I held agro just fine thank you. Stop making assumptions about people's characters you know nothing about.
That's a reflection on your DM, not on your character, if he graciously chooses to allow you to "hold aggro" -- because the DM is a person, not a computer that has to follow that program. Another DM would simply have the monsters overrun you and eat the wizard.
Another DM would simply have the monsters overrun you and eat the wizard.
Or run, or drop to range, or call for backup, depending on the nature of the beasts.
Sometimes I'm a little bit torn... there's a fun cinematic aspect to just letting the players chew some enemies into mulch once in a while. But I try to remember survival instincts in most situations.
That's actually something I've found myself really liking about Paizo's APs, now that I'm trying them: flight conditions and sometimes actual escape plans are frequently written into the encounters.
Another DM would simply have the monsters overrun you and eat the wizard.Or run, or drop to range, or call for backup, depending on the nature of the beasts.
Sometimes I'm a little bit torn... there's a fun cinematic aspect to just letting the players chew some enemies into mulch once in a while. But I try to remember survival instincts in most situations.
That's actually something I've found myself really liking about Paizo's APs, now that I'm trying them: flight conditions and sometimes actual escape plans are frequently written into the encounters.
Indeed I am using carrion hill for a Playtest session, and I like that combat tactics, and moral/escape plans are included for most important enemies. I mean I am personally altering them to my liking, but it is good they are there for those who dont have the time or ability to come up with their own tactics besides walk up and hit the closest PC.
That's a reflection on your DM, not on your character, if he graciously chooses to allow you to "hold aggro" -- because the DM is a person, not a computer that has to follow that program. Another DM would simply have the monsters overrun you and eat the wizard.
The thread Jandrem links is a significant discussion. Yes, you're right that it's up to the DM, but most DMs subscribe to a rational method for roleplaying how a character "holds aggro" against a monster -- a term that typically means "being the biggest threat" in 3.X/PF. While damage output can be a fair indicator of what constitutes the "biggest threat", it's not the only indicator -- certainly in D&D it makes sense for things that aren't necessarily doing the most damage to become the biggest threat.
|
I run it from an int perspective.
Non-intelligent will attack nearest, at random from ties.
1-5 will attack most damaging it can get to easily; will retreat if forces or hp are down below 1/4
6 - 10 will tend to find the biggest threat, and will take AOOs to get at opponents that are painful.
11 and higher I treat as a party, and tend to focus fire more and take out largest threats, including very annoying controller types. If I have magic I have them stereotype (fighter guys get will saved, holy guys get reflex, wizs get fort). Players get some advantage by being suprisingly strong in one of those.
I rarely run often, given it takes about a round for most monsters to know they are overmatched, and it wouldn happen too often. You also don't want to train a dungeon and make an encounter that is too much for the party.
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.
Ahhh now this is an important statement.
There are some players who try to be self-sacrificing for the "good of the party". They pick skills based around what the party needs. They make themselves sub-optimal to be the party face, to be the breaking and entering specialist, to be the trap finder. They're focusing on improving the quality of the party instead of the quality of the individual. They do multiclasses and stat allocation that seem somewhat bewildering.
Then, there are other players who essentially could have no one around and play the same way. They focus on their limited roles. They don't take knowledge skills unless they're focusing on it. They don't deal damage unless they're focusing on it. They don't buff unless they're focusing on it. . . and so forth. Yes, they're potentially the best damage dealers, the best healers, the best sneaks, etc. But in terms of teamwork, there is none.
Can a party of both these types be effective? Yes, I think so. Usually I see a mix of both types. PF has better class mechanics to "balance out the load" on roles (for instance, it's significantly easier to be a non-magic trap specialist). But ultimately, if a rogue doesn't want to take disable device or perception because he only focuses on social skills, he doesn't have to. The game doesn't force people to be team players.
I'm rather late to this thread but,
With the division of work designated in 4E being taken from online games which invariably is taken from the platonic ideals of player roles in the original D&D why not just use MMO terminology? I mostly state this because you seem to have left off buffs in your terminology.
Control, DPS or in this case just Damage, Tank, Buff
This way you can use a multi-word descriptor to designate classes, and it is better at showing why druids and clerics are as good as they are in PF.
