Pathfinder 1E Could Pathfinder take D&D's place...

[ahayford]

Role Defender = Tank, Protect the weak guys and take the hits, many classes can fill this role, Paladin, Fighter, etc
Role Striker = Straight up damage, blow things up or stab them
Role Controller = Take enemies out of the fight, crowd control so that the group isn't overwhelmed
Role Leader = Provide support in the form of heals/buffs.

 

[Androrc]

The best role description for a cleric isn't "leader", but "healer".

I don't think those names are clear at all, nor very helpful... a Wizard would be Strike-Controller-Leader.

Furthermore, I think roles are something that should occur naturally, rather than being so imbibed into the game's writing itself.

 

[Ettin]

The class roles are what your class is good at. They can perform that role differently or perform other roles depending on what abilities the player picks. They are not pidgeon-holed into anything.

There, cleared up. Hope that helps!

 

[ahayford]

The best role description for a cleric isn't "leader", but "healer".

I don't think those names are clear at all, nor very helpful... a Wizard would be Strike-Controller-Leader.

Furthermore, I think roles are something that should occur naturally, rather than being so imbibed into the game's writing itself.

You are applying 4th edition role descriptions to 3rd edition classes. It doesn't really work that way. 4th edition reorganized the abilities and classes such that each power source/fluff type (marial/arcane/divine/psionic/primal) had a class that excelled in each role. So if you wanted to play a psionic damage dealer, you'd pick the psionic striker class that has the fluff name "Blah" (I don't remember the exact name). That classes abilities would be focused around doing damage, but that doesn't meen they couldn't do other things, just that was what they were best at. Now whether nor not WoTC has stayed true to this model with their powers is debatable, but I think the design is sound.

3rd edition had no such role distinctions, and thus had no role focus. Trying to apply the role tags to them isn't really going to work.

 

[Darwinism]

The best role description for a cleric isn't "leader", but "healer".

But that's not all a cleric is, at all. They buff, they do damage, they do plenty of things that are not healing in the slightest. Leader is a better term because what does a good leader, IRL, do? Care for and inspire the people they're leading.

I don't think those names are clear at all, nor very helpful... a Wizard would be Strike-Controller-Leader.

But they control far better than most, while being able to dip into other areas. That's what a role indicates; that you're better than most in one area, not that you are incapable of entering other areas.

Furthermore, I think roles are something that should occur naturally, rather than being so imbibed into the game's writing itself.

I have nothing here. Occur naturally? In a wholly fabricated product? Really? You don't think the designers have goals in mind when they create a class or, even worse, you think that goal should be opaque to people who don't know the system?

 

[Ettin]

So if you wanted to play a psionic damage dealer, you'd pick the psionic striker class that has the fluff name "Blah" (I don't remember the exact name).

The exact name doesn't matter, because you just picked the best name ever.


Who wouldn't play a dude who waves at people and shouts "BLAH!" and blows them up with his mind?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And with Archetypes Pathfinder allows folks to do some redefining of their role.

I kind of want to try the gun wielding Wizard archetype in Ultimate Combat. (Though giving up cantrips... ow. )

The Auld Grump

 

[Summer-Knight925]

natural rubber poured over the babies that are then shaped into bumpers from what I understand, but the internet does lie.

And next time there be "problems", ROLL FOR INITIATIVE!

 

[Darwinism]

And with Archetypes Pathfinder allows folks to do some redefining of their role.

I kind of want to try the gun wielding Wizard archetype in Ultimate Combat. (Though giving up cantrips... ow. )

The Auld Grump

I think my biggest problem with Pathfinder, aside from the fact that they're clinging desperately to cheesecake like it defines the genre, is the fact that Ultimate Combat had spells in it.

A book. Focused around non-casters. Had caster options.

Goddamnit.

 

[Darwinism]

3rd edition had no such role distinctions, and thus had no role focus. Trying to apply the role tags to them isn't really going to work.

This is completely wrong, though. Fighters are Defenders with a bend towards Striker, Rogues are Strikers with a bend towards... well, Striking, since that's all they did in combat, and so on.

It's just that a 3.x caster was every role, possibly, and that's really not very good for a co-operative game.

That's why I'm really loving my 4E Rise of the Runelords game and really wish Paizo would ditch their long-term death option of, "No we won't design for other systems," because they've very likely got a huge market in the 4E crowd with their above-average campaign design, but they refuse to expand into it.