D&D 3E/3.5 3.5E Player's Handbook II - the book that invented combat roles

[NEXxREX]

i liked the way that 3.5 worked in the ways of character creation. 4E was far to much like an MMO. In my opinion it didnt let you give your character that little someting extra that 3.5 did. iv played a bit of 4E and i wouldnt play it again if i can help it.

i like the idea of picking a class instead of a role. because lasses are versatile, allowing you to be able to dish out a little bit in combat and having some uses outside as well. wether these uses were practical(skill monkey) ot were just fun to role play didnt matter. you werent just the "o i run up and kick their faces in guy" you had potential of so much more through role playing and a multitude of Prc's that went in every which direction.

 

[the Jester]

Just chiming in to point out that monster roles are explicitly introduced in Dungeonscape, and with a ton more than we ended up with in 4e!

 

[BriarMonkey]

In all, what difference does it make?

In all editions, the Unearthed Arcana came to symbolize different rules and systems for one's game. And in many cases, those rules and systems were ideas for the next iteration of the game.

The same holds for the other "follow on" books that later editions created (like any Player's Handbook after the first).

This is not anything earth shattering or new to the world. As has been mentioned, many ideas across systems are rehashes of other ideas from other systems.

 

[underfoot007ct]

The 3.5 Players Handbook II was published in May 2006, 2 years before 4th edition. A quick comparison between this book and 4E PHB I shows the following names in common (designers only): David Noonan, Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, Mike Mearls, Stephen Schubert, Christopher Perkins. Robert J. Schwalb is only in the 3.5 book, but he did other stuff for 4E.
<SNIP>

Party Building Advice

It's quite interesting to see how much of 4E is already in this book, halfway into the lifetime of 3.5. The book does not slap the combat roles on each class like a label, but it is very obvious that these are the concepts that the developers were experimenting with at the time.

In fact, all you need to do is move forward to page 149, where it defines... Combat Roles (!), in a chapter called "Building the Party".


It then goes on to explain party teamwork over the next 10 pages. It names 4 roles: Warrior, Expert, Arcane Spellcaster and Divine Spellcaster.

4E changed the rogue to a damage dealer, to strengthen his in-combat role vis a vis the other classes. The role of the fighter was moved from attack/defense balanced to a defense focus, to make space for the rogue. (Rectified later with the Slayer). 4E also severed the tie between leader and divine magic as well as controller and arcane magic.

The reasons I'm writing this is to show that like Book of 9 Swords did with martial powers, combat roles were already foreshadowed in a 3.5 book. They are not a pure 4E thing.

Pure gold, EnWorld won't let me XP you again, so soon.

I believe Team concept existed in early D&D when you only had Fighting Man, Cleric, & Magic User. Before Thief, Dwarf, & Elf.