Are we addressing the DM as the source of contention here? We should be. It's ultimately the DM's fault for not creating balanced encounters. Even with a module, a knowledgeable DM should be able to spot a particular situation in which the PCs would make things imbalanced. The balancing factor for party roles is the DM.
For instance, if an adventure allows rest at practically any moment and the party is all casters, it's up to the DM to know to put in a situation that inhibits rest. No rules will tell you this, but a party that isn't being challenged needs to be challenged, regardless of what the module says.
My primary criticism of 3.5/PF would be that the *amount of DM knowledge needed is too high*. MMOs don't require anyone except game developers to have this level of sophistication when it comes to the game rules. 4th edition is an attempt to marginalize the difficulty of being a DM by simplifying various DM processes. The result is that the game is easier to run as a DM. . . but less satisfying to play as a player.
Can there be no happy medium? Can a D&D game be fun to play and simple enough to DM without a vast amount of DM experience?
On the other side of the coin, you have the One Power in Wheel of time. It's not only used in combat but pretty much no one can resist it who can't use the One Power. Except Mat Cauthorn, of course, who has that crazy, Aes Sedai-enraging amulet of his. Of course, that doesn't stop them from hurling objects at him.I have no idea what any of that means. We've been talking about sources that Gygax cites as having influenced the early design of the game.
I was just making conversation.
Can there be no happy medium? Can a D&D game be fun to play and simple enough to DM without a vast amount of DM experience?
I don't think you need vast amounts of DM experience. We used to harry parties by not letting them rest back in 1e within the first few months of taking up the DM's screen. But then, that was the style of play we knew at the time. We didn't have computer RPGs with easy game saving features or super convenient places to rest and recover at the click of a button (or Fix menu option). We didn't have town portal scrolls to get us out of a jam. And we couldn't stage an emergency logoff if particularly desperate.
I really think elements of the modern environment and modern games have set expectations in a very different way than they did 20 years ago. And I think that helps make fixing the game appear even more difficult than it is because we not only need to adjust the game to provide a better rule-experience but we also have to adjust people's expectations.
Computer games provide fairly consistent experiences with their encoded and algorithmic rules and limited environments. But RPGs are negotiated experiences from the get-go and I'm not sure all modern players really get that.
I was just making conversation.
Oh! Sorry about that post, then. (If we were still within the time limit I'd delete it, in fact). I mistook your point and replied with the snark-meter still turned on; I really need to stop doing that.
I never did read the Wheel of Time; my wife got to them before me and stating pretend-coughing all kinds of things like [cough]RIPOFF![/cough] and [cough]BLOWJOB![/cough], and I took that to be a sign that I was better off reading other stuff. If you recommend them, though, and they present a different paradigm of fantasy, I'd certainly be happy to reconsider!
Excellent insight
Nice post overall, Bill. Not sure what I can add. We used to read Gygax's notes in Dragon all the time, so we had sort of a running commentary of how things were "supposed" to work: i.e., fighters were great, then Robilar started breaking all the dungeons, so Gygax started making them nastier, and eventually everybody was out to kill everyone else. Wizards were OK until someone figured out the fighter could sack their citadels with his army while they were away, and then kill all their clones and destroy their spellbooks. A full-party adventure was "successful" if the whole party had to retreat altogether at least once and give up until they had gained a level. And it took like 10 years and 100 characters to reach 12th level.
Are we addressing the DM as the source of contention here? We should be. It's ultimately the DM's fault for not creating balanced encounters. Even with a module, a knowledgeable DM should be able to spot a particular situation in which the PCs would make things imbalanced. The balancing factor for party roles is the DM.
For instance, if an adventure allows rest at practically any moment and the party is all casters, it's up to the DM to know to put in a situation that inhibits rest. No rules will tell you this, but a party that isn't being challenged needs to be challenged, regardless of what the module says.
My primary criticism of 3.5/PF would be that the *amount of DM knowledge needed is too high*. MMOs don't require anyone except game developers to have this level of sophistication when it comes to the game rules. 4th edition is an attempt to marginalize the difficulty of being a DM by simplifying various DM processes. The result is that the game is easier to run as a DM. . . but less satisfying to play as a player.
Can there be no happy medium? Can a D&D game be fun to play and simple enough to DM without a vast amount of DM experience?
I don't expect a new DM to do things correctly. It seems to be something we grow into.
I don't expect a new DM to do things correctly. It seems to be something we grow into.
