*explodes out of the dust*
So I've been rather out of the loop for a while and tentatively decided to comeback and decided to clear up a misconcieved notions regarding the Forge of Combat that comes up form time to time.
The fact that there are three roles does not mean one role per character. Indeed, if you notice in the article I go at great length to describe a group where each member took on two roles. The only truly specialized member was the dwarven ranger who excelled at dealing damage in a variety of ways never needing a specific circumstance to deal significant damage.
Truthfully, most classes and character concepts are going to have difficulty filling every aspect in a single role in every circumstance. Spellcasters who mostly support, may find themselves in a position where they need to cover for another role with their class abilities, or a martial character may find that a magic immune enemy renders their normal control method relatively useless and must step in to control enemy movement.
It's honestly in the groups best interest if everyone can cover multiple roles, or, be so well versed in the role that few if any circumstances will come up that prevent them from performing that role effectively. In part that's what the ranger is supposed to effectively embody. Wielding weapons of multiple damage types at multiple ranges generally means that he's a buff or two away from mitigating the most dire circumstance that would keep him from doing his main job.
So, while using it as an analysis tool to gauge how well a group might do on paper in combat please keep in mind characters can often do more than one combat role even if not exactly built for it. Spell choice, or often innate class abilities can often add wrinkles to a character you might not expect. More than that some classes are versatile enough that they're a rest period away from changing roles entirely.
*explodes out of the dust*
So I've been rather out of the loop for a while and tentatively decided to comeback and decided to clear up a misconcieved notions regarding the Forge of Combat that comes up form time to time.
The fact that there are three roles does not mean one role per character. Indeed, if you notice in the article I go at great length to describe a group where each member took on two roles. The only truly specialized member was the dwarven ranger who excelled at dealing damage in a variety of ways never needing a specific circumstance to deal significant damage.
Truthfully, most classes and character concepts are going to have difficulty filling every aspect in a single role in every circumstance. ...
I don't see much about the Forge of Combat after a forum search, only two entries, so I don't know the circumstances concerning the misconcieved notions. Nevertheless, I suspect that many Pathfinder players frequently plan one role for their characters, and assumed that the Forge of Combat is a similar system with one role per character. Instead, it is a tactical role system for balancing the party's needs in combat.
I read the Forge of Combat document and you need to emphasize the metaphor more in order to break the reader's preconceptions.
Why the metaphor?
Ease of understanding, plus it’s not been used in this context before. That way there’s no extra baggage associated with it that would confuse the meanings. You can easily call them Controllers, Strikers, Leaders for all I care. The end result is still the same.
Let me try to tighten the metaphor.
The Hammer
In the forge, the hammer makes the permanent changes to the forged metal. The hammer of combat will make that permanent change in the enemy, whether it is dying, surrendering, or running away. The hammer could be the martial character with a greatsword, or a well-positioned rogue with a dagger to the back, or the wizard with a fireball. You will recognize it when you see it, for the characters serving this role will earn the glory of victory.
The Anvil
In the forge, the anvil absorbs the heat and blows of the forging without damage. Imagine trying to hammer red-hot steel on a wooden table. The table would splinter. Using the party's hit points to survive battle is like using a wooden table for smithing. Don't lose by letting the other guy win first. The party needs a solid anvil, such as high AC, to prevent the opponent's victory. Usually, this is the front line of combat, such as a well-armored fighter and cleric shoulder to shoulder with the wizard safe behind them. Other times, the wizard's spells could be the anvil, by debuffing or misleading the enemies to soften their attack. Sometimes, the anvil is speed alone, such as a rogue dispatching an unaware foe before the foe can attack.
The Arm
(If I had written this, I would have kept to the tools theme and called this The Tongs.) In the forge, the skill of the smith is in the arm. One arm holds the hammer and drives it with muscle. Another arm applies tongs to position the piece perfectly for the blow of the hammer. Without the skill of the arm, the crafting will be sloppy and waste resources. Advantage in combat is by characters applying their buffs and tactics to strength the hammer and position the enemy against the anvil. The hammer can have an easy job or a hard job, and winning the hard way is more expensive than teaming together and spending resources to make the way easy.
The party in my Rise of the Runelords campaign illustrate that different characters can serve as hammer, anvil, and arm, because they swapped roles in mid-combat.