I have no objection to the words themselves, though DPS should really be DPR (damage per round). The problem is they do not directly translate (in my opinion) to 'roles' in a tabletop game. For instance in DDO, in order to 'tank' you pretty much have to have a rediculous AC focusing almost entirely on it, and can simply use basic tricks or skills to keep enemies trying to miss you (the whole Aggro thing). At the tabletop, simply looking menacing will certainly not keep intelligent enemies swinging at your well armored behind. You need to actually pose a thread even for unintelligent enemies. Which is why to me the roll is not 'tank', its guy who hits stuff and gets hit. A barbarian is a terrible 'tank' by MMO standards, because his ac is relatively low, but with more HP DR and in theory a better damage output, they will fill the front line guy role just fine.
DPS is another role that I dont think is suitable for a 4 person tabletop party. MMO's tend to have larger groups, even DDO is 6-12. That really changes things. If i have 3 clerics 3 wizards, and 5 fighter type already, a guy who just lays down the damage is just fine. But if your in a 4 person party and all you do is damage, you are leaving your party very vulnerable, or the other characters stretched thin. Controller is another one that doenst directly apply. The wizards role isnt just battlefield control. The wizard/arcane caster's roll is to deal with the stuff that no one else could manage. Things like invisibilty, flight, teleportation, you need a wizard for that. You dont absolutely need battlefield control (though its certainly nice). So to me, its not a role, its a thing PC's could also do. Buffer is the same. I dont have a problem with the word, its just not a DnD role, its an extra feature.
I believe one aspect that is being ignored here is that the D&D type systems don't assume combat is the definitive answer. If you can avoid combat but still achieve your objectives -- what's the difference?
If we were to use MMO jargon, then what would that be?
Some of the greatest D&D I've ever played is skipping combats entirely. In WoW, that would be considered "skipping content" and a ban-worthy offense.
I believe one aspect that is being ignored here is that the D&D type systems don't assume combat is the definitive answer. If you can avoid combat but still achieve your objectives -- what's the difference?
I agree with you -- and will go a step further and state that I find it unfortunate that the game system doesn't support those sorts of solutions very well. We have 1 billion pages of complex combat options, and a single half-page table of static DCs to Diplomacy your way out of things. The game as a whole is lopsided from the ground up.
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?Yes, having done it. Remember that the only spell that you need to prep to do that is Lesser Restoration (and possibly a Restoration or Remove Blindness). "Healer/restorer" is an out-of-combat role, one which is cheaply managed with CLW wands.
In combat, there are only three roles: hitting a dude, shooting a dude (with arrows or single-target effects), or shooting a lot of dudes. Clerics can do the first two just fine, and can even switch-hit fairly effectively if they specialize in archery.
I think then you and i have different expectations of the divine caster. Things like remove paralysis, poison, and to a lesser extent healing and restoration happen often in combat. We put a big emphasis on keeping players in the encounter even if its a suboptimal action, because even if the cleric is likely to end the encounter sooner by putting the hurt on the monster instead of healing the wounded rogue. Leaving the rogue bleeding on the floor, or leaving him paralyzed or what have you means they arent participating and arent having fun. This is something I at least try very hard to avoid.
Talking is fun, but having lots of mechanical rules you have to adhere to would get old rather quickly.
Dunno; I'm told they're the real draw to the Dying Earth RPG, and that the rest of the system is less fun than the verbal parrying rules.
I held agro just fine thank you. Stop making assumptions about people's characters you know nothing about.That's a reflection on your DM, not on your character, if he graciously chooses to allow you to "hold aggro" -- because the DM is a person, not a computer that has to follow that program. Another DM would simply have the monsters overrun you and eat the wizard.
I feel that quote is sort of taken out of context. I agree to an extent that agro is a reflection of the DM's generosity, but I was talking about the assumption that my Knight couldn't do any damage and thereby wasn't a threat to be bothered with. I did plenty of damage. That's why I said to not make assumptions about other people's characters. The whole agro thing is a whole different thread. My knight held the party role of "tank" just fine. Spoilered for sanity:
It's monday morning, I'm a lil snarky.
