijamas that shoots rays of fire and death"
It is a posibility that the mage has a better AC, but some Monsters will try to bite some and make her proper conclussions...
Maybe a fighter with two weapons is a more threating guy than one who carries a shield (i know, mechannicaly they are the same, or worse, the shield slaming guy is a bit better)
It's not about the rules, it's about "roleplaying" the battlefield, and not playing it like a board game...
I have so much to add to this - but KoV and MiB - you guys are off topic. Why not start a new thread?
I have so much to add to this - but KoV and MiB - you guys are off topic. Why not start a new thread?
Name the thread: Middle Ring of the 7th Circle of Hell.
BobChuck, interesting and useful idea to get (especially newbie) characters thinking of what they can bring into melee. Also a good exercise to get people to co-ordinate as a party.
But let's expand this idea out of direct combat situations. Abilities like tracking, skrying, teleporting, trap finding, diplomacy, etc. are not to be overlooked and can obviously effect not only how and where combat can take place but give players other options to solve their problems. Some of my favorite sessions have been almost combat free.
|
A great general gaming writeup, but I think several things are wrong here.
Melée strikers vs ranged strikers. What you said should be true, but generally isn't. The problem is, Melee strikers don't get a full attack when they first contact an enemy; and vital strike comes far too late for most campaigns. Range shooters generally get to do their full array of attacks, and in fact generally gets more of them. They now get power attack (Deadly Aim), which used to seperate them out for damage. Granted at low levels they tend to do less (the 18 str is hard to beat level 1-3), but eventually they will keep up with the sword-and-boarder or two-weaponer, and not losing rounds closing with enemies is huge.
Monks... Disruptors? Because of stunning attack and the ability to maneuver almost as well as fighters? I still haven't seen this build... While monks can be built mediocre, I still have not seen an effective build. Fighters can be built as even better CM guys if you really want to; and evard's outdoes them both.
But mostly good definitions; a bit generic, they tend to apply more to WOW/4.0 than pathfinder... Roles are far less defined here. Monks I think are like your Barbs/Rangers... They want to occupy a role, but really aren't the best at any. It's frustrating, as they are one of the most beloved classes.
Monks should fight like ninjas use smoke sticks and blind fighting, flank with the rogue and then combat reflexes a trip in there. Play Lawful fight Chaotic.
Mr. Fishy grapples your plate mail wearing butt and makes you the rogues...Mr. Fishy is a Gentlefish and there are Ladies here.
Personally I see roles as alot simpler.
Guy who hits stuff and gets hit (or gets missed, both work just fine) and preferably gets in its way so it doesnt hit the other party members(aptly named the big stupid fighter by Treantmonk, some time ago)
Skill Monkey (traps, talking to people you dont like, tracking stuff etc)
Some kind of divine caster for the purpose of healing (preferably after combat) and removing of status effects like poison, disease, ability damage etc.
Arcane Caster: (sometimes being refered to as god).
Waste of space: Someone who does not do one of the above 3 things reasonably well.
All of these can be filled in different ways, sometimes 2 by a single party member. For instance in a pinch the beguiler 3.5 class is both Arcane caster and skill monkey. A purpose built druid or cleric can be both front line fighter and divine caster. But those are the only roles that need be met. Are there different ways to meet each role? Ofcourse. But those are really the only roles that matter in my book. Everyone else is a 5th party member (thankfully i play in a big group so there is lots of room for 5th, 6th and even 7th party members).
|
|
alright, this thread has gone way off topic and such, so maybe its just best to walk away and let someone else write a revision in a week or two.
I focused on combat for the same reason that every other thread here focuses on combat: that's where the classes have to balance out. I would like to expand on this and delve into supporting roles, like party face, knowledge guy, tracker, etc, but the meat of the rules are in fighting, and if a class can't meaningfully contribute to the role it is trying to play in combat there is a problem.
There's a difference between a Tank and a Melee Damage Guy (don't like Striker, give me another term to use).
Tanks are there to define the battlefield, set up flanks, and attract attention by either doing lots of damage or throwing out Combat Maneuvers. Tanks don't have to trip to be tanks, I never said that, they can also just hit hard enough to make ignoring them costly.
A Melee Damage Guy can't take the same hits the Tank can. A Rogue doesn't have the AC or hit points, a mounted paladin's mount doesn't have the AC or hit points, etc. They make up for this by some combination of doing more damage and having more mobility.
