Looking to get enemy aggro


Advice

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The idea of the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm predates the MMORPGs. It's based in D&D concepts of traditional martial fighters with higher HP, high defenses but lower DPS, clerics focused into keep the party alive and a wizard as fragile but very potent versatile damage output as the ideal party that cover each other weaknesses. Fantasy MMORPGs that including those who predates WoW (like Ragnarok and Lineage 2) just enforced this concept because it gives different gameplay experiences to players and reinforce the collaboration aspect of the game.

But this paradigm has not aged well. D&D 3e give us the terrible CoDzilla that breaks this concept entirely and even now in PF2 this paradigm can be made but it's not enforced. Martial are no more so weak, casters are no more so defenseless and healers aren't not so necessary. Have a champion protecting the frontline is very good but not mandatory, others classes that usually are in the frontline aren't so weak to need to be protected and cross it to the backline is not only risky as also costs too much of your precious action economy to be done. Having a wizard giving some big AoE damage and debuffing your enemies is good but the martials are now strong enough to act as main single target DPS and have things like Trip, Grab, Feint, Demoralize and other actions to debuff their enemies by theirselves. Have a cleric with a healing font to heal any too damage party member is good but many other healing options exists now and the off-encounter healing grants that in 99% of encounters you can start fully healed.

That's why I agree that taunts aren't a good gameplay solution for a strongly tactical battle gameplay that PF2 offers but also that taunts aren't really needed because it's ok to not have a tank in the party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
The idea of the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm predates the MMORPGs.

Before MMORPGs, no one was considering these roles at all. In early D&Ds, there was the classical Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric party mostly due to these classes being the sole available (dwarf and elf were hybrid classes). This one is a classic TTRPG paradigm.

Then MMORPGs brought the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm. And D&D 3 was released at the same time so it is hardly a reason why it didn't age well. Actually, it aged very well as I'm sure a lot of MMORPGs are still based on it. But it has never been applied to TTRPGs before D&D 4 with the success we all know.


SuperBidi wrote:
YuriP wrote:
The idea of the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm predates the MMORPGs.
Before MMORPGs, no one was considering these roles at all. In early D&Ds, there was the classical Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric party mostly due to these classes being the sole available (dwarf and elf were hybrid classes). This one is a classic TTRPG paradigm.

The classical Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric implies into this paradigm with the rogues being the one needed to deal with the traps (something usually not needed in MMORPGs). But you rarely see a OD&D without a one of these classes (with the exception of the hybrid ones) because its usually penalizes the gameplay experience.

SuperBidi wrote:
Then MMORPGs brought the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm. And D&D 3 was released at the same time so it is hardly a reason why it didn't age well. Actually, it aged very well as I'm sure a lot of MMORPGs are still based on it. But it has never been applied to TTRPGs before D&D 4 with the success we all know.

The MMORPGs takes the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm inspired from the roles of D&D classes.

IMO it didn't aged well because starting from 3e its becomes pretty easier to substitute a martial and caster role with clerics or druids as all-rounders that can do everything very-well, only the rogues that keep their need due the trapfinding rules that restricts magic traps to be disable only by rogues (and some non-core book classes). So you don't need to divide your party in roles anymore because the clerics and druids can deal with any combat situation.

For most mordern MMORPGs the Tank/Healer/DPS was gradually being abandoned (yet some new games sometimes uses it, it's becoming pretty rare). Specially after 201X many new MMORPGs released like Blade & Soul, Guild Wars 2, Black Desert Online, The Elder Scrolls Online, Albion Online, Lost Ark, New World abandoned the concept due the players difficulties to keep playing depending from different party members what resulted in bots and multiboxes problems in the past making the game designers to choose to make the Tank/Healer/DPS no more mandatory.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
The MMORPGs takes the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm inspired from the roles of D&D classes.

Hard disagree. The Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm is purely a video gamey concept. It has never existed in TTRPGs (outside 4th edition). Trying to shoehorn the Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric paradigm into the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm doesn't work, they cover very different notions.


Draw Ire isn't in the right spell tradition for you, but has a similar vibe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
YuriP wrote:
The MMORPGs takes the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm inspired from the roles of D&D classes.
Hard disagree. The Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm is purely a video gamey concept. It has never existed in TTRPGs (outside 4th edition). Trying to shoehorn the Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric paradigm into the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm doesn't work, they cover very different notions.

