"The Shield" as you've defined it, isn't really a role in Pathfinder. Since there is no aggro mechanic, there is nothing that forces the enemies to target the big brick...I would agree that one should ask what jobs need to be covered, the issue is that you sort of miss one. The shield. Someone has to present themselves as a target for the inevitable aggression that the party faces. This is seperate from the anvil, in so much as the iconic anvil, the controller wizard, cant do it. Even the very best controller wizard cant keep all the enemies under control 100% of the time. A summoning caster can, but that sort of blurs the lines between anvil and hammer.
Usually, the hammer, is also the shield. Fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc, can dish out the defined damage, and take hits with loads of hp, high ac, etc. But it doesnt have to be. In theory a squishy archer type, or even a blasty caster could be part or all of a hammer. But they wouldnt then be the thing that stands between the enemy and the party.
I know that by your definition, blocking the enemy or occupying its attention is the anvils job. It just isnt realistic for the role to be covered by a single character. The controller caster (barring summons) cant provide a target for the enemy's hostility. There is also a difference between limiting or even blocking mobility, and being the target of hostility. You could stop the enemy cold and they could still be shooting/casting spells/whatever. At some point, someone is taking hits.
I've gone over this subject before.
But to expand a bit I believe that the actual responsibility of making sure not too much damage ends up on the wrong people is entirely on the group as a whole.
An anvil can control the field to ensure the enemy is limited in their choices and an arm can help mitigate that damage while a hammer can simply build themselves to take...
You know TarkXt I agree with most of what you have said on this very protracted thread.
But not on the need for a Shield. Well, not anywhere near completely.
Adventurers can and should try to control the battlefield. They can and should seek better solutions than sticking the biggest, toughest party member up against the big bad monster and go mano a mano, or monstero.
But they are not going to succeed all the time. There will come a time when things just have to be slugged out. And the adventurers need someone who can take a lot of damage to stand in front of enemies and do so.
In fact, when things go seriously wrong, its best to have a good number of adventurers who can fight hand to hand w/o it being anything like a disaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they are not going to succeed all the time. There will come a time when things just have to be slugged out. And the adventurers need someone who can take a lot of damage to stand in front of enemies and do so.
Yet it's managed quite well all the time.
Control is not an absolute. That's why you have the other two roles. If you could flat out deny an enemy form doing anything having an arm or having a hammer would be pointless. You could just build a party of action deniers and have your cohort with a scythe finish the job.
Let's take a moment to actually look at what a shield role does.
As described so far a shield is essentially a wad of hitpoints with the purpose of absorbing enemy attacks.
I've discussed the role of defenses in this kind of format before. They exist to keep your character alive, but the real function from a game standpoint is creating action advantage in the form of wasting your opponents actions through numbers.
So a shield would exist to absorb enemy actions.
There's already two problems with this.
First, PAthfinder favors offense. It does. Having good defenses is smart, but the game favors you being aggressive, even when acting passively it's just an aggressive action in disguise. By explicitly taking on a defensive role you automatically concede advantage unto the enemy. Even if the enemy obliges you by focusing it's attention on the group's strongest point (presumably the shield) it acts counter to the group's ideal which is to not allow the enemy any actions at all. As a role that presumably affects the enemy a shield presents itself in a role where the enemy makes all the decisions.
Second, we've basically described an anvil.
What things would a shield do?
~Prevent the enemy from damaging allies by interposing their bodies between the enemy and the group (affecting positioning)
~Attract attention forcing the enemy to use actions on them. (affecting actions)
~Absorb damage that might otherwise affect the group. (Take damage)
What does an anvil do?
Anvils work to aggressively control the enemy and drop the overall difficulty of a fight in order to make the hammer and arm’s job easier.
An effective dedicated anvil needs to be able to do the following consistently:1. The anvil needs to be able to effectively reduce or limit one or more aspects of an enemy encounter such as:
Mobility: The ability for an enemy to effectively move in an encounter and position themselves to deal damage.