I think then you and i have different expectations of the divine caster. Things like remove paralysis, poison, and to a lesser extent healing and restoration happen often in combat. We put a big emphasis on keeping players in the encounter even if its a suboptimal action, because even if the cleric is likely to end the encounter sooner by putting the hurt on the monster instead of healing the wounded rogue. Leaving the rogue bleeding on the floor, or leaving him paralyzed or what have you means they arent participating and arent having fun. This is something I at least try very hard to avoid.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?Yes, having done it. Remember that the only spell that you need to prep to do that is Lesser Restoration (and possibly a Restoration or Remove Blindness). "Healer/restorer" is an out-of-combat role, one which is cheaply managed with CLW wands.
In combat, there are only three roles: hitting a dude, shooting a dude (with arrows or single-target effects), or shooting a lot of dudes. Clerics can do the first two just fine, and can even switch-hit fairly effectively if they specialize in archery.
This is going to sound kinda flip-floppy, so be forewarned.
I'm sort of right in the middle here. I build my clerics to be capable back-up fighters, but in combat my focus is to keep everyone else alive and going. When it comes to my turn, and I have two options; attack the monster, or heal a party member, I'll only attack the monster if it could end the encounter. If the monster is still pretty beefy, or at least able to take what I can dish out, I'll heal someone else and keep them going. It's entirely situational, but for the most part, healing the others comes first. If the monster is just going to drop the person I spent a round getting back up, then that was possibly a wasted round, so there's that to take into consideration. A clerics gotta be able to both fight and heal, change up on the fly; not as easy as it sounds.
flip-floppy
I'm on a mother#&%*!^ boat!
If you what to live jump in Mr. Fishy's mouth...no seriously.
|
I'm running a ninja, your concept of class roles is invalid, I'm an interrupter, tank, melee, ranged, and controller. Using ninja tricks I can do everything you described in your initial post.
I use smoke bombs, slow reactions, pressure points, and poison bombs to control my enemies.
A high AC provided by the proper application of high dexterity, good armor, the right feats, and I make myself even tougher with Shadow Clones.
I deal tons of damage with sneak attacks, using vanishing trick when I can't get a flanker, combined with two-weapon fighting and the tricks that make my sneak attack even better. I can do this in melee, or at range, when combined with pressure points I can bring down pretty much anyone in a turn or 2.
I interrupt with a combination of sneak attacks, ranged attacks, smoke bombs, and reach weapons, depending on the situation.
I am Batman!
On a more serious note: I consider the idea of "class roles" flawed, because it inevitably leads to pigeon-holing, which we already get enough of as it stands, plus you didn't exactly give all the classes what they should have, fighters should have melee for example, paladins should definitely have ranged, my favorite paladin was an archer....then again, she was also a bookworm. More importantly one of the most optimal builds for a paladin IS RANGED. Plus it reminds everyone of 4e and that puts a bad taste in their mouths.
I think it's important to point out four things.
1) 4e doesn't have "aggro." Come on guys, you can have defenders without literally playing World of Warcraft. Watch a damn basketball game sometime. Nor is it limited to just four "roles." Warlords and Clerics are both "leaders," but they're incredibly different and bring very different things to the party, with clerics being the kings of healing, and warlords being the kings of enabling. Rather, 4e has a multitude of roles, but these are divided into four basic themes (and classes can belong to more then one).
2) Roles can be literally anything that is a mechanical niche and is mechanically rewarded. On the other hand, "wizard" isn't a mechanical niche. "Save or Dies" can be. "Summoning" can be, and an incredibly powerful one at that. But simply "Wizard" is not. When you look at earlier editions, wizards were their own role...and virtually didn't resemble the 3e wizard. They had potentially less then a fourth of the spells per day, shatteringly fewer spells known, and spells themselves almost virtually couldn't be cast in combat (and any wizard who found himself in combat was dead. Not dying, not dead soon, but "goes down in a single hit" dead, and they didn't have nearly as many defensive spells).
3) The first conflict comes from when a role isn't mechanically supported (or is indeed mechanically punished) by the system. Let's take the role of "mobile fighter." While initially this appears rewarded with a number of feats that let you act mobile, it is ultimately powerfully punished by the Full Attack Round, which means that a mobile warrior will be doing heartbreakingly low damage. Not only that, but they'll progressively get worse as time goes on rather then getting better.