The specifics? Of course they are different. It is a different medium and as discussed there is no aggro mechanism so no true tank in the same way. But similar roles exists in table top. The concept of roles does as well. Even though roles are not as strict or as required. It still has some value when talking about party composition. It has some role playing value as well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
YuriP wrote:
The MMORPGs takes the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm inspired from the roles of D&D classes.
Hard disagree. The Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm is purely a video gamey concept. It has never existed in TTRPGs (outside 4th edition). Trying to shoehorn the Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric paradigm into the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm doesn't work, they cover very different notions.
The specifics? Of course they are different. It is a different medium and as discussed there is no aggro mechanism so no true tank in the same way. But similar roles exists in table top. The concept of roles does as well. Even though roles are not as strict or as required. It still has some value when talking about party composition. It has some role playing value as well.

I think if there is a mechanic around a taunt skill action it should not compel anything. It really should just make the choice to go after others a tradeoff. But! These kinds of choices already exist and a new taunt mechanic should be balanced with things like the champions reaction, barbarians come at me, and consistent in approach with Bon Mot.

I dont think a taunt is always intimidation or deception. It feels like diplomacy as well depending on the approach.
Either way the -2 to hit other targets also feels boring.
I do feel that Ruzza’s point about the GM deciding to attack the target even though they failed is something relevant to the discussion. The game has to feel right not just mechanically exist. And this situation might appear not right.
I liked the idea of making it provide concealed to anyone but the taunter for 1 turn, and it the effect can be dismissed with an action. Crit can make it last longer and take 2 actions or 3 depending on what is more balanced. I am not certain there. But the choice layers look like this. Pc taunts foe and succeeds. All creatures except the taunter are concealed for 1 round.
Foe can use an action to calm themselves and the concealed effect is removed.
Foe can attack the taunter with no penalties and the concealed effect goes away at the end of the round.
Foe can use their actions in any other way they want but all creatures except the taunter are concealed for the round.

Either way the foe is immune to taunts for 10 minutes.

This is my suggestion. It gives more than one way out for the foe. I think that makes the ability more interesting. Getting the foe to waste an action is even a good effect in this game. Is it consistent with game design?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
YuriP wrote:
The idea of the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm predates the MMORPGs.
Before MMORPGs, no one was considering these roles at all. In early D&Ds, there was the classical Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric party mostly due to these classes being the sole available (dwarf and elf were hybrid classes). This one is a classic TTRPG paradigm.

The classical Rogue/Fighter/Wizard/Cleric implies into this paradigm with the rogues being the one needed to deal with the traps (something usually not needed in MMORPGs). But you rarely see a OD&D without a one of these classes (with the exception of the hybrid ones) because its usually penalizes the gameplay experience.

SuperBidi wrote:
Then MMORPGs brought the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm. And D&D 3 was released at the same time so it is hardly a reason why it didn't age well. Actually, it aged very well as I'm sure a lot of MMORPGs are still based on it. But it has never been applied to TTRPGs before D&D 4 with the success we all know.

The MMORPGs takes the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm inspired from the roles of D&D classes.

IMO it didn't aged well because starting from 3e its becomes pretty easier to substitute a martial and caster role with clerics or druids as all-rounders that can do everything very-well, only the rogues that keep their need due the trapfinding rules that restricts magic traps to be disable only by rogues (and some non-core book classes). So you don't need to divide your party in roles anymore because the clerics and druids can deal with any combat situation.

For most mordern MMORPGs the Tank/Healer/DPS was gradually being abandoned (yet some new games sometimes uses it, it's becoming pretty rare). Specially after 201X many new MMORPGs released like Blade & Soul, Guild Wars 2, Black Desert Online, The Elder Scrolls Online, Albion Online, Lost Ark, New World abandoned the concept due the players difficulties to keep playing depending from different party members what resulted in bots and multiboxes...

As an old person that played during that era, Super Bidi is right. We never thought of tank, healer, DPS or what not until the rise of Everquest and WoW.

About the only thing you thought of was a healer of some kind which was usually a cleric. But you could build every class to be hard to hit back then. Hit points just weren't that high in early D&D until 3rd edition with a few 2nd edition exceptions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
About the only thing you thought of was a healer of some kind which was usually a cleric. But you could build every class to be hard to hit back then. Hit points just weren't that high in early D&D until 3rd edition with a few 2nd edition exceptions

Really?

We thought of them in terms of melee, caster, healer, skill monkey. Pretty much right from the start. So the roles were and are still relevant. No it was never a tight thing like MMOs but no one is saying that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
No it was never a tight thing like MMOs but no one is saying that.

I think it is probably the key difference of disagreement. So I am going to say something about it.

Yes, TTRPGs often had some concept of a combat role for a particular character to fill. They still do. The classes in PF2 are flexible enough that with proper build, two characters of the same class can often fill different roles.

And that was what turned me off of D&D4e more than anything else - that the roles were enforced mechanically. The 'taunt' mechanic - whether you liked it or not - was only available to certain classes and characters. The 'Tanks'. If you weren't playing a tank, you couldn't tank.