But are the players always willing to wait patiently for a DM to amass a huge amount of knowledge that is needed to balance the game? I'm willing to work with DMs. But a lot of people feel frustrated when a DM lets problems run rampant or fails to see obvious pitfalls. Suddenly the game system is at fault. Maybe there should be some training materials for DMs to help avoid some classic problems:
- What do I do when I give out too much loot?
- What do I do when I make starting ability scores too high?
- How do I deal with lots of missing roles in the party?
I don't expect a new DM to do things correctly. It seems to be something we grow into.But are the players always willing to wait patiently for a DM to amass a huge amount of knowledge that is needed to balance the game? I'm willing to work with DMs. But a lot of people feel frustrated when a DM lets problems run rampant or fails to see obvious pitfalls. Suddenly the game system is at fault. Maybe there should be some training materials for DMs to help avoid some classic problems:
- What do I do when I give out too much loot?
- What do I do when I make starting ability scores too high?
- How do I deal with lots of missing roles in the party?
I think it depends on how bad he starts off and other factors. One of my guys just tried it for the first time, and had to get used to running multiple creatures. Other than that he did okay. I was much worse my first time.
|
And if i remember correctly older editions were alot like this. Wizards just walked behind the party and just decided to blow their win button now and again. I am not certain because my pre-3.0 experience is pretty limited.
Not really. A kobold with a rock could disrupt a 20th level magic user 5% to 10% of the time in 1e. By the time you got to high levels, that wizard had better have bodyguards, and even then nothing was guaranteed if the enemy had intelligence and ranged weapons. And, since casting times worked VERY differently (and, actually, that is one of the bigger "balance" mistakes 3x made, making casting powerful magic take as much time and effort as blowing your nose), the enemy has just about all day to disrupt anything over a third level spell, more or less.
Magic users in 1e had to pick their spots very carefully when casting, and usually relied on staves, wands and scrolls most of the time, as using them was quick, safe and couldn't be disrupted.
|
|
This is drifting off-topic, however.
The original topic was: what are the various roles availible to player characters, and which of those does each class fit naturally into at all levels of play?
We haven't been on topic since the tenth post.
EDIT: It's not an accusation or compliant, but as the thread starter I do feel obligated to point this out.
EDIT: I think it's patently ridiculous that I have to make the above edit in order to prevent someone from flaming me. These boards are WAY TOO hostile, opinionated, and entrenched. People state opinions as facts, and when someone does take the time to make it clear they are stating an opinion, it STILL gets treated as a fact and ripped apart. It's insane.
Mind you I haven't been able to get my weapons enchanted yet, purely working off of found treasure (which has not yet included any worthwile 1-handed weapons)
This is an example where a DM needs to step in and balance the game. It's quite honestly ridiculous that the DM isn't providing characters with good 1-handed weapons. The PHII in 3.5 assumed that you spend as much as half your wealth on a single weapon. Yes, luck can be bad when rolling treasure, but ultimately it's the DM's responsibility to keep his players up to speed when it comes to gear.
A character *starting* at level 12 should have approximately 108,000gp in wealth. The PF "balanced" approach says 25% of gear should be armor and 25% should be weapons. That means you should be able to afford both a +3 and +2 equivalent weapons. For armor, you should be able to get a +4 and +3 equivalent shield/armor. If your DM would let you spend half your wealth on a specific item, you should have a single +5 weapon by this level.
Gear is very important for melee classes. Skimping on the gear inevitably leads to weaker melee classes and stronger casters.
This is drifting off-topic, however.The original topic was: what are the various roles availible to player characters, and which of those does each class fit naturally into at all levels of play?
Answer: Many roles are available to each class type, but none will be balanced *if* the DM doesn't know what he's doing. It's completely up to the DM to decide if a character is going to be worthless or not.
Which, at least in my mind, is sad. I've been trying to come up with a method of reducing the treasure burden and shifting some of the 'value of treasure' into the core of PC's. It's not easy lol.
First step I'm planning is to kill ability enhancing items and replace them with a faster ability growth progression.
The Vow of Poverty feat chain in Book of Exalted Deeds attempted to do this. A lot of people think this chain is overpowered. However, if you actually do the math and give out wealth like you're supposed to, the feat chain is actually underpowered. A standard 3.5 wealth progression gives you more benefit over time than Vow of Poverty. But, do DMs actually give out this wealth like they're supposed to? Most DMs I've seen are too stingy with wealth. I've even seen players who consistently reject rewards due to roleplaying purposes. It becomes a game of the DM trying to force wealth on the players just to maintain the player's gear.