Speaking of mobility, it's more than just speed. It's skills, feats, class traits, and other abilities that reduce or eliminate hostile influence. That includes incoming damage from enemy melee, from walls of fire, etc. It includes a high CMD. It also includes hostile or restricting terrain. Mobility means being able to go around the two melee guys blocking the ten foot hallway and directly mess with the 2 archers behind them. Monks and Rogues have acrobatics and are more likely to pick up mobility and the like. Barbarians rage and overrun, rolling better than a fighter would.
A dual-wielding ranger or rogue doesn't have the resources to do the same mobility things a monk or mobility focused rogue can do. There is a difference between Tanks and Melee Damage Guys, and between both of those and Melee Mobile Guys.
If you think I'm placing too much value on Melee Mobile Guys, that's fine. You don't have to like the role, and I agree that a class should be able to fill more than one. But it is a valid and useful role for any non-cookie-cutter fight. If most of the fights in a game are cookie-cutter, the mobile guys are not going to be as interesting. Personally, I walked away from 3.5 because I was sick and tired of cookie-cutter fights, and I like that pathfinder has some classes need interesting encounters to really shine.
As for playing whatever you want, that's fine. Pathfinder has roles softly defined, at least for most classes (and the ones that aren't do have problems). But the roles are there, and not every class can do every role. Wizards can't Tank. They can summon mobs and buff and stick them in frustrating places, but those mobs aren't as effective as a Tank or Melee Damage Guy or Melee Mobile Guy. It's inherent to the system.
Combat Roles are a defining feature of D&D, and always have been. Different classes excel at different things, each class overlaps with others, and no two are exactly alike. The trick is trying to help players figure out how all these different options work together in a general sense, without having to write a whole additional book full of guidelines.
I am not saying the other types of characters dont exist. Some characters are disrupters, or skirmishers, or ranged attackers. These certainly exist. I am just saying they are less important then the main 4. You dont NEED a ranged attacker or a skirmisher. You do need someone who can get rid of that con damage, someone to stand between the squishy guys and the monsters (preferably with a way to keep them focused on him), you need an arcane caster if only for the moments where nothing else will do (got an invisible or flying enemy? Dont have an arcane caster? You are very likely boned) and you need a guy who can handle traps, finding stuff, and dealing with people (I would agree that this last one is at the bottom of the NEED scale, but it is very problematic for most adventures to not have one). Everything else is nice to have but not neccessary, which means if the class only fills that, its not a good part of a 4 person party.
By the way I dont have a problem with you using words like 'tank' or 'striker'. Call it what you wish I understand what you meant. I just disagree with your philosophy on 'roles'.
I don't dislike the concept of "roles" so much as the level of extreme definition that some use to define roles. I think then that I'm fairly close to Kolokotroni in this regard. I want the "roles" to be purposely vague and none to be absolutely necessary to a parties success. This is possible given a good D/GM. If I were the GM and the players made a complete group of half elven bards with all stats less than 10, I could make it a cool campaign, and none of them would necessarily fear dying any more than normal. I would just scale the threats appropriately and/or design the campaign to be suitable for the PC's etc. It all comes down to the D/GM being adaptable to whatever the players play.
|
|
I mean, we were keeping on topic; I don't understand where things got off. Was just saying that the definitions you gave fit other (more simple roles better). It seemed you took this off topic with attempt-to-defend monk.
Monks don't disrupt, at least not better than other classes. As treant said, their speed isn't actually on the high end of things at any point in their careers; Druids do the speed thing better, and barbs at lower levels. They don't have the Bab to qualify for CM feats nearly as fast, even if they get to use their CM at full-level BAB.
Defining roles in a simplified term is fine. But expect criticism when you do oversimplify them... PF I like because it is a shade of grey (unlike 4.0/WOW). Also expect comments about the weakness of Monks if you make your analogy to try to defend them. Like them or not, they really do need help. From a flavor perspective I would love themto be playable; but they have a ways to go for that.
Just a humble Dave's opinion.
I don't dislike the concept of "roles" so much as the level of extreme definition that some use to define roles. I think then that I'm fairly close to Kolokotroni in this regard. I want the "roles" to be purposely vague and none to be absolutely necessary to a parties success. This is possible given a good D/GM. If I were the GM and the players made a complete group of half elven bards with all stats less than 10, I could make it a cool campaign, and none of them would necessarily fear dying any more than normal. I would just scale the threats appropriately and/or design the campaign to be suitable for the PC's etc. It all comes down to the D/GM being adaptable to whatever the players play.