So I think that is what is meant by what SuperBidi and others are saying when they say that these roles didn't exist in TTRPG except in 4th ed, and in MMOs. The basic concepts exist in a generic sense, but it was only mechanically enforced in those games.


Finoan wrote:
Gortle wrote:
No it was never a tight thing like MMOs but no one is saying that.

I think it is probably the key difference of disagreement. So I am going to say something about it.

Yes, TTRPGs often had some concept of a combat role for a particular character to fill. They still do. The classes in PF2 are flexible enough that with proper build, two characters of the same class can often fill different roles.

And that was what turned me off of D&D4e more than anything else - that the roles were enforced mechanically. The 'taunt' mechanic - whether you liked it or not - was only available to certain classes and characters. The 'Tanks'. If you weren't playing a tank, you couldn't tank.

So I think that is what is meant by what SuperBidi and others are saying when they say that these roles didn't exist in TTRPG except in 4th ed, and in MMOs. The basic concepts exist in a generic sense, but it was only mechanically enforced in those games.

The suggestions here are about class independant skill feats. About a mechanic existing at all. Forcing roles was never mentioned or implied. The other position is clearly off base, a strawman, and always was.

Liberty's Edge

Melee, caster, healer and skill monkey were not really that required IME. Rather they were roles that fit the character concept you wanted to play (or the lucky roll of the dice IIRC).

The GM had so much latitude then that any of these roles could be as crucial or as useless as needed.

And they were definitely not the rigid classification of Tank, Healer, DPS.


Gortle wrote:
The suggestions here are about class independant skill feats. About a mechanic existing at all. Forcing roles was never mentioned or implied. The other position is clearly off base, a strawman, and always was.

The suggestions in this thread are indeed about a class independent skill feat. But that is also irrelevant to what I am speaking to.

I am addressing the debate between whether old versions of TTRPG had 'roles' like 'tank' before. I'm trying to get people to realize that there are multiple different meanings of 'role' in an RPG whether table-top or computer run.

If you want to argue about the meaning of the word 'role' at least do it explicitly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
As an old person that played during that era, Super Bidi is right. We never thought of tank, healer, DPS or what not until the rise of Everquest and WoW.

I started in the hobby long ago too and I agree the terms tank, healer, DPS doesn't existed in the pre-mmorpg era but the roles already existed since before I start to play MMORPGs.

Many times in many different tables since I was playing AD&D when I and my friends was choosing our classes it was pretty common to us to stop and saying "hey! We don't have a cleric in this party" or "hey! We need a rogue to deal with traps".

When I saw the terms tank, healer, DPS in fact was when we start to play some MMORPGs. But these terms fit like a glove to everyone to use them in TTRPGs based in D&D paradigm, specially after 3.X when we got much more alternatives to the classic fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Also the term "skill monkey" is basically made for D&D once that this role usually doesn't exists in videogames.

Returning to the main topic. I agree with the majority here, from the beginning there is not much reason to defend the implementation of a taunting mechanic in PF2 as the classes were built in such a way as to be much less dependent on having fixed roles as was the case in the past in PF1 and previous versions of D&D.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
Gortle wrote:
The suggestions here are about class independant skill feats. About a mechanic existing at all. Forcing roles was never mentioned or implied. The other position is clearly off base, a strawman, and always was.

The suggestions in this thread are indeed about a class independent skill feat. But that is also irrelevant to what I am speaking to.

I am addressing the debate between whether old versions of TTRPG had 'roles' like 'tank' before. I'm trying to get people to realize that there are multiple different meanings of 'role' in an RPG whether table-top or computer run.

If you want to argue about the meaning of the word 'role' at least do it explicitly.

Then maybe we should focus more on what p2e is designed to do.

It would seem to me classes that get the best proficiency with armor types or unarmored and have the highest hp per level will survive the longest against enemy attacks.
The ones with feat support for survivability make those chances improve.
Having higher con and dex if needed also iproves survivability.
BUT!
Without the ability to incentivize attacks to themselves or disincentivize/restrict attacks to companions all that survivability gets wasted.
This thread already has shown many ways some classes can do this.
But how many ways can non class related skills or feats help a character do this?
A taunt skill ability could be made to be a part of protecting allies in combat, but if one is introduced it should increase the fun of the game not reduce it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Throwing my hat into the ring here again. I think that Antagonize is a good "ceiling" to look at when it comes to wanting to introduce something like this into your games. It incentivizes the opponent to attack you while also lending aid to allies. But it is also a class feat on a class that may not want to get smacked in the face often.