4) The second conflict comes from when roles supercede others, when one class can fill multiple roles to equal satisfaction, or worst, both. So let's say you have the role "doing damage." If someone else's role is "Save or die," that directly overrides "doing damage," since SoDs completely ignore damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a more serious note: I consider the idea of "class roles" flawed, because it inevitably leads to pigeon-holing, which we already get enough of as it stands, plus you didn't exactly give all the classes what they should have, fighters should have melee for example, paladins should definitely have ranged, my favorite paladin was an archer....then again, she was also a bookworm. More importantly one of the most optimal builds for a paladin IS RANGED. Plus it reminds everyone of 4e and that puts a bad taste in their mouths.
First off, I don't see how it reminds you of 4e when most classes have a variety of things they can do.
And secondly, it sounds like you don't want a class-based game. A class-based game works best when classes have mechanical niches. A skills-based game works best when you can create your character to whatever degree you want.
If you hate the idea of "class roles" then my advice is "play a skills-based game and see how that fits your playing style."
|
|
First off, I don't see how it reminds you of 4e when most classes have a variety of things they can do.
And secondly, it sounds like you don't want a class-based game. A class-based game works best when classes have mechanical niches. A skills-based game works best when you can create your character to whatever degree you want.
If you hate the idea of "class roles" then my advice is "play a skills-based game and see how that fits your playing style."
The labels are what remind me of 4e.
I don't mind a class-based game, even with all their flaws, however defining the roles of the classes, as narrowly as they tend to be defined, is not something I like to see. There are potentials in the classes, potentials you can attach labels to, but why bother, it should be up to the player, the GM, and their collective imaginations to decide what each character becomes isn't it? Especially when it can change at the drop of the hat.
Heck, most games have classes of a sorts, not all games have levels. For example: Hero system, several classes available: brick, martial artist, energy projector, spellcaster, etc. Which you can mix and match to taste, but using more than two at once, and you typically spread yourself a little too thin, but it's a point-buy system, and the classes aren't really specified as such, though 99.9% of all characters fit under these "classes", the ones that don't are painfully bad, and tend to take a level in corpse shortly after their first encounter begins.
The ability to play sub-optimal builds and be effective is fun and innovative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BARBARIAN ALREADY COVERED THIS.
AM NO DIFFERENT TYPES, AM NO DIFFERENT ANYTHING.
AM ALSO NO MARTIAL-CASTER DESTRUCITY.
AM ONLY BARBARIAN NOT-BARBARIAN DESTRUCITY.
IF YOU AM BARBARIAN, YOU AM AWESOME. IF YOU AM NOT BARBARIAN, YOU AM SMASH-BAIT.
EXCEPT BATTY BAT. WE COOL.
but does the barbarian enjoy pain as much as i do? *creepy smile*
but does the barbarian enjoy pain as much as i do? *creepy smile*
...BARBARIAN NOT SURE WHAT KIND KINK CREEPY LADY IS, BUT AM FAN OF SMASHING. BARBARIAN DEFINITELY SMASH CREEPY LADY FACE IF SHE WANT.
Point of order: The original post is nearly two years old. There are now many more classes, archetypes, and options for everyone.
i am a divine agent of the lord of suffering. maybe you can break a few of my bones for me whilst engaging in some brutal foreplay. *brandishes an unholy symbol of Zon-Kuthon and resumes her creepy smile*
Haven't we all gotten tired of the "Everything has a place, and Everything in it's place" way of looking at party dynamics? The group I game in recently finished Runelords with a Rogue, 3 Fighters, a Paladin, and a Barbarian. and all of us were set up for hitting things hard in melee combat. Point is doesn't matter what you're doing, if you have a good DM and some innovative players, you don't have to worry about who's gonna be the tank, who's got heals, and who's DPS, just have fun and play the character you want.
i am a divine agent of the lord of suffering. maybe you can break a few of my bones for me whilst engaging in some brutal foreplay. *brandishes an unholy symbol of Zon-Kuthon and resumes her creepy smile*
BARBARIAN AM GETTING ALL THE LADIES, ALWAYS!!
|
|
Haven't we all gotten tired of the "Everything has a place, and Everything in it's place" way of looking at party dynamics? The group I game in recently finished Runelords with a Rogue, 3 Fighters, a Paladin, and a Barbarian. and all of us were set up for hitting things hard in melee combat. Point is doesn't matter what you're doing, if you have a good DM and some innovative players, you don't have to worry about who's gonna be the tank, who's got heals, and who's DPS, just have fun and play the character you want.On the other hand knowing what you've got and what you're missing can let everyone find a niche. And some of the boxes are important to check. Someone'd better be able to heal or UMD a level 1 wand fairly reliably. Someone'd better be able to function in melee. Someone really should have at least rudimentary social skills if you want to do anything but combat.