There is a certain point where a lack of ability in the party defeats a dm's ability to scale it to what the party can do. Certainly I try to tailor to my party, but there gets a point where there is too much level appropriate stuff that has to be thrown out if the big four are not filled. The easiest to leave out is the skillmonkey, but that means most social interactions, traps, and any wilderness adventures are pretty much left in the dust. The other 3 are far more severe is they are absent from a party.
There is a certain point where a lack of ability in the party defeats a dm's ability to scale it to what the party can do. Certainly I try to tailor to my party, but there gets a point where there is too much level appropriate stuff that has to be thrown out if the big four are not filled. The easiest to leave out is the skillmonkey, but that means most social interactions, traps, and any wilderness adventures are pretty much left in the dust. The other 3 are far more severe is they are absent from a party.
Sure, and I always encourage players in my games to try to cover the main bases, 1-2 tough guys, an arcane sort, a healer sort, and a general do-it-all sort. If those bases are covered and someone new comes along they can either make a more special case character (monk, druid, etc) or double up on one of the other areas. I'm just saying that if all of the players told me they had an idea to make a themed party of all halfling rogues, I'd make it work. I'd suggest one of them focus on being as tough as he could, one maxing out use magic device (and trying to be as arcane as possible), one try to max out heal (and I'd suggest even if not a cleric he have connections to a temple where he can get healing stuff), and one be a do-it-all sort. Just saying that no matter how they constructed the party I'd adapt and try to make it fun without punishing their choices.
Any compent player can make any class work any where. A wizard or sorcerer standing toe to toe with an ogre is either crazy, stupid or has a plan. Summon monster, touch me not spells and field control spells mean that the spellcaster can cover a wide swath with prep time. Melee charaters can kill a room it just takes longer. Rogues and monk with alchemy can tangle foot bag or caltrop the battle to force moves. Any class with a little fore thought and team work can win though. A balanced party is a right tool, it's quicker, faster and cheaper but not impossible.
A party of lite fast classes should hit and run stronger opponents.
Heavy party should close and dominate. Roles are more about the tactial options and less about we don't have "A" so we're hosed.
Some classes are easier to run in certain situations but saying that a fighter is a hitter and a rouge is a skill monkey is limiting the class. Clever play trumps role building.
Mr. Fishy has tweaked a DM with a clever plan more often than with a min/maxed character. Mr. Fishy has been threatened with an ECL of 1 on every character because of a crazy plan that worked.
Any compent player can make any class work any where. A wizard or sorcerer standing toe to toe with an ogre is either crazy, stupid or has a plan. Summon monster, touch me not spells and field control spells mean that the spellcaster can cover a wide swath with prep time. Melee charaters can kill a room it just takes longer. Rogues and monk with alchemy can tangle foot bag or caltrop the battle to force moves. Any class with a little fore thought and team work can win though. A balanced party is a right tool, it's quicker, faster and cheaper but not impossible.
A party of lite fast classes should hit and run stronger opponents.
Heavy party should close and dominate. Roles are more about the tactial options and less about we don't have "A" so we're hosed.Some classes are easier to run in certain situations but saying that a fighter is a hitter and a rouge is a skill monkey is limiting the class. Clever play trumps role building.
Mr. Fishy has tweaked a DM with a clever plan more often than with a min/maxed character. Mr. Fishy has been threatened with an ECL of 1 on every character because of a crazy plan that worked.
That is true so long as specific things are not used by the dm. That party full of melee guys wont do well against something that flys, or an invisible enemy for that matter. Or a dungeon full of traps. Which pretty much means the adventure has to be custom tailored to what they are capable of especially at higher levels.
That is true so long as specific things are not used by the dm. That party full of melee guys wont do well against something that flys, or an invisible enemy for that matter. Or a dungeon full of traps. Which pretty much means the adventure has to be custom tailored to what they are capable of especially at higher levels.
Which, again, is where a DM enters the picture. Unlike a computer game that generally doesn't adapt to the players skill level or preferred style of play, a DM can do that easily. That's why I play P&P rpgs and not computer games.
In short, again I am in agreement with Kolokotroni.
Metadiscussion:
The whole disagreement consists, in essence, of differences of opinion regarding which parts of game balance are properly the designer's job, and which parts are the DM's job.
The "eveything is fine" people shift the burden of the work to the DM; the designer is held to very, very low standards -- any system will do, no matter what the obvious flaws, and no matter how mathematically broken it may be -- and each DM is left to fix things on the fly.