PF attempted to simplify the stat boosters by throwing everything on two items (mental/physical). This upped the costs a bit, but that's fine -- the standard wealth progression was already very generous with wealth. To eliminate them entirely, you'd have to modify the wealth progression to exclude the costs for these items. You'd have to figure out the ideal levels to give out the boosters and time the ability enhancements around those levels. It's possible to do, but it could require a bit of math.
These threads are starting to deal ability damage.
Unless of course access to caster goodies is also restricted. The wizard you just downed isn't at his home base so his precious spellbook isn't there for you to loot or he's fire trapped it for spite. (in old 1st edition days fire traps destroyed the books they were guarding), Most other wizards are jealous and miserly about how they share their knowledge being on guard against up and coming competition.
Low magic low gear campaigns can be run, but they do need to be balanced differently. Monte Cook's Iron Heroes books can be of inspiration here.
Restrict wizards from getting spellbooks/learning new spells at will -- the wizard's power level goes down a bit.
Restrict fighters from getting decent weapons for their level -- the fighter's power level goes down massively.
I've never liked low magic games, but I certainly respect their usage as long as the game is adjusted accordingly. PF recommends the wealth per level be reduced by half for low-fantasy games. Also, the CR for encounters needs to be adjusted to deal with less access to gear.
Restrict wizards from things like rings, bracers, or magic items in general and they become squishier a lot faster than fighters do. Imagine if you actually had to play Raistlin style Dragonlance where the only magic item he has for a long time is his staff which does light.
Mage armor essentially negates the need for bracers of armor for a large part of the game. Invisibility/dimension door/fly prevent wizards from being in melee in general. Basically the wizard can simulate items by casting spells. If a wizard doesn't have items, he can still do his job -- albeit worse than if he had the gear. The fighter fulfills his role with a weapon and armor/shield -- if he doesn't have good versions of those items, he can't really do his job effectively.
Non-magical characters that need to fill a front-line role need good gear for this job. If they don't have it, they'll suck at the job.
Magical characters can fill a front-line role without a high dependence on gear. Sure, the gear will help, but they still can function quite well given prep time.
Mind you I haven't been able to get my weapons enchanted yet, purely working off of found treasure (which has not yet included any worthwile 1-handed weapons)This is an example where a DM needs to step in and balance the game. It's quite honestly ridiculous that the DM isn't providing characters with good 1-handed weapons. The PHII in 3.5 assumed that you spend as much as half your wealth on a single weapon. Yes, luck can be bad when rolling treasure, but ultimately it's the DM's responsibility to keep his players up to speed when it comes to gear.
A character *starting* at level 12 should have approximately 108,000gp in wealth. The PF "balanced" approach says 25% of gear should be armor and 25% should be weapons. That means you should be able to afford a +3 and +2 equivalent weapon. For armor, you should be able to get a +4 and +3 equivalent shield/armor. If your DM would let you spend half your wealth on a specific item, you should have a single +5 weapon by this level.
Gear is very important for melee classes. Skimping on the gear inevitably leads to weaker melee classes and stronger casters.
Which, at least in my mind, is sad. I've been trying to come up with a method of reducing the treasure burden and shifting some of the 'value of treasure' into the core of PC's. It's not easy lol.
First step I'm planning is to kill ability enhancing items and replace them with a faster ability growth progression.
You may want to look at vow of poverty as a starting point. I know alot of people thought it was overpowered, but if you compare it to what you can get from level appropriate (most of the people who disliked it ran low magic games) gear it wasnt too bad after low levels.
So while it is not perfect, its a pretty good starting point on how to make characters less gear dependent.
Just keep in mind, each thing you 'shift' into character abilities will affect classes differently. You also have to consider other methods. For instance, items are enhancement bonus. The level progression is permanent. If you make the ability score by level progression faster, what do you do with bulls strength? or mass bulls stregth? (and a dozen other spells and abilities) that will now become more powerful. Remember, for the most part magic doesnt usually stack with magic items. If you start making it inherent in the classes, it will, and you will have to manage buff spells as well.
Restrict wizards from things like rings, bracers, or magic items in general and they become squishier a lot faster than fighters do. Imagine if you actually had to play Raistlin style Dragonlance where the only magic item he has for a long time is his staff which does light.Mage armor essentially negates the need for bracers of armor for a large part of the game. Invisibility/dimension door/fly prevent wizards from being in melee in general. Basically the wizard can simulate items by casting spells. If a wizard doesn't have items, he can still do his job -- albeit worse than if he had the gear. The fighter fulfills his role with a weapon and armor/shield -- if he doesn't have good versions of those items, he can't really do his job effectively.
Non-magical characters that need to fill a front-line role need good gear for this job. If they don't have it, they'll suck at the job.