Action Economy: The ability for an enemy to take actions such as a full attack, a move, etc. etc.
Numbers: Raw numbers such as attack bonuses, damage, saves, skills, etc.
2. An anvil needs to go first in the initiative in order to set the pace of an encounter allowing the arms and hammers of the group to make wiser decisions about the expenditure of resources in the act of beating the encounter.
3. An anvil needs to be able to effectively perform his task without interfering with the arm’s and hammer’s jobs.
The same thing from a broader perspective.
When someoen says, "We could really use a tank/melee specialist."
And the reasoning is. "We need someoen to take the hits."
What they mean is. "We need someoen to control the enemy by providing an obstacle they must overcome to get to us. We made our characters with fairly low defenses and don't have confidence in our ability to keep an enemy from harming us. We need someone who can force wasteful enemy actions and prevent them from reaching a positioning harmful to us."
So yes, a melee character that rushes forward with the express purpose of taking hits is just a form of melee Anvil. But, as pointed out earlier even this form of control is not consistent, therefore they more often than not act in the form of hammers as well.
Which honestly plays into a certain dynamic where a gm is thinking "this guy is dealing a lot of damage he should be taken out first".
Which feeds into the anvil role of controlling actions.
So a shield is just a Hammer/Anvil.
But they are not going to succeed all the time. There will come a time when things just have to be slugged out. And the adventurers need someone who can take a lot of damage to stand in front of enemies and do so.
Yes, but people who talk about a shield are focusing on the wrong part of that sentence.
People tend to read it as "the adventurers need someone to stand in front of enemies and do so."
This is literally not possible in Pathfinder, absent friendly terrain. If your AC is 50 and you have 1000 hp, intelligent baddies will simply walk around you. You might as well be a tree feather token.
The proper way to read that sentence is "the adventurers need someone [...] to stand in front of enemies and [who can] do so." In other words, they need battlefield control -- which brings it back to the "anvil."
Tark, of course, said exactly the same thing only better just upthread. There is no shield role, only a (rather poor) way to play an anvil using a wall-of-hit-points.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The really odd thing that I don't get about this debate is why people can't say both.
"We need an Anvil-focused arcane caster"
"We need an Arm-focused divine caster"
"We need a primary hammer but secondary arm/anvil front-line caster"
Sure, you probably want more information than just hammer/anvil/arm. But does "arcane/divine caster" actually tell you a lot, given how diverse classes have gotten?
What do you want the arcane anvil to do that a shaman couldn't cover? They get great single-target debuffs and battlefield control.
If you're looking for an arm with some healing, witches, alchemists, and some bards can do very well.
With the last one I'm not sure if you're expecting to see a melee druid with barkskin and terrain control, an inquisitor with demoralize and some heals, or a magus with frostbite and haste. I expect it would matter because if you want a primary hammer someone is probably covering some of those bases already. And is there any reason that an exemplar brawler (with inspire courage, tactician, and flexible combat maneuvers) wouldn't fit the bill?
I'd say something more like: we have a ranged hammer and an arm/secondary anvil (enchantment). We could use a more versatile anvil - and if you can't take hits you'll need to be really good at creating distance.
It's not even that naming the classes is a problem. I could say "we have a crossbow sniper ranger and a support bard with some enchantment debuffs..." and that gives the person I'm talking to at least as much information. However thinking of what you do in terms of hammer/arm/anvil still helps you identify gaps in the party line that might not be apparent. For example, my groups tend to have a good mix of martials, arcane and divine casters, but it wasn't until reading this that I realized that while we look diverse in terms of classes we generally don't have primary anvils (both kinds of casters are usually built as primary arms).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've used this description in discussion with two different groups. In one, populated by MMO players but first time Pathfinders, it was very useful to explain differences. In the other, the group ended up using a combination of class and anvil, hammer, arm in planning.