The much-reviled number-cruncher crowd shifts the lion's share of the burden squarely on the designer, who is then held to impossibly high standards of design, and who suddenly needs to start thinking very, very carefully about the nuts and bolts, not just the flavor. In short, he needs to be an engineer, in addition to being an artist. A good DM is still needed, but DM lapses and/or work load are reduced in importance.
The advantage with the former approach is that no system in the world can ever be perfect, or even preferrable over any other, for all people involved. A DM will ALWAYS be needed to adjudicate.
The advantage of the latter approach is that it should be, in theory, a lot easier to find ONE exceptionally good designer, total, vs. finding a super-awesome DM for every single gaming group in the world.
|
|
Okay, so let's break it down then.
What are the Primary Combat Roles in a party?
What are the Secondary Combat Roles?
What are the Support Roles?
Also, how specific do we want to get?
For instance, in essence all builds of all classes are doing one of two things: 'Stopping Enemies' and 'Preventing Enemies From Stopping The Party'. But those roles are too general. Tanks aren't the same as Melee Strikers, and Controller Wizards aren't the same as Archer Rangers.
Primary Roles would be the big ones, like Tank and Striker and Controller. I think differentiating between Melee and Ranged here is a good idea, but maybe that's just me.
Secondary Roles would be the Buffer and the Disruptor; things that are really nice to have, but maybe not absolutely essential.
Support Roles would be for things that generally take place outside of combat. Party Face, Trapfinder, Tracker, Knowledge Guy, etc.
Personally, and this is worth talking about, I think Healer belongs here too. It is patently unfair to expect the Druid or Cleric or Paladin to sacrifice a significant portion of their ability to contribute in combat just in case the party gets hit with X debuff Y times. This should be an option, if that's what the player wants to do, but there should be reasonable ways to avoid this. Parties in Pathfinder should not require a dedicated healer, but just Use Magic Device + Wand of Cure Light Wounds is not enough.
The 'classic four' is dead, and has been for a while. It was a dead weight around clerics prior to 3.0, and by 3.5 they turned into better fighters than Fighters. So let's try and figure out what the new roles are.
Metadiscussion:
Blah, blah, blah.
Stupid logic. Ruins so many good arguments.
It's almost as bad as Trog-smashing air elementals.
Gimme mah blankies!
Blah, blah, blah.
I'm allowed to talk. I'm a mediocre designer AND a mediocre DM -- but at least I offer the two-for-one deal!
|
|
It is the designer's job to produce classes that fit together on equal footing, thus allowing for a standardized system of measuring encounter difficulty.
For instance, the Fighter fighters better than the Barbarian, but the barb has rage powers, unique defenses, skills, and of course RAGE. The Fighter is more flexible as a class, but an individual barbarian is more flexible than an individual fighter. The barbarian needs a little work in a couple spots, but overall he's fine, and on equal footing with the fighter.
It is the DM's job to understand the unique nature of 'his' party, what they can and cannot do, and adjust the nature of certain encounters when needed.
For instance, a Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer as a party has different strengths and weaknesses when compared to a Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard, so some fights of a given difficulty will be easier or harder. The designers want variation in the classes, so there is a limit as to how standardized every possible combination of classes can be, which is why the DM needs to know his party.
Finally, it is the Player's job to understand his character and make sure it fits into the party.
For instance, if the party already has a Paladin, a Holy Cleric, and a Lawful Good Wizard, choosing to make a Chaotic 'Neutral' Rogue is detrimental. On the other hand, being the exact same character into a party with a Paladin, a Balance Druid, and a Neutral Wizard could lead to some very interesting Roleplaying.
In the end, players are responsible for making sure their characters work as a group, DMs are responsible for making sure encounters work fairly against the group, and Designers are responsible for making all of this reasonably easy to do for lots and lots of different groups.
Okay, so let's break it down then.
What are the Primary Combat Roles in a party?
What are the Secondary Combat Roles?
What are the Support Roles?
Also, how specific do we want to get?For instance, in essence all builds of all classes are doing one of two things: 'Stopping Enemies' and 'Preventing Enemies From Stopping The Party'. But those roles are too general. Tanks aren't the same as Melee Strikers, and Controller Wizards aren't the same as Archer Rangers.
Primary Roles would be the big ones, like Tank and Striker and Controller. I think differentiating between Melee and Ranged here is a good idea, but maybe that's just me.
Secondary Roles would be the Buffer and the Disruptor; things that are really nice to have, but maybe not absolutely essential.
