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

[ahayford]

It seems odd discussing roles in a Pathfinder forum, but really - adding roles as another layer over top of classes seems like adding some complexity. Because now as a new player I need to learn about roles and still learn about classes. Now 4e may have all this covered and it may be a great mechanic for it. But trying to reverse fit roles to 3.x or Pathfinder seems silly as does trying to say because 3.x/Pathfinder didn't do roles its broken.

I know I find roles an unnecessary layer I don't really want to deal with. I know when I've taught IronPup how to play I am glad I was able to just cover classes and not get into defining roles on top of classes making things even more confusing. Again - might work for 4e since it was built with the concept in mind.

I also readily admit it rubs me the wrong way to see various posts in various social media forms saying we need a "controller" or "leader" or "striker". It always sounds like you can't play the game if you don't have the role filled. Surely that isn't true, but it is always what it comes across as which just sort of rubs me the wrong way. Again, purely my own opinion and not a condemnation of the system.

I personally wasn't talking about "adding" roles to anything, but the merits of distributing classes and abilities according to roles as design paradigm as done in 4e compares to 3.5/pathfinder....and that trying to apply those roles to a game that was not designed with that philosophy is not really useful. And more specificly, how the class names in 3.5/3 don't really clarify, from a mechanics standpoint, what their intended role in combat is. Admittedly, at this point it is a bit off topic.

 

[ahayford]

And also, I think its pretty naive to assume that any branch of a major corporation has Carte Blanche to do whatever it wants. I work in a creative industry, and I can tell you that your freedom to design and do what you want is directly proportional to the responsibility profit you bring in. Responsibility profit is exactly what it sounds like. Typically, each year, a business organization is given a profit number that they are expected to reach and contribute to the corporation. Meeting and exceeding it leads to more hands off from upper management. Not meeting it typically leads to someone trying to "fix" your business unit.

 

[Umbran]

I also readily admit it rubs me the wrong way to see various posts in various social media forms saying we need a "controller" or "leader" or "striker". It always sounds like you can't play the game if you don't have the role filled.

Let us not speak like somehow tactical roles were somehow new to gaming with 4e. The roles were merely made explicit in that edition.

D&D stems back to tactical wargames, which have always recognized the use of tactical roles. D&D has always had a kind of "iconic 4" of fighter-type, wizard-type, thief-type, and cleric-type. The U.S. military recognizes the value of tactical roles in building its squads. And look back to 1961, the First appearance of the Fantastic Four - The Thing (Defender), Human Torch (striker), Invisible Woman (controller) and Mr. Fantastic (Leader).

Predecessor games, our fictions, and our real world all recognize tactical roles. We should not be surprised when folks adopt them as important for play.

 

[gamerprinter]

It seems odd discussing roles in a Pathfinder forum, but really - adding roles as another layer over top of classes seems like adding some complexity. Because now as a new player I need to learn about roles and still learn about classes. Now 4e may have all this covered and it may be a great mechanic for it. But trying to reverse fit roles to 3.x or Pathfinder seems silly as does trying to say because 3.x/Pathfinder didn't do roles its broken.

I know I find roles an unnecessary layer I don't really want to deal with. I know when I've taught IronPup how to play I am glad I was able to just cover classes and not get into defining roles on top of classes making things even more confusing. Again - might work for 4e since it was built with the concept in mind.

I also readily admit it rubs me the wrong way to see various posts in various social media forms saying we need a "controller" or "leader" or "striker". It always sounds like you can't play the game if you don't have the role filled. Surely that isn't true, but it is always what it comes across as which just sort of rubs me the wrong way. Again, purely my own opinion and not a condemnation of the system.

This.

I don't deny the simplicity of the word: "defender", "striker", etc - but I see this as an unnecessary complication. I don't think in terms of "controller", I think in terms of specific adventuring jobs, like 'rogue'.

Also I don't see limitations of this class just does this one thing - striking or what have you. Again, I mentioned on one of my previous posts that you can't pigeon hole a given PC's role to any one thing. PCs tend to switch up what they might do in a given combat from encounter to encounter. They don't slot themselves into the ideal combat role.