I disagree, my very first group (this was 3.5) had a healer, but we never needed one until the very end of the game, which that was several months later, through careful planning, we managed to kill everything from range. We did have a melee character, but he didn't make it very far. The few minor injuries we took along the way, and the 3 or 4 times I pretty much got one-shot, but most of it, including the parts where I got one-shot, could have been healed using first aid and time.
You have to realize that certain mechanics in the game are there to help expand a players resources. At the same time you need to understand that somethings are slightly more powerful than they should be. It is both the players and producers fault for optimization.
i am a divine agent of the lord of suffering. maybe you can break a few of my bones for me whilst engaging in some brutal foreplay. *brandishes an unholy symbol of Zon-Kuthon and resumes her creepy smile*BARBARIAN AM GETTING ALL THE LADIES, ALWAYS!!
i figured you were the best candidate for this escapade because you looked like you would be brutal enough to actually break a few bones. *Cuffs self to torture rack*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been asking myself the same question that it seems the OP has asked himself. What are the party roles? Not that I'm trying to pidgeon hole anyone or force someone to be what they don't want to be, but by understanding the duties required in a party, the group can make sure that each area is covered or planned for. I mean it's just smart to figure out how the group is going to recover hit points after a battle or open the trapped box. Your group may not have a cleric or other class with cures on their spell list but its a question that will need to be answered sooner rather than later. With that in mind, what are the roles, who can fill them effectively, and how can a group get along without a role being filled?
===============================================================Here are some ideas from the community
From OP
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.
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.
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.
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.
===============================================================
Treantmonk’s Guide to Pathfinder Wizards
5 OUT OF COMBAT ROLES:
Social ("The Fop") Can the wizard fill this role? Well if you specialize in enchantment kinds of spells, then you very well might be able to, but, you shouldn't. First, you aren't the best choice to fill this role, and secondly, this guy tends to think he's the leader, do you know what happens to the leader? He gets targeted first. Let the Paladin, Cleric or Bard take this role. Pretend you're jealous.
Sneak ("The Corpse") Can the wizard fill this role? Well if you specialize in spells that imitate the iconic rogue skills like invisibility and knock, and a few divinations you very well might be able to, but, you shouldn't. The purpose of the Sneak is to scout out ahead in the enemies lair, look for traps and disarm them, scout out the enemy and report back, and do this all alone. Wonder why I call him "the Corpse"? Read what he does again.
Healbot ("The Gimp") Can the wizard fill this role? Actually, in Pathfinder he can't, but don't worry, you don't want it. The party Gimp gets to use up all his resources "servicing" the party between combats. Sound pleasant? That's why he's the gimp.
The Lump ("The lump") I can't think of another name for him. He's the character of the player that made his character specifically for combat, and is really uninterested whenever he's not rolling his attack rolls. He makes the best use of his time when not in combat by snoozing, or reading a novel, or making it very clear to the DM that he's bored. You DEFINITELY don't want to be this guy.
Utility Caster ("Everything else") The party transporter, the party Diviner. One way or another - this is the casters' role - in other words - this is you.
That's pretty much it. A party should look to cover all those bases (except the lump, but all too often it gets filled regardless, and often a single character can fill more than one (The party Cleric may be both the Fop and the Gimp...lucky guy), but let's be honest here, D&D is largely about combat, so even if you have a character that is the Fop, the Corpse, the Gimp and the Utility Caster, if you aren't contributing to combat, then you are a liability to your party, because when characters die, it's usually in combat.
The Four Combat Roles:
The Tank: ("The Big Stupid Fighter") This role involves two things: Doing Hit Points damage to BBEG (big bad evil guy), forcing BBEG to attack you with his viscous weaponry. The Big Stupid Fighter is not always a fighter (though stereotypically he is). He may be a Barbarian, a Summoned Critter, or a Druid. In order to qualify as a Big Stupid Fighter he should be any character that actively tries to be the target of enemy attacks. For those who wonder why I would label this character as "stupid" regardless of their INT score - reread the previous sentence.