Support Roles would be for things that generally take place outside of combat. Party Face, Trapfinder, Tracker, Knowledge Guy, etc.
Personally, and this is worth talking about, I think Healer belongs here too. It is patently unfair to expect the Druid or Cleric or Paladin to sacrifice a significant portion of their ability to contribute in combat just in case the party gets hit with X debuff Y times. This should be an option, if that's what the player wants to do, but there should be reasonable ways to avoid this. Parties in Pathfinder should not require a dedicated healer, but just Use Magic Device + Wand of Cure Light Wounds is not enough.The 'classic four' is dead, and has been for a while. It was a dead weight around clerics prior to 3.0, and by 3.5 they turned into better fighters than Fighters. So let's try and figure out what the new roles are.
I dont exactly see how the classic four is dead. Just because the cleric fighter is a better fighter then the fighter doesnt mean anything. I didnt say the big stupid fighter needs to be a fighter. Nor does the arcane caster need to be a wizard. If you have a battle cleric he will fill the role of the front line fighter just fine, that is the role that character is playing. But you still NEED those 4 roles filled.
As for calling it unfair to expect the cleric or druid to sacrifices a portion of their ability to just in case stuff, um thats what prepared spellcasters are for. They are the batman utility belts. Monster CR's assume the 4 player party has these roles filled. Why do you say? How many monsters do ability damage? Or cause fear, paralysis, disease? Or how about the beefed up poisons? If you dont have a way to deal with these things that makes encounters with those things WAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion with their design.
And if you think its unfair the answer is simple, the party POOLS reasources for this. Scrolls wands, staffs, these can all help, but for the most part, you need a divine caster to adminster them (potions can cover some of it, but they are a big drain on party resource because of cost). This is generally what my group does. The cure wands and restore scrolls are party gear.
Same goes for the arcane caster. Without one, the invisible stalker goes from CR 7 to party wipe. Same for any flying dragon with a breath weapon (you know, all of them). Beyond that if the cleric chooses to smash with his mace, or the wizard is a debuffer, or a battlefield controller, or a blaster, or whatever, its important, but not required, so to me isnt a 'role'.
The same goes for the front line guys. They need to get in the monsters way, hit it with something sharp and have the staying power (ac, hp, dr etc) to keep themselves in the way long enough for them and the party to take it down.
The skill monkey is the only conditional one but is neccesary for every published adventure i have ever seen, and most of the ones i have run. It is still best served by the rogue (though the 3.5 factotum was a hell of a close second). He is a supporting role in combat, but so long as he is pleased with whatever that role is, be it striker, or debuffer, or whatever, it doesnt matter what it is.
Saying that you shouldnt need the classic 4 is irrelevent. You do. That is how this game works, and god willing how it will continue to work. I will never run an adventure, nor would I wish to play one where everything is solved by hitting it with a stick alone. 3.5 and 3.P classes have helped with some overlap, but the roles still have to be filled. It might take less then 4 characters to do it, but it still has to be done. So every class should have a way of doing it to be relevant in a 4 person party. Otherwise you can have your seat in the nice to have section with the 3.5 bard, warmage, warlock, and all incarnations of the monk. These can all be fun classes to play, I have played some of them, but I was not required to deal with any encounters.
In the end, players are responsible for making sure their characters work as a group, DMs are responsible for making sure encounters work fairly against the group, and Designers are responsible for making all of this reasonably easy to do for lots and lots of different groups.
You and I agree on these points, and therefore understand one another when something like "shields are a trap" is mentioned. The majority of the people on these boards, however, don't want to understand what you mean, because they rely solely on the DM to eliminate the impact of the numbers enirely and just provide a good story hour.
The roles, I think, like some other folks, might have a great deal to do with the DM, actually. Every DM is different and the needs of a party under one DM might be different from another. Here's what I'd suggest in one of my games:
Annoying Melee A-hole with High AC: The more times you trip, grapple, disarm, or otherwise stop my lovingly-crafted NPCs from doing the job I designed them for, the more off-balance I get. I'll tend to send more opponents at said character so while a spellcasting class is ok with this, it's better off a Fighter.
Trapfinder: This is a must. Wail of the Banshee is a hell of a spell.
Knower & Doer: There should be someone who knows a lot of crap and also who can perform random tasks (and maybe add backup damage) while the rest of the party is in the thick of the fight. Having the ability to use cure wands is pretty much a must for this character.
The Spellcaster: Cleric, Wizard, whatever. Have one of these in order to fight other spellcasters and flying creatures more easily. Always be prepared to break mind-controlling spells on AMAHWHAC and, to some extent, the Trapfinder.
