D&D 3.x Combat Roles: Did The Striker Exist Pre-3e?

[Celebrim]

Ooo, I just had an epiphany... the roles of defender, striker, leader, and control didn't have their origins in D&D -- they had their origins in wargames, and therefore in the concept of warfare itself! I can't believe that never occurred to me, I feel dense as hell.

I'm not sure how much sarcasm is in that, but the observation has merit and has been made before.

But I'm not sure that that is the direct origin of the 'defender', 'striker', 'leader', and 'controller' roles. Where I remember encountering those terms most recently was in the 'City of Heroes'. And, while the game play in City of Heroes I thought left alot to be desired, it had awesome character design. I wouldn't be surprised it if had influenced 4e (positively IMO) in that way.

The only thing that bothers me about 'roles' is that I think that a game doesn't need classes and roles to be tightly bound to each other. That overtypes a class IMO. I'd like to see a system where I could chose to play a fighter and pick talents that allowed me to play the fighter in either a 'defender', or 'striker', or 'leader' or even 'controller' role depending on how I developed the character. However, I'm withholding judgement until I see the implementation. We don't really know alot about how the concept of 'roles' has influenced the design.

 

[Celebrim]

The Controller and Leader do not seem opposed at all, though. Interesting.

Yes, they are. The Leader is apparantly being defined as a class that primarily gives advantages to thier allies (as a group). The controller is apparantly defined by primarily hindering thier enemies (as a group). So an allied controller immediately finds themself countering the effects of the enemy leader, and vica versa.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I think that what everyone needs to keep in mind is that the party role designations (Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller) refer to combat roles. I doubt they carry much weight outside of combat.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I think that what everyone needs to keep in mind is that the party role designations (Leader, Defender, Striker, Controller) refer to combat roles. I doubt they carry much weight outside of combat.

They also represent sort of the "main job" of the class, but the class usually doesn't have to forgo other stuff to do it.

 

[Driddle]

The biggest problem with the role becomes apparent when there are more than a couple of them gathered together at the same time. Someone starts complaining about their fair share of the treasure, and the next thing you know they're picking up signs and pacing back and forth in front of the dungeon...

 

[Epic Meepo]

I believe the term used most common is "spikey" as in a graph spiking at a particular point.

Yes, but that's for slashing and piercing weapons. For damage with bludgeoning weapons, the term is clearly "lumpy."

As for the party roles discussion at large, I was of the opinion that the defender role was the new one. Yes, in previous editions, the mage hid behind the front line, but that was a function of the mage being a glass jar of hurt, not a function of the front line being defenders. The front line used to be the guys who ran up and carved their way through to the opponent's mage. Any defensive benefit generated by this scythe of death was a useful side effect, nothing more.

 

[jasin]

So I guess the Striker is trying to get past the Defender to deal nice damage to the Leader and Controller. The Defender's job is to keep the enemy Striker from getting through. They seem clearly opposed to each other conceptually (other than the fact the 4E monster roles seem to have different definitions). The Controller and Leader do not seem opposed at all, though. Interesting.

They're not exactly opposed, but I wouldn't say not at all: leader helps his side, controller hinders the opposing side. Buff vs. debuff, white raven tactics vs. web.

 

[The Little Raven]

Ooo, I just had an epiphany... the roles of defender, striker, leader, and control didn't have their origins in D&D -- they had their origins in wargames, and therefore in the concept of warfare itself! I can't believe that never occurred to me, I feel dense as hell.

Fighter - Infantry (now Defender)
Magic-User - Artillery (now Controller)
Cleric - Combat Medic (now Leader)
Rogue - Special Forces (now Striker)

 

[Celebrim]

Fighter - Infantry (now Defender)
Magic-User - Artillery (now Controller)
Cleric - Combat Medic (now Leader)
Rogue - Special Forces (now Striker)

I was more thinking:

Infantry - Defender - Fighter
Cavalry - Striker - Rogue
Artillery - Controller - Wizard
Command/Control/Supply - Leader - Cleric

 

[mxyzplk]

It seems to me that the striker as a combat role was really introduced in 3e when they designed the rogue to be able to use their signature ability more than once a combat.

I agree. The rogue was an indifferent combatant prior to 3e. The "striker" was more usually the wizard (well, "blaster"). I'm not sure the controller role was really a thing - tactical maneuvering and the *occassional* Web etc. was about it.

But really the fighter was also a major source of damage output (and more consistent, since wizards were real limited back then i terms of number of spells). I really don't like the role refactoring here.

The traditional superhero roles of blaster, brick, speedster, gadgeteer and mentalist come to mind. But it was the variations and crossovers on those that were interesting. This role business is like the hell of alignment all over again...