This is the design space that feels more appropriate to me. No one is losing agency and the ability itself plays well with the rest of the system. Now, taking these ideas and putting them into a widely available skill/general feat? Little bit trickier. We've shown in-thread that we can't quite get a consensus on what such a skill would be - Intimidation, Deception, Diplomacy. The one constant is Charisma, which... I can already see the threads of people complaining about making their Fighters or Champions extra MAD to pick up this hypothetical ability.

For people who really want this, my advice would be to put something down and work through the pain points. I don't know that we need much more than what we have right now, however. And I don't think that we're ever going to see something like a "hard taunt" that some people are asking for.

Again, stressing, I am wildly against this idea. However, I encourage people to prove me wrong!


Gortle wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
About the only thing you thought of was a healer of some kind which was usually a cleric. But you could build every class to be hard to hit back then. Hit points just weren't that high in early D&D until 3rd edition with a few 2nd edition exceptions

Really?

We thought of them in terms of melee, caster, healer, skill monkey. Pretty much right from the start. So the roles were and are still relevant. No it was never a tight thing like MMOs but no one is saying that.

How could you think of it as a skill monkey when skills did not exist? Rogues had percentage based abilities as did rangers. No other classes even had skills.

The only arcane caster was a wizard. The other caster was a cleric.

I'm talking about 1st and 2nd edition D&D. The old, old days.

There were some side books with new stuff. I think there was a baseline druid in second edition with hierophant levels. I think the monk had become baseline too. I think the barbarian and cavalier came out with 2nd edition Unearthed Arcana. I guess the wizard was called a magic user.

The game was very different prior to 3rd edition. We never much thought out it in terms of tank or melee or what not. No one really needed to be specialized. There were no feats. No skills. No real customization. You played the class as is.

Everquest came out in 1999/2000. D&D 3rd edition came out around the same time. So the two games kind of created this way of thinking about party composition that did not exist prior to 3rd edition and Everquest. There was a lot of crossover between MMORPG gamers and Tabletop RPG players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
As an old person that played during that era, Super Bidi is right. We never thought of tank, healer, DPS or what not until the rise of Everquest and WoW.

I started in the hobby long ago too and I agree the terms tank, healer, DPS doesn't existed in the pre-mmorpg era but the roles already existed since before I start to play MMORPGs.

Many times in many different tables since I was playing AD&D when I and my friends was choosing our classes it was pretty common to us to stop and saying "hey! We don't have a cleric in this party" or "hey! We need a rogue to deal with traps".

When I saw the terms tank, healer, DPS in fact was when we start to play some MMORPGs. But these terms fit like a glove to everyone to use them in TTRPGs based in D&D paradigm, specially after 3.X when we got much more alternatives to the classic fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Also the term "skill monkey" is basically made for D&D once that this role usually doesn't exists in videogames.

Returning to the main topic. I agree with the majority here, from the beginning there is not much reason to defend the implementation of a taunting mechanic in PF2 as the classes were built in such a way as to be much less dependent on having fixed roles as was the case in the past in PF1 and previous versions of D&D.

Yep. Specific classes people wanted for dealing just those things. Cleric for healing. Rogue for traps back when traps were brutal. You ever do Tomb of Horrors? Death trap nightmare without a rogue. Just a nightmare with a rogue.

Did you ever play original red box with the elf class? Elf was a fighter magic user. That original game. So low level and simple, but fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
About the only thing you thought of was a healer of some kind which was usually a cleric. But you could build every class to be hard to hit back then. Hit points just weren't that high in early D&D until 3rd edition with a few 2nd edition exceptions

Really?

We thought of them in terms of melee, caster, healer, skill monkey. Pretty much right from the start. So the roles were and are still relevant. No it was never a tight thing like MMOs but no one is saying that.

How could you think of it as a skill monkey when skills did not exist? Rogues had percentage based abilities as did rangers. No other classes even had skills.

The only arcane caster was a wizard. The other caster was a cleric.

I'm talking about 1st and 2nd edition D&D. The old, old days.

There were Bards, Druids, Ranger, Illusionists in 1st ed. Real choices. Skills absolutely did exist. You have just described them. They were needed and useful. You are just getting hung up over nomenclature again.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
The game was very different prior to 3rd edition. We never much thought out it in terms of tank or melee or what not.

Tank was definitely popularised by online games, but the rest of it yes. 1st ed characters had roles in combat.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Everquest came out in 1999/2000. D&D 3rd edition came out around the same time. So the two games kind of created this way of thinking about party composition that did not exist prior to 3rd edition and Everquest. There was a lot of crossover between MMORPG gamers and Tabletop RPG players.

I never was big on MMOs. But we were defintely using these concepts long before then.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
As an old person that played during that era, Super Bidi is right. We never thought of tank, healer, DPS or what not until the rise of Everquest and WoW.