I'm not trying to knock you 4e gamers and the words you use to describe your combat roles, but its all 'pretty Greek to me.'

GP

 

[gamerprinter]

Let us not speak like somehow tactical roles were somehow new to gaming with 4e. The roles were merely made explicit in that edition.

D&D stems back to tactical wargames, which have always recognized the use of tactical roles. D&D has always had a kind of "iconic 4" of fighter-type, wizard-type, thief-type, and cleric-type. The U.S. military recognizes the value of tactical roles in building its squads. And look back to 1961, the First appearance of the Fantastic Four - The Thing (Defender), Human Torch (striker), Invisible Woman (controller) and Mr. Fantastic (Leader).

Predecessor games, our fictions, and our real world all recognize tactical roles. We should not be surprised when folks adopt them as important for play.

Two things. I was in the army and those terms 'striker', etc never showed up in our 'squad training'. Two - I never read super hero comics (only Vampirella type comics). So what the Fantastic Four calls themselves - only a movie could tell me, as I would have no other way to know.

In all the gaming I've done - not just D&D, those terms never came up in the rules or discussion. How I'm expected to rely on these combat roles to describe my D&D/PF characters - and be considered 'idiotic' for not understanding.

Its an unnecessary complication.

Had I never played D&D, and were first introduced to those combat roles, I might have a better understanding - so I see their value. But for me, its something new, I don't want to, nor need to learn.

 

[IronWolf]

Let us not speak like somehow tactical roles were somehow new to gaming with 4e. The roles were merely made explicit in that edition.

Oh, I'm not trying to say the game hasn't involved tactics for many editions now. It certainly has. Adding this extra layer of definition is what messes with me. And is a layer I don't really want to have to explain to new players when I could focus on explaining classes and such. Again - I admittedly said it is a personal bias and not a system defect per se.

 

[ahayford]

Are you just chosing to ignore the multiple times people have explained what they meen or are you just being willfully dismissive? The concepts are not hard to grasp. They are general umbrellas under which the classes are categorized in 4E. You could build a fight build in 3.5e that was largely focused on doing a lot of damage but ignore feats/equipment/stats the build your hp, thus making a "striker fighter" in DnD3. In 4E they have just a martial class that is specificly design to do damage that has a unique name. These concepts are not complex, maybe you are misunderstanding their purpose.

Defender - protects party takes damage
Striker - Kills baddies, usually focused on single target damage
Controller - Keeps baddies out of the fight or does AoE damage (effectively the same thing)
Leader - Again, as mentioned, the most vague role, but includes all types of support from buffs to heals.

 

[ahayford]

This isn't a new layer....its just codifying a word for something that allready exists....and in 4E, it assists the designers in developing the abilities for a class whose focus is Role X.

 

[Dark Mistress]

First time I heard the terms was in EQ back when it was the only game in town. Of course back then the 4 roles was called.
Tank - Defender
DPS (stands for damage per second) - striker
Buffer - someone that makes others better
controller - controls and locks down monsters
healer - yeah

so while the 4e terms I think was obviously inspired by MMO's they have changed to fit the game. just like i am sure other MMO's use slightly different terms. I don't think that using the terms is a bad thing. Some one new to gaming won't have a clue what each class does. If they come over from MMO's then they will know or have a idea. Plus there is a reason players started using those terms in MMO's the companies didn't come up with them. The people that played them did, quick easy terms to type out that let others know the rough main roll that class played.

 

[IronWolf]

Are you just chosing to ignore the multiple times people have explained what they meen or are you just being willfully dismissive?

Is this directed at me? I understand what people mean. I don't like the codification/layer (even if it is just now defining it) that gets people talking about defenders, strikers, controllers and leaders instead of about their classes.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, I have stated several times this is a personal bias. I am not here saying you are wrong for liking the now defined roles or that the system is broken. I *am* saying that I, personally, do not like it. I *am* saying that when I teach a new player I don't like to talk about defenders, strikers, controllers and leaders as I teach the game.