The party's usual hammers were two rogues and a battle oracle. The rogues had high bonuses to initiative and would be the first wave of assault, catching the opponents flat-footed. Meanwhile, the battle oracle buffed herself with two spells, one quickened with a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Quickening, so she was an arm in the first round, readying herself as a hammer. The arm and anvil were two bards. The bard who rolled the higher initiative would start an Inspire Courage song and cast Haste, hopefully soon enough to help the rogues that round. The slower bard would start debuffing the enemy. The sixth party member, a wizard, practiced protective battlefield control as a second anvil. With the rogues in front, the party's anvil was not solidly positioned, but they could last a second round before they had to retreat. Then the battle oracle would cast another round of spells and advance to the front line. Thoroughly buffed, she was both hammer and anvil, and the rogues, bards, and wizard served as arms and laid out her work in front of her.
Swap the battlefield, and the combat roles would work out differently. Maybe the battle oracle and the better-armored bard would be a defensive front line (anvils) and the rogues (hammers) would flank for sneak attacks while the other bard cast haste (arm). Maybe the wizard would cast Cone of Cold against an army of weak enemies (hammer) while the bards shot the remaining enemies with arrows (hammers, but bardsong as arm, too), and the survivng enemies in the back could not charge over the bodies (terrain as anvil).
Two rogues, two bards, an oracle, and a wizard do not fit the standard mold of a party that would excel at combat, but they did.
For each character, ask, "When can he be a hammer? And if he is, who is the anvil for him and the arm for him?" A party needs a hammer to win, but a hammer without an anvil is vulnerable, and a hammer without an arm is wasteful.
The tightening up of the metaphor is interesting.
Just keep in mind the forge of combat deals with strategy as much as tactics. Building your characters combat role in mind of one or two of these three things helps avoid a lot of mistakes in character creation. When you recognize that the characters main role goes away in certain circumstances it helps to look for openings in the character for secondary roles or for solutions so you can keep it up wiht the primary one.
The misconceptions have come up from time to time in the 4 years since its writing. I most often seen it used as an analysis tool by individual groups either looking to see how their group might mesh together in combat or in solving issues.
One mistake I'm seeing above is mistaking incident for fulfilling a role. Particularly in the fast rogue murder part. The rogue in this case is merely being a very efficient hammer. Eliminating the enemy is what he does. This is no different than a wizard slapping the guard with hold person both effectively remove the enemy. The distinction is method and goal. Hammers eliminate enemies through damage. Anvils most often through other means. Both can get lucky and eliminate enemies right off but both function more efficiently when together with an arm to preserve and enhance available resources.
The tightening up of the metaphor is interesting.
...
Hammers eliminate enemies through damage. Anvils most often through other means. Both can get lucky and eliminate enemies right off but both function more efficiently when together with an arm to preserve and enhance available resources.
I am afraid that I parsed my metaphor differently than you parsed yours. I hope I did not add to other people's confusion.
I was thinking along the line:
Hammer = offense, such as damage from a sword or grappling someone into helplessness,
Anvil = defense, such as high AC or a wall spell,
Arm = support, such as a bard song or Fly spell.
Yet you said, "Anvils most often [eliminate enemies] through other means," which is not defense. I had read the statement in the Forge of Combat document as consistent with defense, "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." I guess I had different meanings for "difficulty of a fight" and "easier." As a GM, I measure the difficulty of a fight by how much of the party's resources are consumed. A long fight that does not injure nor deplete the party is an easy fight.
I found another Anvil-Arm-Hammer metaphor at Forge Combat Model for the Aeon of Storms game. It said, "The purpose of an Anvil is to put the target into position and hold him there." The turn-based movement system of Pathfinder does not fit that kind of anvil, but it does imply that the anvil aids offense rather than provides defense.
That definition is too close to support for me to separate the anvil from the arm. I would settle on a view of anvil as protecting tactical advantage. In Aeon of Storms, position appears to be a critical advantage. In Pathfinder, protecting tactical advantage looked enough like protecting characters to fool me.
But under which role would creating tactical advantage fit? Is that the anvil, too? If so, my metaphor ought to change to:
Hammer = offense, such as damage from a sword or grappling someone into helplessness,
Anvil = tactical advantage, such as a well-armored front line or a Black Tentacles spell,
Arm = combat enhancement, such as a bard song or Mage Armor spell.
In this case difficulty is anything that does not allow for the group to succeed. This includes defensive measures, debuffs to enemy defenses, limiting their mobility, or potently limit their actions.
At its most basic each role operates in this way;
Anvils work by reducing enemy capability.
Arms increase party capability.
Hammers end the fight by eliminating the enemy.
All three can be argued to be both offensive and defensive as dead enemies don't attack, buffed allies hit harder, and enemies who are limited in their mobility and actions have a hard time both attacking and defending.
The way you've put it at the end is closest to what it actually is.