Magical characters can fill a front-line role without a high dependence on gear. Sure, the gear will help, but they still can function quite well given prep time.
Given a prep time, and a short day. If you require casters to get everything from spells, they will not be able to handle the 4 fight day, their resources are too limited. So if you want to have a 1 or 2 fight day with time to prep before each then by all means limit caster magic items. Otherwise you should really reconsider.
You may want to look at vow of poverty as a starting point. I know alot of people thought it was overpowered, but if you compare it to what you can get from level appropriate (most of the people who disliked it ran low magic games) gear it wasnt too bad after low levels.
So while it is not perfect, its a pretty good starting point on how to make characters less gear dependent.Just keep in mind, each thing you 'shift' into character abilities will affect classes differently. You also have to consider other methods. For instance, items are enhancement bonus. The level progression is permanent. If you make the ability score by level progression faster, what do you do with bulls strength? or mass bulls stregth? (and a dozen other spells and abilities) that will now become more powerful. Remember, for the most part magic doesnt usually stack with magic items. If you start making it inherent in the classes, it will, and you will have to manage buff spells as well.
I actually like that enhancement bonuses continue to matter.
That mass bullstrength is actually worth the level.
That Haste still contributes it's +2 dex bonus.
Sure it amps the powerlevel up a little bit, but not that much and I find it makes the game run a little cleaner.
As long as you recognize the power boost thats fine. Just be aware of it, so you dont get shocked when the fighter armwrestles the cloud giant at high levels :P
Mind you I haven't been able to get my weapons enchanted yet, purely working off of found treasure (which has not yet included any worthwile 1-handed weapons)This is an example where a DM needs to step in and balance the game. It's quite honestly ridiculous that the DM isn't providing characters with good 1-handed weapons. The PHII in 3.5 assumed that you spend as much as half your wealth on a single weapon. Yes, luck can be bad when rolling treasure, but ultimately it's the DM's responsibility to keep his players up to speed when it comes to gear.
A character *starting* at level 12 should have approximately 108,000gp in wealth. The PF "balanced" approach says 25% of gear should be armor and 25% should be weapons. That means you should be able to afford a +3 and +2 equivalent weapon. For armor, you should be able to get a +4 and +3 equivalent shield/armor. If your DM would let you spend half your wealth on a specific item, you should have a single +5 weapon by this level.
Gear is very important for melee classes. Skimping on the gear inevitably leads to weaker melee classes and stronger casters.
Which, at least in my mind, is sad. I've been trying to come up with a method of reducing the treasure burden and shifting some of the 'value of treasure' into the core of PC's. It's not easy lol.
First step I'm planning is to kill ability enhancing items and replace them with a faster ability growth progression.
I seem to remember reading about a homebrew similar to that, where the GM essentially gave extra feats, extra attribute points, and cut way back on treasure (and critters with DR one would assume).
Haven't been able to find it, but it was called something along the lines of "Heroes not Items".
If you find it let me know, a friend of mine is looking to run a low magic game but doesnt really know how to approach it from the balance perspective. It might be a good resource for him.
I'm really fed up with all these posts saying this class sucks and that class ought to deal a lot more damage and the class over there needs a bag full of buffs to be on par with that class, and also this class is only good for that role.
I have been playing this game in its various incarnations for nearly 30 years, and everyone I played with chose their class for the flavor and the images and stories they were connecting it to, or because of their personal preferences, and not with the intent to max out the dps (a term that was, fortunately, unknown in those days) or to fill a certain role.
Nowadays? All classes must be in equilibrium, or else they are subpar. I don't get it. I know that the bard hits worse than the fighter, hides worse than the thief, and has worse spells than the wizard. So what? If I like the idea of playing a minstrel, I will do it anyway. If I can try to enthrall and charm the enemy warlord rather than hacking him to bits, then that's what Pen & Paper RPGs where meant to be. If you want swordfight after swordfight, play WoW instead.
You are my hero!
These messageboards are to often overrun with everyone whining that their pet class isn't better than all the others under the guise of "balance".
Queue the hordes trotting out rehearsed statements and manipulated numbers to "prove" that their favorite toy in the box isn't nearly Uber enough.
I'm really fed up with all these posts saying this class sucks and that class ought to deal a lot more damage and the class over there needs a bag full of buffs to be on par with that class, and also this class is only good for that role.
I have been playing this game in its various incarnations for nearly 30 years, and everyone I played with chose their class for the flavor and the images and stories they were connecting it to, or because of their personal preferences, and not with the intent to max out the dps (a term that was, fortunately, unknown in those days) or to fill a certain role.