I started in the hobby long ago too and I agree the terms tank, healer, DPS doesn't existed in the pre-mmorpg era but the roles already existed since before I start to play MMORPGs.

Many times in many different tables since I was playing AD&D when I and my friends was choosing our classes it was pretty common to us to stop and saying "hey! We don't have a cleric in this party" or "hey! We need a rogue to deal with traps".

When I saw the terms tank, healer, DPS in fact was when we start to play some MMORPGs. But these terms fit like a glove to everyone to use them in TTRPGs based in D&D paradigm, specially after 3.X when we got much more alternatives to the classic fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Also the term "skill monkey" is basically made for D&D once that this role usually doesn't exists in videogames.

Returning to the main topic. I agree with the majority here, from the beginning there is not much reason to defend the implementation of a taunting mechanic in PF2 as the classes were built in such a way as to be much less dependent on having fixed roles as was the case in the past in PF1 and previous versions of D&D.

Yep. Specific classes people wanted for dealing just those things. Cleric for healing. Rogue for traps back when traps were brutal. You ever do Tomb of Horrors? Death trap nightmare without a rogue. Just a nightmare with a rogue.

Did you ever play original red box with the elf class? Elf was a fighter magic user. That original game. So low level and simple, but fun.

That was the boardgame with fighter wizard cleric rogue elf dwarf and halfling right?


I have been playing D&D consistently since 1979. I have played MMOs since about 2001. I had never heard anyone say Tank, Healer, DPS until MMOs and it didn't become prevalent until WoW took off.

I am still opposed to a taunt mechanic. I don't think any professional fighting for their life is going to be distracted by someone enough to attack them irrationally. A taunt mechanic removes tactical options. And removes player agency, because don't forget Monsters get skills too, generally with a better bonus too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
turtle006 wrote:

I have been playing D&D consistently since 1979. I have played MMOs since about 2001. I had never heard anyone say Tank, Healer, DPS until MMOs and it didn't become prevalent until WoW took off.

You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before. Example Champions an RPG which came out in 1981 had roles like Brick, Energy Projector etc.

Knowledge existed before the internet made it popular.

turtle006 wrote:
I am still opposed to a taunt mechanic. I don't think any professional fighting for their life is going to be distracted by someone enough to attack them irrationally. A taunt mechanic removes tactical options. And removes player agency, because don't forget Monsters get skills too, generally with a better bonus too.

You don't like it - that is cool. But again this game has confusion, trip, grapple, dominate, and even just the slow spell. It is a world of real magic. So your objection to something that already exists in the game is odd.

Adding an extra ability to a game only reduces tactical options if it is so powerful it invalidates other options. No one is asking for that. Be reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Gortle wrote:
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

The trinity as it is now known in mmorpgs originates from everquest, not WoW. It started as tank/healer/support(enchanter) and then devolved into tank/healer/dps.

But even before that, during eaarly dnd days, you still wanted the "roles" covered despite what those roles were called back then. I started back with black box dnd, and even then we wanted to spread around the characters to cover as much stuff as possible in a single party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong.

No but there are builds that focus on damage just like a DPS build would.

SuperBidi wrote:
In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

I don't think of DPS as a role in PF2 I'd use the term Striker. Of course everyone can deal damage in PF2. Roles are not tight or enforced. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Liberty's Edge

shroudb wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Gortle wrote:
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

The trinity as it is now known in mmorpgs originates from everquest, not WoW. It started as tank/healer/support(enchanter) and then devolved into tank/healer/dps.

But even before that, during eaarly dnd days, you still wanted the "roles" covered despite what those roles were called back then. I started back with black box dnd, and even then we wanted to spread around the characters to cover as much stuff as possible in a single party.

Which rolling method did you use ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).
I don't think of DPS as a role in PF2 I'd use the term Striker. Of course everyone can deal damage in PF2. Roles are not tight or enforced. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I've never said that. I just say that the Tank/DPS/Healer paradigm is not applicable to PF2 and has actually never been applicable to TTRPGs besides 4th edition.


Y'know, I'd allow the bonus information on a knowledge crit (or a regular success when rolling against the DC for an individual) to be something sure to draw the enemy's focus. Usable personally, or by anyone to whom it can be communicated secretly.

"You know or determine something that will enrage this person" is much more convincing than "you are persuasive enough that enemies focus on you".

Paizo Employee Community and Social Media Specialist

Removed off topic posts


The Raven Black wrote:
shroudb wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Gortle wrote:
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

The trinity as it is now known in mmorpgs originates from everquest, not WoW. It started as tank/healer/support(enchanter) and then devolved into tank/healer/dps.

But even before that, during eaarly dnd days, you still wanted the "roles" covered despite what those roles were called back then. I started back with black box dnd, and even then we wanted to spread around the characters to cover as much stuff as possible in a single party.