In both cases I was asked where healing fell in roles. There was some discussion and questions about why healing was not a role of it's own and I relayed information from the original post (the game favoring offense) and my own experiences. This boiled down to the following:
Is healing important? Sure. Is it vital in combat? No. Will there be situations where a well-timed/placed heal saves the day in combat? Maybe, depending on group composition, but not enough to warrant it as an entirely separate role. Challenge should not be defined by the amount of in-combat healing used. I've seen a party plan meticulously to deal with what they perceived to be a very dangerous encounter. They two rounded it and did not take a single point of damage, and consumed a lot more than 20% of their resources doing it. And yet every one of them were in fear of their character's lives. The result does not necessarily mean the encounter is easy no more than a lucky crit or a failed save in a CR-1 encounter means it is difficult. An easy encounter is one that consumes little or no resources. Wands aside, it doesn't matter whether your Arm is burning his resources on buffing or healing, just that he's burning them.
Lumping healing into the Arm or the wall-o-flesh meleer into the Anvil is completely valid, in my opinion. All you need to do is look at what I would consider the extreme case, a CAGM Barbarian, to see it is very much about being an Anvil. He's also happens to be a really good Hammer. By the same token, a life link Oracle is absolutely an Arm.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Naming classes gives me a picture, but it might give me the wrong picture - or at least obfuscate what's really important.
If you want a cleric, you want some ability that the cleric has. Maybe that's healing. Maybe it's specifically condition removal. Maybe you want someone capable of situationally turning into an anti-undead machine without specializing in it the way an oracle would have to. Maybe you just want someone who can take a hit.
"Cleric" is a convenient label that covers many of these associations but doesn't actually define what's important. And people can have different ideas about what the most relevant features of a cleric are - for example, healing vs melee capability. Yeah, it's hard to define exactly what you want but if you say "cleric" you might think you have defined what you want when you haven't.
If you say "I want an arm-focused cleric" you are unlikely to get a scarred witch doctor with the healing patron, even if that would be a fantastic fit and more fun for me to play. If you say "I want an arm who can do condition removal and function in melee" then I start actually thinking about what can do that - and I won't accidentally show up with something squishy (like my Ecclesitheurge concept) if melee isn't on the top of my list of "things clerics do."
Again, I don't think you're wrong, I just think the most important thing is to focus on what the character can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any 1 word (or other tiny number of words) classification system can really encompass a system as complex as PF has become.
Given that, I think the Hammer, Anvil, and Arm comes close.
Soon after reading about this classification system we had a group one time that was making new characters for a one shot adventure. Of the 5 players; 1 planned to bring an anvil, 1 arm (me), and 3 hammers. it seemed like a decent mix. Except...
Game day we all had squishy primary casters. There were 2 blasters, a SoD caster, a debuff/CC caster, and a buff caster. We had a good laugh and decided to try it anyway. But we had extreme difficulties keeping all the bad guys far enough away to have time to cast any spells. Sure if we had the time, the concentrated spells were devastating. We also had to worry about not using up all our good spells too fast.
But I prefer to match that with Martial or Caster as well as Close or Ranged.
If someone says they are making a Close-Martial-Hammer, then I can pretty clearly judge what they see as their role in combat. Probably a barbarian or fighter melee beat stick.
If I hear Close-Caster-Anvil that tells me something else. Maybe a cleric or oracle focusing on touch range debuffs.
In our above situation, every player would have said ranged and caster so we would have known there was a potential problem.