Nowadays? All classes must be in equilibrium, or else they are subpar. I don't get it. I know that the bard hits worse than the fighter, hides worse than the thief, and has worse spells than the wizard. So what? If I like the idea of playing a minstrel, I will do it anyway. If I can try to enthrall and charm the enemy warlord rather than hacking him to bits, then that's what Pen & Paper RPGs where meant to be. If you want swordfight after swordfight, play WoW instead.
You are my hero!
These messageboards are to often overrun with everyone whining that their pet class isn't better than all the others under the guise of "balance".
Queue the hordes trotting out rehearsed statements and manipulated numbers to "prove" that their favorite toy in the box isn't nearly Uber enough.
Roleplay vs Roll play is always going to be an issue for the game. But the fact is Rollplay is part of the game. Just look at pure page count, most of the rules in the book are for combat and 'rollplay'. The whole 'thats what RPG's are meant to be' is a load of crap. Half of the games origins is in tabletop wargames, which is ALL Rollplay. The other half was created by gygax to Roleplay. Just because you value one over the other doesnt make you better then those who value the opposite side.
Dont think 'balance' is important? Ignore it. This thread was clearly meant to discuss rollplay. So why exactly do you have to come in and look down your noses at everyone? If roleplay is all thats important, no matter what changes are made to classes it wont affect you, you will go on playing whatever character suits your fancy as it suits your fancy.
For those of us that like hard fastpaced dungeon crawls, with a lighter bit of roleplaying (for the record I enjoy both sides and have played in and enjoyed both kinds of campaign but certainly lean in the rollplay direction) balance makes a difference. In fact it negatively impacts our ability to choose characters based on fluff. For instance, one of my friends tends to run difficult campaigns. He likes to bring the party to the edge, (he has a very skewed idea of what a 'hard' encounter is supposed to be). If the classes arent 'balanced' then I may not be able to play the concept I want because it may very well get me and my party killed. The opposite however is not true. How well a class performs numbers wise has no bearing on how you roleplay it. It is a seperate entity.
I've only been playing RPGs for the past 15 or so years, both table top and Video Games. I just quit WoW after playing since Undead-beta because of the problems Blizz has created with their latest patches and design philosophy. As for Paizo, I think they've done a great job balancing the classes a bit, though many could use work.
I've been teaching my fiance to play table top since last year. She's pretty much only played WoW, some LotRo, and now is getting into Dragon Age: Origins. She understands the concept of roles as being Tank, DPS, and Healer. Those 3 concepts have helped her understand the basics I was taught about D&D: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. Or basically you always have a Fighter type class as your main tank/damage dealer. You want a Rogue or someone with skills to basically scout, unlock doors, break traps, and figure out random dungeon crap (old books, weird writing on the wall, etc). You need a Wizard of sorts to either blast enemies, buff the party, provide some support of sorts (like Rope Trick or what not), along with being able to possibly figure out if this Longsword is a +1 whatever or a cursed -10 blade of doom. And finally you need a Cleric type to heal your wounds and hope to dear god they can resurrect you when you die.
I think many have posted their ideas of roles posted above. Many basically want classes to fit these roles. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I think a majority of Pazio's classes are balanced, but some might disagree. To me, a fighter is generally going to be your tank or your DPS or both. Your rogue/ranger is going to be the scount/trapfinder/disabler, along with being major DPS. Your casters will be DPS or Support, might have the skills to help out with figuring out the weird signs around you. Your cleric might be a healbot or might just be DPS. To me, it just depends on their builds and everyone builds differently.
Take my fiance and her characters. Pretty much she and I just play together, me being the DM and controlling one party member and everything else, she controlling 4 other characters. Not one, not one and an NPC companion, no she's got 4 to control, design, and play. And she does a good job.
When we start campaigns, she knows that she atleast needs one person to try and soak the damage and keep people from moving past them. She knows that she needs someone with atleast a level in rogue so she can disarm traps. She always needs a cleric, whether they spend their rounds healing/buffing or attacking, it never matters to her. She tries to balance out her party to have both melee and ranged abilities. But mostly she builds her characters for ROLEPLAYING. She's just as happy having them sit in a bar playing games and drinking as she is having them slog through a dungeon. We even RP out camp scenes, with her various characters flirting and the like (which I tend to take over her characters for the interaction).
All in all, I think the main point the OP was getting at is yeah, there are party roles and many people forget about them when they make posts about this class or that class not being able to fulfill a role they want them to. To me, its all about how you build than it is about how the class is built. I've seen a Cleric act as a tank. I've seen a Wizard pop more creatures than the fighter and rogue (blame dice gods for that). I've seen Fighters acting as the Face of the party. Again, to me, its how the player creates the character more than how the rules work that determines party roles. Just my opinion.