Which rolling method did you use ?

It's been so long since those days that my memory is fuzzy even about the rules, but I think we did 3d6, put in any order we want.

Those for sure were how we did when we switched to 2nd, but I think it was true for the box characters as well.

It wasn't until much later in uni when we switched to 3rd that we switched to 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finoan wrote:
But yeah. Aggro mechanics don't work well in TTRPG games because the GM should also have agency for their character's actions just like the players do.

Agree.

However, if a taunt mechanic of some sort was introduced I would be fine with it as long as it was a choice the character could make. For example, all of the Champion abilities which have a do this thing or take this penalty are a perfect example.

Anything that is a make this save/roll or you are forced to do a think is only acceptable for spells or things that have a limited quantity of times that can be done (like 3 to 5 times per day max).

Liberty's Edge

shroudb wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
shroudb wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Gortle wrote:
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

The trinity as it is now known in mmorpgs originates from everquest, not WoW. It started as tank/healer/support(enchanter) and then devolved into tank/healer/dps.

But even before that, during eaarly dnd days, you still wanted the "roles" covered despite what those roles were called back then. I started back with black box dnd, and even then we wanted to spread around the characters to cover as much stuff as possible in a single party.

Which rolling method did you use ?

It's been so long since those days that my memory is fuzzy even about the rules, but I think we did 3d6, put in any order we want.

Those for sure were how we did when we switched to 2nd, but I think it was true for the box characters as well.

It wasn't until much later in uni when we switched to 3rd that we switched to 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as you want.

Arrange as you want is key. I remember being stuck with some strange PCs as a result of no changing the order.

IIRC we also used a halfway method of rolling 3 stats arrays no changing the order and then choosing the one we preferred.

Liberty's Edge

Claxon wrote:
Finoan wrote:
But yeah. Aggro mechanics don't work well in TTRPG games because the GM should also have agency for their character's actions just like the players do.

Agree.

However, if a taunt mechanic of some sort was introduced I would be fine with it as long as it was a choice the character could make. For example, all of the Champion abilities which have a do this thing or take this penalty are a perfect example.

Anything that is a make this save/roll or you are forced to do a think is only acceptable for spells or things that have a limited quantity of times that can be done (like 3 to 5 times per day max).

I see it the other way around : how would PCs feel if that ability was used against them ?

Same result actually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
shroudb wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
shroudb wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Gortle wrote:
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

The trinity as it is now known in mmorpgs originates from everquest, not WoW. It started as tank/healer/support(enchanter) and then devolved into tank/healer/dps.

But even before that, during eaarly dnd days, you still wanted the "roles" covered despite what those roles were called back then. I started back with black box dnd, and even then we wanted to spread around the characters to cover as much stuff as possible in a single party.

Which rolling method did you use ?

It's been so long since those days that my memory is fuzzy even about the rules, but I think we did 3d6, put in any order we want.

Those for sure were how we did when we switched to 2nd, but I think it was true for the box characters as well.

It wasn't until much later in uni when we switched to 3rd that we switched to 4d6 drop

...

We did this back then too. Roll stats place them in order of the roll.

We also switched to assigning rolls where you want later but when we did the roll and place in order we picked class after rolling.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Finoan wrote:
But yeah. Aggro mechanics don't work well in TTRPG games because the GM should also have agency for their character's actions just like the players do.

Agree.

However, if a taunt mechanic of some sort was introduced I would be fine with it as long as it was a choice the character could make. For example, all of the Champion abilities which have a do this thing or take this penalty are a perfect example.

Anything that is a make this save/roll or you are forced to do a think is only acceptable for spells or things that have a limited quantity of times that can be done (like 3 to 5 times per day max).

I see it the other way around : how would PCs feel if that ability was used against them ?

Same result actually.

I would have no problem with it affecting my pc if I can take an action to remove the effect entirely.

Same if im a GM running the game and my npc is taunted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We only did the "place in order" thing for our couple first adventures. It did lead to funny stuff, but more importantly, back then, playing as "anything" was new to all of us, so we didn't mind playing whatever the fortune had in store for us.

After a couple of adventures though, some players did settle on favorite roles and classes, so we did the arrange where you want to facilitate being able to play those roles.


The Raven Black wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Finoan wrote:
But yeah. Aggro mechanics don't work well in TTRPG games because the GM should also have agency for their character's actions just like the players do.

Agree.

However, if a taunt mechanic of some sort was introduced I would be fine with it as long as it was a choice the character could make. For example, all of the Champion abilities which have a do this thing or take this penalty are a perfect example.

Anything that is a make this save/roll or you are forced to do a think is only acceptable for spells or things that have a limited quantity of times that can be done (like 3 to 5 times per day max).