The One Who Does a Lot of Damage: Gotta be someone. Likely the Spellcaster or the Trapfinder.
Talky Talky: You GOTTA have a talkie talkie. It can SAVE YOUR LIFE. Usually AMAHWAHAC or the Knower & Doer.
The roles, I think, like some other folks, might have a great deal to do with the DM, actually. Every DM is different and the needs of a party under one DM might be different from another. Here's what I'd suggest in one of my games:
1. Annoying Melee A-hole with High AC: The more times you trip, grapple, disarm, or otherwise stop my lovingly-crafted NPCs from doing the job I designed them for, the more off-balance I get. I'll tend to send more opponents at said character so while a spellcasting class is ok with this, it's better off a Fighter.
2. Trapfinder: This is a must. Wail of the Banshee is a hell of a spell.
3. Knower & Doer: There should be someone who knows a lot of crap and also who can perform random tasks (and maybe add backup damage) while the rest of the party is in the thick of the fight. Having the ability to use cure wands is pretty much a must for this character.
4. The Spellcaster: Cleric, Wizard, whatever. Have one of these in order to fight other spellcasters and flying creatures more easily. Always be prepared to break mind-controlling spells on AMAHWHAC and, to some extent, the Trapfinder.
5. The One Who Does a Lot of Damage: This role will sometimes be carried out by one of the above roles, but not necessarily.
6. Talky Talky: You GOTTA have a talkie talkie. It can SAVE YOUR LIFE. Like TOWDALOD, Talky Talky is often performed by one of the above.
Let's look at these roles in high-level play:
1. A wizard or sorcerer with good defenses (displacement, etc.) and a black tentacles, mass hold person, or other lock-down spell will out-perform the fighter in this role -- especially if there are multiple opponents.
2. A wizard or sorcerer with a 0-level (at will) detect magic cantrip and dispel magic can do this more safely and more reliably than a rogue.
3. Wizards have high Int (LOTS of skills) and can use wands. Perfect!
4. Yep.
5. Yep -- by #4, in fact.
6. Ooh! Sorcerers have high Charisma.
So, by the system of roles you've assigned, a party of wizards and sorcerers fills all six roles. And that to me is a SYSTEM problem, not a DM problem.
I have played in a party where it was just I the wizard/Rogue, a Rogue, and a wizard. We managed to survive in one of the most dangerous of environments the Underdark.
You're supporting my point: right out of the box, at higher levels wizards are indispensible, warriors are not. The game mechanics are hard-wired to that end; correcting for it takes effort.
Most players and DMs have no problem stepping up to the plate and supplying that effort. But the question remains, why should they have to? Can the system be tweaked so that less correction is needed?
|
|
Out of curiosity, when do you see the system breaking? I see problems at 1-2, 3 is rough, but at 5 things are solid. Come 18th, things are broken again. I'm not sure how it holds up at 10th and 15th.
I know that in 3.5, the only really fair area was 5-9; anything outside of that was borked one way or the other. I think pathfinder has expanded that window out to 3ish to 15ish, but I'm not sure exactly where things fall apart again.
9th level spells are a gamebreaker; there's no point in talking about balance when you're talking about 20th or epic levels. Being stuck with only 1st level spells is a problem, but it gets better quickly.
So where does it break down? What's the new fair range?
Let's look at these roles in high-level play:
1. A wizard or sorcerer with good defenses (displacement, etc.) and a black tentacles, mass hold person, or other lock-down spell will out-perform the fighter in this role -- especially if there are multiple opponents.
BS.
2. A wizard or sorcerer with a 0-level (at will) detect magic cantrip and dispel magic can do this more safely and more reliably than a rogue.
Not the hell in my dungeons they won't.
3. Wizards have high Int (LOTS of skills) and can use wands. Perfect!
A wizard is a good choice, or a Bard. I've had lots of different classes fill this role throughout my DMing career.
4. Yep.
K
5. Yep -- by #4, in fact.
You're so adorable.
6. Ooh! Sorcerers have high Charisma.
They certainly do. I'd say the Paladin, Bard, Rogue, Cleric, and Sorcerer make great choices for this.
So, by the system of roles you've assigned, a party of wizards and sorcerers fills all six roles. And that to me is a SYSTEM problem, not a DM problem.
No, YOU'VE done that. My players never do. There isn't a problem with the system, sir. Out of an interest in geniality, I won't disclose the REAL problem here.