[Slight Derail]
I know this thread is primarily about combat roles, but I also try to get people to give a little bit about their out of combat roles. "I also have condition removal, face, UMD, monster knowledge, catching lies, tracking, sneaking, dealing with traps, utility spells, divinations, etc..." something. I personally really dislike it when players make characters that have only combat roles. The player almost always either is either disruptive (because they are trying to generate a fight so they can participate) or not paying attention (because they are bored). [/Slight Derail]
[Slight Derail]
I know this thread is primarily about combat roles, but I also try to get people to give a little bit about their out of combat roles. "I also have condition removal, face, UMD, monster knowledge, catching lies, tracking, sneaking, dealing with traps, utility spells, divinations, etc..." something. I personally really dislike it when players make characters that have only combat roles. The player almost always either is either disruptive (because they are trying to generate a fight so they can participate) or not paying attention (because they are bored). [/Slight Derail]
I believe it was brought up earlier in the thread that a lot of the thigns a group needs is typically an out of combat thing. Clerics, for example provide recovery, a bard or some such because a group lacks face skills etc.
What you say is of course true TarkXT.
But this thread has focused on combat relentlessly.
It kind of shows up what drove me away from D&D decades ago. A relentless focus on killing things and taking their treasure. There really needs to be more in a campaign.
On classification- there has been a lot of talk about detail and specifics.
What about this scheme:_
1 list the traditional name
2 list TarkXT's classification
3 List class
4 list archetype
5 list focus
6 list race/s
And in each case to avoid confusion, add any needed explanatory notes to 1-6 and, importantly, if it is a metaphor or not, or is in the trad or tark's scheme.
So where a trad would say-
We need a fighter.
or
We need a tank.
And Tark would say-
We need an anvil.
Joynt Jezebel would say-
"We [literal, trad]need [literal, trad]a [literal, trad]1 tank [metaphor, trad], 2 anvil [metaphor, tark], 3 fighter [literal, trad], 4 shielded fighter [literal, trad], 5 focused [metaphor, trad]on [literal, trad]being [literal, trad]literally [metaphor]unkillable [metaphor] 6 dwarf [literal, trad] good [literal, trad and here used in the sense of high proficiency in contradistinction [literal, big [literal] word [literal]] to alignment [literal, trad]at [literal, trad]fighting [literal, trad] gaints [literal, trad]."
I think this serves the need for clarity.
I think this serves the need for clarity.
Maybe but it may also be going a bit too far in the opposite direction.
Oh perish the thought.
Actually, I came back to this thread after referring someone else to it. There is a lot of insight in what you say TarkXT, and I have revised the way I build my characters accordingly.
In fact in a recent campaign I was playing a cerebremancer with an AC of around 38 while my nephew had a summoner with an AC of 17. It was a matter of priorities. Partly I would have been doing that anyway, but only partly.
...
But this thread has focused on combat relentlessly.
It kind of shows up what drove me away from D&D decades ago. A relentless focus on killing things and taking their treasure. There really needs to be more in a campaign.
...
I had kinda started working on something similar for the non-combat aspects of group/character roles/build options. I of course didn't get too far because I am a procrastinator.
The basic roles I was coming up with were Face, Knowing Things, Sneaky Stuff, and Decisions.
Face - social and bargaining skills like linguistics, diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, sense motive, disguise, handle animal, and maybe knowledge local.
Knowing Things - Traditional knowledge skills to know things about creatures encountered or to get background, plus linguistics and appraise.
Sneaky Stuff - Perception, sense motive, stealth, disable device, UMD, sleight of hand, bluff, and survival(tracking)
Decisions - Personally, I think many/most groups need someone to say "Ok we are going to do X." Many groups will constantly dither and do nothing while trying to reach some nebulous group consensus without pushing anyone else. It kills way too much RL gaming time. There can be a variety of ways to handle this. But there needs to be some way to 'decide' on a plan or course of action.
Obviously there is overlap and parts of each of those can be split up amongst different characters (often it works best if they are split). Or you want to double up on some things because it is so critical (like perception).
Also there are other ways to handle things than just skills. Class abilities could give you some of them (rangers and tracking or inquisitors and monster knowledge). There are spells to tell you about an enemies capabilities and weaknesses. Invisibility and silence can make anyone pretty dang stealthy. You could summon a creature (or buy a dog) for tracking. Charm person, seek thoughts, and zone of truth could sub for most of the Face skills. A familiar could be the diplomat or sneak. Etc...