The Striker: ("The Glass Cannon") This role involves one thing: Doing HP damage to BBEG. The Glass Cannon is like the Big Stupid Fighter except he does not want to take damage. Usually this is not due to superior intelligence - but instead due to inferior HP or AC (or in most cases - both). The Glass Cannon is often a Rogue (Or Rouge for our 13 year old readers), a Gish, an Archer, or a Blaster (the inferior wizard).
The controller of reality: ("GOD") When reality would entail the above two meeting a rather messy end - someone will need to make some adjustments to said reality in order for the above two to instead meet glorious victory. What other label could such a force be labelled as than "God"? Well - how about "Primary Caster" One label or another - this guy needs to control reality to make sure the right team wins.
The Waste of Space What else do you call him? The Waste of Space is the guy who thought that multi-classing Wizard and Sorcerer made an excellent "character concept", or maybe he figures that a dedicated healer is an appropriate contributor to a combat environment, or maybe he's the Cleric who insists on swinging a mace for 1d8 damage per round because he won't memorize any useful combat spells, I could go on, but you know who I mean, there is probably one in your current group. If there isn't...well...maybe there is...*cough* *cough*...ahem.
From Channeling the Cosmos: A Guide to the Oracle
The combat roles for an oracle are as follows:
Warrior This character has placed a large emphasis on the use of weapons in combat. You’ll find that most revelations built for this oracle don’t specify between melee and ranged weaponry, but an archer Warrior is still a poor choice. The amount of feats and stat distributions make this option a very difficult one for all but the highest point buy games. It’s important to remember that the Warrior is still a full caster and that her spell list is not to be neglected. The warrior favors a strong combat stat as well as a decent charisma score.
Controller This character uses her spells, combat maneuvers, and/or skills to shape the flow of combat around her. This can be done through applying penalties to her
enemies, changing the landscape of the battlefield, or summoning allies. The controller
tends to favor a high charisma score for spell DCs.
Enabler This character puts a strong emphasis on making sure her allies are as
powerful as they can be. She’ll spend her time in combat applying buffs and boons
appropriate to the situation, negating enemy attacks with abjurations, and summoning
allies to assist her companions. The enabler can function successfully even with a poor
charisma score, and makes a good option for characters with lower point buys.
Blaster This character lives for the thrill of damage. She focuses on spells and abilities that slather on as much damage as possible. This role is generally considered inferior to other roles as damage struggles to scale with the HP of enemy monsters, but several mysteries appear to be designed to fill this role. As such, it will be discussed here, though in the tone that it is an inferior choice. If you’re interested in pursuing this role it’d be a good idea to treat my ratings of blast spells/abilities as 1-2 stars greater. A blaster favors a high charisma score for spell DCs.
The out of combat roles for an oracle are as follows:
Socialite Your goal is to navigate social situations, be it through trickery, guile,
sincerity, or intimidation. Your naturally high charisma and access to skills and magic
make you a good choice for this role.
Medic Combat brings about its fair share of scrapes and bruises, and you’re here to mend the pieces. Healing is generally done outside of combat, and may include repairing hitpoint damage, curing poisons and diseases, and removing ability damage. Every oracle who chooses the “cure wounds” option will fill this role to some degree, but this particular listing is for characters who truly choose to pursue this. Invest in the heal skill it’ll save you a lot of grief.
Textbook: It’s your job to know things. Be that through knowledge skills, divinations, scouting, or gathering information around town. Many oracle mysteries can help you fulfill this role.
|
|
Trikk, as you said, "you're often better off doing what your character can do as opposed to what he is best at". Your role is simply what you are best at. It's not that a fighter can't heal or a wizard can't tank, it's that you recognize that healing, tanking, sneaking, etc. will, at some point, be required so you build your character to be good at one or more of those things. During an adventure you try to get into position to do what you are good at.
If you don't like the word role? I understand, but everyone in the group still has a responsibility, duty, or job. Each member of the group has expectations place upon them by the other members of the group. I mean, don't you expect certain things from the cleric (healing) or rogue (sneaky trap disabling)? That is their role.