These messageboards are to often overrun with everyone whining that their pet class isn't better than all the others under the guise of "balance".
Queue the hordes trotting out rehearsed statements and manipulated numbers to "prove" that their favorite toy in the box isn't nearly Uber enough.
I thought the stock accusation was not "You're just trying to get your favorite class buffed," but instead "Well, obviously you don't know how to play that class the right way!"
Man, keeping up with peoples' attacks on the speaker instead of the argument is hard.
Clearly since I never mentioned any names or said anything about someone in particular I hit a nerve with that statement. I was not meaning anything by way of a personal attack. My point being that the orignial discusion was about party roles and what classes could reasonably accomplish those roles...regardless of what classes you think can or cant, or if I disagree that some are better at it than you do. My point was that many of the comments were leaning towards the very very commmon result on this board. That being Wizards are better than everything...or Fighter make every thing look terrible...if you read something more into it I appologize, but maybe that says more about you than me.
So, on-topic.
Assigning strict roles to 3e is a non-starter, because it wasn't designed with strict roles in mind. Even when people talk about warrior/mage/thief/priest, those roles are pretty obviously imbalanced in a lot of ways.
The only thing all of the warrior-role classes have in common is hitting enemies with swords, and little effort was made to keep classes who could do another role from also being good at hitting people with swords. This made most of the classes who were tailor-made for the warrior role dispensable, as their abilities also appeared in the arsenal of other classes.
The only ability unique to the thief role is disarming traps, a dismal and arbitrary task assigned to one class for no good reason. While some effort was made to allow other classes to deal with traps in 3.0 core (e.g. barbarian trapfinding, Find Traps), it doesn't stand up to the many die-no-save traps in the 3.0 DMG. This problem persisted into 3.5, but at least WotC at least had the decency to give trapfinding to other classes, including non-core classes and ACFs. PF still has this problem, moreso if you discard the 3.5 non-core material, especially since Find Traps is now pretty useless. If you try to put another class here, there's no common expected ability beyond trapfinding, and pretty much any class gets to be "the skill guy" if the GM puts a little effort into it.
The mage's role is "Nearly anything unless the cleric gets it." Unless it's healing, reviving people, or (inexplicably) Restoration, the wizard and sorcerer get to do it. This includes a lot of very powerful problem-solving abilities that nobody but wizards/sorcerers get to do, like turning invisible, seeing invisibility, teleporting, etc. So much so that it's difficult to write a high-level published adventure without assuming a wizard is present; don't try to send a 11th-level party on a long ocean journey!
The priest's role is "Nobody else gets to heal ever but also we get to do everything." A lot of things are cleric-only for no logical reason (Restoration and Speak With Dead are the main adventure-changing culprits), so classes other than the cleric are arbitrarily worse at the priest role for no good reason. (Can anyone explain to me why druids can't speak to the spirits of the dead? Or why they're worse at healing? Or why they don't get Restoration?) The only combat ability this role is expected to have - healing- is one that's so weak that nearly nobody uses it in combat between levels 3 and 13.
Then, there are at least two classes who aren't expected to fit into any role, and as such are much looked-down-upon. Bards can't replace anyone except maybe the mage role, a role in which they are obviously much weaker than the sorcerer and wizard and, more importantly, lack many of the game-changing sorc/wiz spells. Monks can't fill any role, since they can't trapfind, are bad at hitting people, and obviously don't have the problem-solving tools of the full casters.
The cat is long out of the bag on this one. It'd be possible to make a 3e-style game with well-defined roles, but you'd need to start from scratch on defining the roles and rewriting the classes. (You could probably even keep CR if you were super careful.) You'd be looking at a conversion task far more involved than even Iron Heroes to make it happen; somewhere between True20/M&M and SW Saga in how far away it was from D&D 3e's current state.
The cat is out of the bag on the cleric/wizard thing for sure. But my question is do you think the cleric and wizard have enough resources to do more then one thing at time? Can the cleric be the healer/restorer and still have enough resources left over to be Codzilla? I have seen battle clerics, and they are often excellent frontliners, but they end up making fairly poor healers as a result. They spend alot of their resources on buffs/combat abilities, and often dont have the speak with dead when you really need one, or a restoration/true seeing/invisibility purge/remove paralysis (you get the idea right?) Scrolls help out with this, but especially with the new rule for poison and disease, the cleric is probably going to need his own caster level to manage them. The wizard also has fairly limited resources in my experience, and if he tries to batman it and be ready for anything, he ends up being kind of mediocre even if he has the right spell (doesnt always work on the first try). In my experience it is usually better for instance to have a skill monkey to gather info to find someone then to blow divination spells on it.