Some skills will not seem as important to some groups. Many groups will decide that appraise is not needed. "We can always eventually get more money so if we pay to much who cares. We will just go with the wizards untrained check."
I actually didn't get a whole lot further than this, except in my head.
I will always try to get my groups to at least consider how they will handle these non-combat kinds of things and how they will split up the responsibilities.
Alter Ego- Interesting Thoughts.
Another non combat role to be considered is full caster with lots of non combat utility. Call it Arch-mage.
And your names can be improved.
Face - OK there.
Knowing Things - Sage
Sneaky Stuff - Ghost or Shadow.
Decisions - Leader. Supreme Galactic Overlord.
And the sage role can be split up between different party members quite readily. As long as you have someone with a [hopefully decent] roll in the most important skills. Mostly knowledge skills.
Meh, I would consider the Decisions as "Manager" instead of leader.
I didn't use sage since it seemed too closely associated with things already present like Spell Sage.
Same with anything else I could think of for Sneaky Stuff.
Leader or Manager has connotations with words like follower and employee, that seem to set off some people.
But you are right that the category names need work. That was just what I had put down so far.
I really hadn't considered the utility caster thing. But yeah I can see that. you eventually need ready access to things like fly, teleport, dispel X, detect Y, etc... OR set aside funds to buy consumables.
So, I did some revisions, tided thigns up a bit and will do some little things here and there as the week goes on.
Mainly I was trying to remove some of the contentious nature of the language. When I wrote this three years ago it was mean as an answer to all of the "what roles are there" threads popping up (less so these days then there ever has been). What I didn't expect was to, well, not have any fight at all. Up until Recently I hadn't felt compelled to change the language but seeing how some people were off put by it and not wanting that to actually taint the info presented I made a bit of effort in curbing that.
I also went hard on the clarification. Reading around some people got some weird ideas that made me think they never actually read the damn thing or simply missed out on the bits that said that characters can do things like take on multiple roles and change between them as needs required. A lot of the criticisms for it came out of a lack of understanding. I'm hoping by addressing those I can let it stand and not feel compelled to clarify or defend when someone misreads a point.
I figured that now we have like 40+ classes to choose from now's a good a time as any to update it, revise it a bit, and hopefully leave it alone to push on its own merits.
So, I did some revisions, tided thigns up a bit and will do some little things here and there as the week goes on. [...]
I figured that now we have like 40+ classes to choose from now's a good a time as any to update it, revise it a bit, and hopefully leave it alone to push on its own merits.
I presume "it" is some online-somewhere expansion of your much-favorited first post in this thread? Where can I find "it" without reading through the whole thread?
|
I may have posted this before, but this article (Essay? Paper?) has greatly helped me and my understanding of roles. It was something of a revelation when I first read it and continues to enlighten my character design. And, in spite of the fact that it focuses on combat, it's principles can be extrapolated to the non-combat realm.
Bravo, TarkXT
I presume "it" is some online-somewhere expansion of your much-favorited first post in this thread? Where can I find "it" without reading through the whole thread?So, I did some revisions, tided thigns up a bit and will do some little things here and there as the week goes on. [...]
I figured that now we have like 40+ classes to choose from now's a good a time as any to update it, revise it a bit, and hopefully leave it alone to push on its own merits.
I considered making a new thread and everything but I don't feel it would have been justified.
An 'Eye' perhaps? 'Intelligence' in the military sense. Sun Tzu would insist on this.
Also Mobility ('Feet'?) often important when you are able to gain a temporary 'outnumbering' (or are being outnumbered) for a round or two or to bypass a line of defence to reach softer targets. Your 2nd article discusses movement and often these advantages are fleeting. It is also the biggest weakness of some otherwise good fighter types though e.g. dwarves.
Good articles
G
Scouting and info gathering to me works outside the context of combat but also directly benefits it in the same way that marching orders do. No real reason to have a dedicated role for it since everyone should try to participate in some way if they can. No one's ever lost a fight by knowing too much. Well, outside of the context of Great Old Ones anyway.
Mobility is a big factor, but it's also only one part of positioning. Space control is also a big part of it as well. If mobility lets you get into the space you want to control, archery, reach, and battle field control spells let you control it. I like to use the flying wizard v. groundling example because it's a very binary example of superior positioning. Wizard can hurt the groundling, groundling can only flee in terror.
But, if you've ever seen a dwarf switch hitter in action you rapidly realize the only true limitation that the dwarf has in terms of doling out the beats is "can I see them?" Characters who do have limited mobility should certainly find ways to make up for it. I'm a big fan of utilizing a mount.
I've been meaning to finish that big positioning article I decided to do a few months ago after that argument with BNW. Really should get to it.
What's weird about it?
It looks fine honestly depending on how you coordinate wiht the fighter and bard.
|
Because everyone rushes in like a bunch of loonies before the fighter or the bard even moves.... And mean like raving loonies too... And I'm the fighter so you can see it's annoying I try to be within Bodyguard range of everyone with my Trip weapon but well... It does not work out so well sometimes...
Because everyone rushes in like a bunch of loonies before the fighter or the bard even moves.... And mean like raving loonies too... And I'm the fighter so you can see it's annoying I try to be within Bodyguard range of everyone with my Trip weapon but well... It does not work out so well sometimes...
Sadly the only thing that can really be done is to discuss things with the group and adapt.
Don't waste much time on people uninterested or hostile to the idea of coordination and try to keep the discussion in-character if possible to avoid the metagame grumbling.
If one or two people don't like the idea or say one thing and do another work with those who do and work around those behaviors.
Does your group like to focus fire or do they like to pair off and fight a series of duels?
My group is going to run Rise of the Runelords and I think we're going to do very well. It being a Paizo AP i don't expect it to be too crazy in difficulty.
Shaman
Unchained Summoner
Psion-Psychokinesis
Paladin
Magus-Eldritch Archer
I'm running the Shaman and it looks to me like I'll likely be an Arm/subanvil and I'll have to split the anvil duty with the Summoner.
Hammers are the Eidolon and Paladin
Magus is a Hammer/subarm
Psion I don't really know what to expect from.
I expect combats to be very fast and very brutal. When we get to higher levels I have a feeling a lot of fights will essentially come down to whether I and the Summoner can set up fights for victory.
|
|
My group is going to run Rise of the Runelords and I think we're going to do very well. It being a Paizo AP i don't expect it to be too crazy in difficulty.
Shaman
Unchained Summoner
Psion-Psychokinesis
Paladin
Magus-Eldritch ArcherI'm running the Shaman and it looks to me like I'll likely be an Arm/subanvil and I'll have to split the anvil duty with the Summoner.
Hammers are the Eidolon and Paladin
Magus is a Hammer/subarm
Psion I don't really know what to expect from.
I expect combats to be very fast and very brutal. When we get to higher levels I have a feeling a lot of fights will essentially come down to whether I and the Summoner can set up fights for victory.
I'm also playing rise as well, it can be very easy or very hard in points other then that you should do fine.
There your kind of people who play like a video game kill everything bad in sight and then loot, only coordinating if is highly needed... It's annoying but I have played with them for years, so I try to ignore it most of the time.
As I said, not much that can be done without discussing things with them. You can always use the idea of approaching them from the perspective they understand. If nothing else you may just have to adapt to them rather than the other way around and figure out what you can do to fulfill your chosen task while they do the thing they're bound and determined to do.
|
|
There your kind of people who play like a video game kill everything bad in sight and then loot, only coordinating if is highly needed... It's annoying but I have played with them for years, so I try to ignore it most of the time.As I said, not much that can be done without discussing things with them. You can always use the idea of approaching them from the perspective they understand. If nothing else you may just have to adapt to them rather than the other way around and figure out what you can do to fulfill your chosen task while they do the thing they're bound and determined to do.