I see it the other way around : how would PCs feel if that ability was used against them ?

Same result actually.

That's how you know whether or not it's fair.

If players don't want something used against them, they shouldn't be able to use it on the GM's character's either.

It's a little more nuanced though, because most enemies only show up in 1 fight a day (and really 1 fight per campaign) so 3 to 5 times a day (per character) is still probably too much for a GM to have access to.

In any event, I don't like Taunt abilities unless they're a choice or very very controlled circumstances.

If champions somehow got a focus spell that was (somehow) limited to once per combat buy guaranteed the enemy needed to move toward them and include them in any attack made for 1 round I would be okay with it because it's a very limited duration and very limited use. It's not something that can be used to control the entire flow of combat.


I wouldn't say 4e had some monopoly on taunts. Actually, I'm not sure 4e had proper taunting at all, just very strong soft taunts. Back in 3.5 though we had the Knight who could taunt everything in 100ft to attack them so long as their CR was low enough below theirs. Various systems also have things like total damage/targeting redirection effects and/or soft taunts so painful they may as well be hard taunts.

I do think pf2e has room to expand taunting though, soft or otherwise. It's pretty light on those shirts of effects outside of champion reaction.


Claxon wrote:
Finoan wrote:
But yeah. Aggro mechanics don't work well in TTRPG games because the GM should also have agency for their character's actions just like the players do.

Agree.

However, if a taunt mechanic of some sort was introduced I would be fine with it as long as it was a choice the character could make. For example, all of the Champion abilities which have a do this thing or take this penalty are a perfect example.

Anything that is a make this save/roll or you are forced to do a think is only acceptable for spells or things that have a limited quantity of times that can be done (like 3 to 5 times per day max).

There are a number of spells that take complete agency away from players In fact you can fill out a spell list with them. Most of them are hidden behind a critical fail result so that is OK.

A few aren't like Calm Emotions.

Anyway we discussed this before the proposals made were for a cool down immunity type effect. So we do agree. It shouldn't be easy to force this on characters repeatedly. Doesn't mean the ability shouldn't exist. This over concern about player agency is out of proportion. There are heaps of abilities in the game that take away player agency.


Gortle wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
About the only thing you thought of was a healer of some kind which was usually a cleric. But you could build every class to be hard to hit back then. Hit points just weren't that high in early D&D until 3rd edition with a few 2nd edition exceptions

Really?

We thought of them in terms of melee, caster, healer, skill monkey. Pretty much right from the start. So the roles were and are still relevant. No it was never a tight thing like MMOs but no one is saying that.

How could you think of it as a skill monkey when skills did not exist? Rogues had percentage based abilities as did rangers. No other classes even had skills.

The only arcane caster was a wizard. The other caster was a cleric.

I'm talking about 1st and 2nd edition D&D. The old, old days.

There were Bards, Druids, Ranger, Illusionists in 1st ed. Real choices. Skills absolutely did exist. You have just described them. They were needed and useful. You are just getting hung up over nomenclature again.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
The game was very different prior to 3rd edition. We never much thought out it in terms of tank or melee or what not.

Tank was definitely popularised by online games, but the rest of it yes. 1st ed characters had roles in combat.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Everquest came out in 1999/2000. D&D 3rd edition came out around the same time. So the two games kind of created this way of thinking about party composition that did not exist prior to 3rd edition and Everquest. There was a lot of crossover between MMORPG gamers and Tabletop RPG players.

I never was big on MMOs. But we were defintely using these concepts long before then.

Bards did not exist in the base game. They were an option in the DM's guide.

No one called a rogue a skill monkey. The rogue is the only one that could do what the rogue did. They just called it a rogue. I think Rangers and Assassins had lesser rogue skills or a handful of them.

No. There were not skills. They were part of the class abilities. There were no skill monkeys. No one could take skills. You had such abilities as part of your class or not at all.

Illusionists. That class did exist. I think it was 1st edition, then it was gone in 2nd edition.

No. I'm not getting caught up in nomenclature. The structure of the game was very different from what it is now. Party construction wasn't particularly interested in the same things as now.

Abilities between classes differed greatly. From what I recall the only class that was really a must have everyone wanted was a cleric for the healing.

Customization was extremely limited to non-existent in 1st edition. It expanded some in 2nd edition with kits and such.

Very different game from what it is now.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Finoan wrote:
But yeah. Aggro mechanics don't work well in TTRPG games because the GM should also have agency for their character's actions just like the players do.

Agree.

However, if a taunt mechanic of some sort was introduced I would be fine with it as long as it was a choice the character could make. For example, all of the Champion abilities which have a do this thing or take this penalty are a perfect example.