So basically what I'm getting at is do you think that the system still requires 4 players even if they can all effectively be casters? And do you think that the non-casters can still do a job, even if they arent as good as casters so long as they have caster support?
Now that is interesting ...I think that alot of the classes can potentially cover " rolls" that many assign to a specific class. Maybe that is where the rubber meets the road on this discussion. Fundamentally I see no problem with classes being able to fill any roll they want. As long as they cant fill more than one simultaneously.
...So, on-topic.
Assigning strict roles to 3e is a non-starter, because it wasn't designed with strict roles in mind. Even when people talk about warrior/mage/thief/priest, those roles are pretty obviously imbalanced in a lot of ways.
The only thing all of the warrior-role classes have in common is hitting enemies with swords, and little effort was made to keep classes who could do another role from also being good at hitting people with swords. This made most of the classes who were tailor-made for the warrior role dispensable, as their abilities also appeared in the arsenal of other classes.
The only ability unique to the thief role is disarming traps, a dismal and arbitrary task assigned to one class for no good reason. While some effort was made to allow other classes to deal with traps in 3.0 core (e.g. barbarian trapfinding, Find Traps), it doesn't stand up to the many die-no-save traps in the 3.0 DMG. This problem persisted into 3.5, but at least WotC at least had the decency to give trapfinding to other classes, including non-core classes and ACFs. PF still has this problem, moreso if you discard the 3.5 non-core material, especially since Find Traps is now pretty useless. If you try to put another class here, there's no common expected ability beyond trapfinding, and pretty much any class gets to be "the skill guy" if the GM puts a little effort into it.
The mage's role is "Nearly anything unless the cleric gets it." Unless it's healing, reviving people, or (inexplicably) Restoration, the wizard and sorcerer get to do it. This includes a lot of very powerful problem-solving abilities that nobody but wizards/sorcerers get to do, like turning invisible, seeing invisibility, teleporting, etc. So much so that it's difficult to write a high-level published adventure without assuming a wizard is present; don't try to send a 11th-level party on a long ocean journey!
The priest's role is "Nobody else gets to heal ever but also we get to do everything." A lot of things are
I don't think the skill monkey can be replaced. A rogue can use its skills all day long. Spells per day is limited, which is why I never understood that argument. Sure there are times it may work, but I would not say it could happen on a day to day basis.
As for replacing the meleer in the group I think a druid could do wellenough in most adventures because I am playing a druid now, and when I get to higher levels I will only get better at meleeing. I almost forgot to mention the animal companion does help. As for the cleric doing it, I can't tell. I was playing one, but my rolls were terrible, and then the campaign stopped.
I agree with A Man In Black. No one has claimed that 3.X/PF has a set of defined roles. Only in 4th edition did WotC decide that classes needed to have defined roles. So, if someone applies roles to their game (considering the wizard a controller, the rogue a striker), they're adding designs to the game that weren't intended.
So we have 4 supposed primary roles -- warrior, healer, thief, mage. These aren't defined by any designer. But every time I play this game, someone asks who is going to be the front-line character. . . who is going to be the healer. . . who is going to be the "man with skills"?
As I said above, a DM who knows what they're doing can completely sidestep the issue of roles. They simply tailor adventures to the player's strengths without forgetting or emphasizing the weaknesses. It's more fun to write adventures for a "complete" party, but what is a complete party? It turns out there's a ton of overlapping roles that could fit into the classic 4 above:
- Front Line Tank (or Anti-Melee Specialist)
- Anti-Ranged Specialist
- Primary Arcane Blaster
- Primary Divine Healer
- Trap Finder
- Primary Melee Damage Dealer
- Primary Ranged Damage Dealer
- Melee Skirmisher (hit and run tactics)
- Ranged Skirmisher
- Outdoor Survivalist
- Buff Bot
- Arcane Utility Caster
- Divine Utility Caster
- Party Face
- Battlefield Controller
- Knowledge Lord
- Breaking and Entering Specialist
- ...
The list goes on and on. . .
Maybe the problem is that we have too many roles. There's too much expectation that a fighter and cleric must fill exactly X number of roles. In reality, fighters can do X and clerics can do Y (where X<Y)-- that's just the nature of the game's design. No reasonable person is going to claim that a fighter can fill more roles than a cleric.
I think at a certain point, you just have to give up and acknowledge that a fighter can't do everything. . . but a cleric, given enough time and resources, probably could do everything. But the game should be about time and resources -- that's where the DM comes in. That's what most strategy games are about. . .
Heh, maybe the problem is that the game itself has too many roles -- a strategy game combined with a roleplaying game combined with a tabletop battle game combined with. . .(:
I agree with A Man In Black. No one has claimed that 3.X/PF has a set of defined roles. Only in 4th edition did WotC decide that classes needed to have defined roles. So, if someone applies roles to their game (considering the wizard a controller, the rogue a striker), they're adding designs to the game that weren't intended.
So we have 4 supposed primary roles -- warrior, healer, thief, mage. These aren't defined by any designer. But every time I play this game, someone asks who is going to be the front-line character. . . who is going to be the healer. . . who is going to be the "man with skills"?
As I said above, a DM who knows what they're doing can completely sidestep the issue of roles. They simply tailor adventures to the player's strengths without forgetting or emphasizing the weaknesses. It's more fun to write adventures for a "complete" party, but what is a complete party? It turns out there's a ton of overlapping roles that could fit into the classic 4 above:
- Front Line Tank (or Anti-Melee Specialist)
- Anti-Ranged Specialist
- Primary Arcane Blaster
- Primary Divine Healer
- Trap Finder
- Primary Melee Damage Dealer
- Primary Ranged Damage Dealer
- Melee Skirmisher (hit and run tactics)
- Ranged Skirmisher
- Outdoor Survivalist
- Buff Bot
- Arcane Utility Caster
- Divine Utility Caster
- Party Face
- Battlefield Controller
- Knowledge Lord
- Breaking and Entering Specialist
- ...
The list goes on and on. . .
Maybe the problem is that we have too many roles. There's too much expectation that a fighter and cleric must fill exactly X number of roles. In reality, fighters can do X and clerics can do Y (where X<Y)-- that's just the nature of the game's design. No reasonable person is going to claim that a fighter can fill more roles than a cleric.
I think at a certain point, you just have to give up and acknowledge that a fighter can't do everything. . . but a cleric, given enough time and resources, probably...
Certainly I agree that there are no rigidly defined 'roles' like there are in 4E. To me a role in 3.x and 3.p is something you 'need' to get through most generic adventures (especially published ones). A character can certainly do other stuff, but without the original 4 you will have to find a way to compensate, either with help from a dm, or through extra difficulty. The list you present is mostly, 'other things characters can do' in my opinion. Its not a party role because its not neccessary. Knowledge Lord, Breaking and Entering Specialist, or any form of Ranged damage/blasting is nice to have around. It can be helpful, but you do not NEED it. And if thats the best that a character can do, you are likely to have a gap in one of the more important sections. The wizard/cleric/fighter/thief motif still holds true to me though it could very well be beguiler/oracle/cleric/bard instead. Those are still the only neccessary roles, and as long as they are mostly filled, thats all you really need, the rest is up to the players. Thankfully in 3.x-3.P we have a multitude of ways to do any of that, so we never have to worry about having a specific class, just a character that can do certain specific things traditionally attributed to that class.
Amen to that! I hear constant gripes about how "sub-optimized" using a shield is. I am a huge fan of the sword-n-board, and have made great use of them. My Knight in the campaign I'm playing in is an absolute wall in combat; even when foes flank me they rarely hit me unless the DM rolls a 17 or higher.Why do they bother flanking you? You can't do any damage. That's really the issue.
Isn't that a whole other thread?
My knight kept agro just fine. The party Barbarian was Cleaving through enemies several at a time, so for that reason alone I'm figuring they'd rather attack me. That coupled with my breath weapon and Knight's Challenge, I held agro just fine thank you. Stop making assumptions about people's characters you know nothing about.
Maybe the problem is that we have too many roles. There's too much expectation that a fighter and cleric must fill exactly X number of roles. In reality, fighters can do X and clerics can do Y (where X<Y)-- that's just the nature of the game's design. No reasonable person is going to claim that a fighter can fill more roles than a cleric.
I don't think all roles have to be filled, but the group will have a harder time if certain things are not covered. I have played in groups without any of the traditional roles filled, and it was always harder than it had to be. It was still fun, but many times quiet painful.
I think when something is not covered the players should determine how to fill that gap as a group. One game I am in has no arcane caster or cleric. If there is no knowledge guy and the group thinks it matters then each party member can pick a knowledge skill or two.
I think the assumption is that X class has to do a certain thing, and for the most part people don't think about sharing the job among the party members.