If the GM plays the monsters in easy mode, such that the PC's idiotic tactics work, there is no reason for them to improve their tactical play. For example, if the GM is generally unwilling to kill off a PC, then that whacky PC who wins initiative and charges in all alone ... will survive. Only if the GM raises the difficulty level such that tactical idiocy leads to failure and death is there much chance they will improve. Maybe they want to play in easy mode.
There's one lovely high level PFS encounter that is a test for stupid tactics. PCs will ROFLstomp the encounter if they use even a modicum of competent tactics. However, the encounter is designed to be VERY LETHAL to a PC who recklessly charges in alone. The lead PCs are presented with a perfect long range charge lane to a BBEG and its lesser demonic henchmen. Several lesser demons will teleport to block help from arriving, while the rest dogpile whomever charged the BBEG with flanking reach sneak attacks. I've GMd it twice, but neither time did my players take the proffered bait.
Thanks for your guide, lot of people think the trinity of the mmorpg is the same in pathfinder (and dungeon and dragon) :
tank/heal/damage dealer
But here the tank need to be more than a lot of hp in heavy armor, it's about controlling the encounter and the healer need to be more than a guy who wave a stick and give more hp, its about supporting your allies. For the damage dealer ... well he deal damage.
But what about outside the combat ? What are the most usefull composition for a party ?
You need a face, a scout, a know-it-all guy, maybe a rogue or a stealthy guy, someone with usefull spell ...
What are the other role and which one are essential ?
Thanks for your guide, lot of people think the trinity of the mmorpg is the same in pathfinder (and dungeon and dragon) :
tank/heal/damage dealerBut here the tank need to be more than a lot of hp in heavy armor, it's about controlling the encounter and the healer need to be more than a guy who wave a stick and give more hp, its about supporting your allies. For the damage dealer ... well he deal damage.
But what about outside the combat ? What are the most useful composition for a party ?
You need a face, a scout, a know-it-all guy, maybe a rogue or a stealthy guy, someone with useful spell ...
What are the other role and which one are essential ?
That's the thing.
Let's take a common out of combat role: the face.
What does a face need?
Diplomacy is a no-brainer.
But you also have Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate, and various other skills that go into it. Which ones are vital? Which ones will get used the most? Is it enough to get diplomacy?
Typically what I see in a group is that multiple people will get these skills and change up as the situation warrants. So not really a role in the strictest sense.
Plus, a lot of it tends to be subjective. Take, fo rexample, a conversation with the town marshal. One of the player's happens to be a deputy according to their background and roleplay. The rules dictate that if that player has to roll diplomacy opposing another player trying to influence the marshal for one reason or another than that higher roll should win out.
But, most GM's I know, myself included, would at least grant fairly large bonuses to the deputy based on the fact that from a story and roleplay standpoint it makes no sense that the marshal would trust the crooked rogue who put more points into diplomacy than the deputized fighter the marshal has known for years.
There's also a question of "Brains", another popular non-combat role I see brought up. Basically, someone who takes knowledge skills.
But let's think about that for a minute. Doesn't everyone take at least one knowledge skill? There are some expectations we tend to have. Druids take nature, wizards get arcana, rogues tend to get local, clerics get religion, etc. etc.
When you start to think like that You can cover most of the major ones pretty easily.
And again, it's subjective. After all the GM might introduce a monster that you could not feasibly have any knowledge of. You might rediscover a lost city or race so obscure as your rolls are practically meaningless.
That's the real problem with trying to quantify out of combat roles. Combat in and of itself is objective. There's a clear difference between alive and dead, healthy and not, hit and miss. Any changes to that are mechanical and just require adaptation. However most out of combat stuff, even if it is written objectively, is treated subjectively based on the whims of the GM.
That's why I'm hesitant to even bother trying to break it down. I feel my efforts would be mostly meaningless.