Anything that is a make this save/roll or you are forced to do a think is only acceptable for spells or things that have a limited quantity of times that can be done (like 3 to 5 times per day max).

There are a number of spells that take complete agency away from players In fact you can fill out a spell list with them. Most of them are hidden behind a critical fail result so that is OK.

A few aren't like Calm Emotions.

Anyway we discussed this before the proposals made were for a cool down immunity type effect. So we do agree. It shouldn't be easy to force this on characters repeatedly. Doesn't mean the ability shouldn't exist. This over concern about player agency is out of proportion. There are heaps of abilities in the game that take away player agency.

This proposal is for a skill action available to any character right?


Bluemagetim wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
As an old person that played during that era, Super Bidi is right. We never thought of tank, healer, DPS or what not until the rise of Everquest and WoW.

I started in the hobby long ago too and I agree the terms tank, healer, DPS doesn't existed in the pre-mmorpg era but the roles already existed since before I start to play MMORPGs.

Many times in many different tables since I was playing AD&D when I and my friends was choosing our classes it was pretty common to us to stop and saying "hey! We don't have a cleric in this party" or "hey! We need a rogue to deal with traps".

When I saw the terms tank, healer, DPS in fact was when we start to play some MMORPGs. But these terms fit like a glove to everyone to use them in TTRPGs based in D&D paradigm, specially after 3.X when we got much more alternatives to the classic fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Also the term "skill monkey" is basically made for D&D once that this role usually doesn't exists in videogames.

Returning to the main topic. I agree with the majority here, from the beginning there is not much reason to defend the implementation of a taunting mechanic in PF2 as the classes were built in such a way as to be much less dependent on having fixed roles as was the case in the past in PF1 and previous versions of D&D.

Yep. Specific classes people wanted for dealing just those things. Cleric for healing. Rogue for traps back when traps were brutal. You ever do Tomb of Horrors? Death trap nightmare without a rogue. Just a nightmare with a rogue.

Did you ever play original red box with the elf class? Elf was a fighter magic user. That original game. So low level and simple, but fun.

That was the boardgame with fighter wizard cleric rogue elf dwarf and halfling right?

The little red and light blue book. Basic and Expert D&D. Very early on when the box came out.


SuperBidi wrote:
Gortle wrote:
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

I don't know if roles existed.

Customization was different back in those days.

There was a thing called multiclasssing back then, which created hybrid classes which could do a variety of things. A lot of people included multiclass characters in their groups to account for things like rogues and fighters and magic users.

Then xp could be based on gold. There were level limits and all kinds of odd rules in place.

Rogue abilities were viewed as class abilities. Fighter was the guy that used weapons best. Paladin was a highly desirable class, but incredibly hard to make. You had to have a 17 charisma to be a paladin. If you rolled a 17 to use on charisma, you certainly wanted a high strength or you were kind of a weak warrior paladin.

The game was so different back then.

I still remember 2nd edition introducing kits. Some kind of skill mechanism was introduced with the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide or Wilderness Lore or Survival guide.

Brings back such memories. I still remember the power classes the Barbarian and Cavalier were when 1st edition Unearthed Arcana came out. The cavalier could improve his physical statistics as he leveled. You could make a paladin cavalier which was brutally powerful.

Everything was brand new and experimental back then before I was crusty gamer who had seen it all. I miss those days.


Deriven Firelion wrote:


I'm talking about 1st and 2nd edition D&D. The old, old days.

Bards did not exist in the base game. They were an option in the DM's guide.

You set the parameters of this discussion as 1st and 2nd edition, so you are now shifting the goal posts.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
No one called a rogue a skill monkey. The rogue is the only one that could do what the rogue did. They just called it a rogue. I think Rangers and Assassins had lesser rogue skills or a handful of them.

Original Bards had some too. The discussion was did class X and race Y give us a reasonable coverage of the skill that we needed or could we cover it with a spell caster.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
No. There were not skills. They were part of the class abilities. There were no skill monkeys. No one could take skills. You had such abilities as part of your class or not at all.

There were racial modifiers as well

Deriven Firelion wrote:
No. I'm not getting caught up in nomenclature.

Really? Is is called a skill or not?

Deriven Firelion wrote:
The structure of the game was very different from what it is now.

True

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Party construction wasn't particularly interested in the same things as now.

Abilities between classes differed greatly. From what I recall the only class that was really a must have everyone wanted was a cleric for the healing.

Customization was extremely limited to non-existent in 1st edition. It expanded some in 2nd edition with kits and such.

Very different game from what it is now.

My groups were interested in balance and covering all the roles. So it very much was. Of course I played a lot of different systems early on so I was exposed to concepts outside of D&D.

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Looking to get enemy aggro All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice