xechnao said:Roy said:Roles exist as a way to force multiplayer. Except that it's a tabletop game, so it's kinda assumed you'll willingly play multiplayer.
Roles indicate to others a different way of doing things that they can't follow. So if the game assumes roles it is like individuals having to assume that they have to embrace the fact that they cant do certain things that some other individual can.
Thieves were not strikers except possibly under very specific conditions - the genesis of the Striker lies more with the 2E Ranger than with the thief class.
When I think of "tank", though, I'm thinking of something that can take damage *and* give it out. Like a tank.I've written some stuff about this on my blog recently and roles have changed somewhat over the years. Short version: One of the biggest is that in 1E and 2E there was no Striker/Defender split - Fighters were the combat monsters for both offense and defense and "Tanking" as a concept really didn't exist. They were up front because they hit the hardest AND had the best AC and HP, not just to soak up hits for the rest of the party.
Very true at low levels. I find that as levels get higher, Clerics stand farther back in the ranks.Clerics were fairly similar to the leader role but were a lot handier in melee than the way the leader is typically viewed today. With an AC equal to that of the fighter and good offensive capability as well they could stand in for a fighter when needed.
I'm still not sure what a "striker" is supposed to be. Am I right in guessing it's someone who gives out lots of damage but can't (or doesn't) absorb much?Thieves were not strikers except possibly under very specific conditions - the genesis of the Striker lies more with the 2E Ranger than with the thief class.
If you used 1e specialization rules from UA there was - or could be - loads of difference. A bow-spec'ed high-Dex. light-armour Fighter could artillerize with the best of 'em.Artillery as a concept was also largely restricted to certain wizards as in 1E a fighter by default was just as good with a bow as he was with a sword outside of stat modifiers. There was not much specialization required, certainly nothing like what we saw in 3E or 4E.
Very true, and the roles in general were more blurred; which in and of itself isn't really a bad thing.Depending on the level & the opposition involved M-U's could be good buffer/debuffers and Clerics could be decent nukers too so there was some flexibility as far as role.
Our average party size is around 8-10. I find a nice side effect is there's lots more chance for character interaction, with so many different personalities involved, than in a small 4-5 character group.Also remember most parties were bigger than the 4-5 man modern standard. You might have 6-8 PC's + various hirelings and henchmen. Looking back 1 thief, 1 cleric, 1 magic-user, + 2-3 fighters (including sub-classes and multi-classes) was a pretty typical party.
Not true directly as written, but I think the same vague ideas have always kind of been there. The biggest difference I can see - assuming I'm interpreting things correctly - is 4e took what used to be a scout role, gave it damage output, and called it striker.You might think people were more concerned with nice protection/roles but they really weren't. Roles were not seen as conceptually distinct from the classes themselves - it wasn't "we need a tank or a brick" it was "We need a fighter" or "we need a cleric". Thieves were usually seen as optional - you could go without them a lot easier than you oculd a wizard, fighter, or cleric. The idea of balance was very different than it is now.
It's a fun topic to discuss. There are some assumptions in 4E that "things have always been this way" but it's really not true. This arrangement works for 4E and makes sense in the game, but the Four 4E Roles have not always been true for other editions of D&D or other games either.
I've used the following four to categorize the 3e classes:3.xe
What do you think?
One role that has been missed here is the ‘toolbox’.
The toolbox usually has one or two offensive spells but shines when the party REALLY needs something
Consider the low level 2nd ed wizard and think of the possibilities of replacing the thief (agreed this is only for well planned heists); but spells are certain while skills require a roll.
Door is locked beyond the skill to handle? Cantrip: unlock.
Have to pass guards without them raising the alarm? Sleep, Invis or (later) polymorph self.
Avoid that trap/trigger/hold-up? Telekinesis or Unseen Servant.
Distraction? Audible Glamour.
And the ultimate ‘get in – get out’: Dimension door or Teleport.
For the rest of the toolbox stuff, a brief look at the Div spell list will show many ways to bust a plot wide open.
Think on this…