Combat Roles

[Sacrieur]

WotC have defined four roleplaying roles for D&D: the big stupid fighter, the ranged fighter, the skill monkey, and the healer.

I'm here to tell you that they're off. Not way off, but off. In short, these aren't actually the fundamental roles.

To understand how combat truly works in D&D, we have to strip away all of the layers above it. We shouldn't concern ourselves with things like damage reduction, spell resistance, special feats, or multiple attacks. That's stuff that fits in as flavor and variety.

In reality during combat only one thing matters: damage. That's what it all boils down to. Not how fancy your spells are or how fast you can move, just plain damage. Damage can be manipulated in two ways: it can be given out and it can be taken in.

That's it, that's the basics of the entire D&D combat system and basically every RPG ever.

This leads us to the true four basic roles.

Bruiser: characters who deal damage as well as take it in.

Striker: characters who avoid damage and deal damage.

Utilitarian: characters who control damage.

Escort: characters who don't do any of the above.


The Bruiser

Also called your big stupid fighter (named because they often use int as a dump stat). This guy is the person on the front lines in the thick of it. They don't really care if they take damage and they can dish it back out.

They can mop up a small assortment of baddies all on their own, but their primary function in a party is to act as a wall in larger encounters. They draw the attention (and thus damage) on themselves, leaving their allies in better shape to help out in other ways.

Sometimes all they can be is a meatshield, but most times they serve their purpose well as meatshields that fight back.

Classes that work best in this role: Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Monk.


The Striker

Strikers are the damage dealers of the world. They don't tend to have a lot of hitpoints (more than the squishies), so they like to avoid being hit wherever possible, but they can take a few hits if they need to.

They tend to have a bit of range so they can stand some ways back from the sharp pointy things, but they can play a fragile speedster who is quick with a blade; they can be anything from a wizard blaster to a quick monk.

Their primary purpose is to help the Bruisers out in dishing damage. They're not going to be a whole lot of help when it comes to protecting someone if they're alone, since they can be just as fragile as the person they're protecting.

Classes that work best in this role: Ranger, Rogue, Monk.


The Utilitarian

This is your caster most often. They are manipulators of damage, and can alter the fabric of reality to their will. I call them squishies because the sorcerers and wizards that play them are, well, soft and squishy.

These guys are your support. They can manipulate damage by preventing it, removing it, or indirectly dealing it (for example, casting rage on your fighter). At their worst, they're a healbot; and at their best, they're gods.

It's not their primary goal to dish out damage (if they did, they would be strikers), nor take it in. It's their purpose to make it easier for your team to win through any variety of methods. A prismatic wall, for example, can cut an enemy's force in two. This is a method of preventing damage.

Classes that work best in this role: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard


The Escort

This guy is often called the waste of space. He's not dealing damage, he's not preventing damage, he's not taking damage: he's useless. Now, he may not be useless to the party (if he's the party's face or a skill monkey). But in battle none of that matters.

He disguises himself as one of the roles above. He may try to help, but he really doesn't. He may spend a round making your weapon +1 or miss a few attacks with some mace (some players insist on playing a cleric this way).

So he may help in some way, but it's more often negligible. Or he can just be harmful (running up into the frontlines and forcing your utilitarian to waste rounds to heal or save him).

---

And that's it. Those are all of the roles that actually matter.

You may have noticed I included two classes under different roles. That's because some classes can actually do two roles that they fluidly move between in combat or their builds can be optimized for either role. A half-orc rage monk can be put on the frontlines and a druid can alter reality and bang heads together as a giant 800 lb. gorilla.


These roles come about as cold hard reality as just simple mechanics of the game. They may not align with what WotC may have wanted to design, but it's what they did design. And all classes, regardless of what their intended function was will inevitably fall into one of the four roles.

[Bakkan]

A small question: How does the system classify those characters or builds that win fights without dealing damage? Save-or-Dies, mental domaination, banishment, debuffed to animal intelligence, etc.?

[Grinner]

This seems like a classification for WoW characters rather than D&D characters. :smallconfused:

[ko_sct]

I completely disagree with you, like Bakkan said, what about those that win without damage ?

In fact in D&D at high level, it's seldom damage that matter, save-or-die, save-or-lose and no-save-just-lose spells are often what matter in a fight.


In combat the roles (in d&d) would probably be something like damage-dealer/battle-field control/dude-who-boost-the-rest-of-the-team

[Sacrieur]

A small question: How does the system classify those characters or builds that win fights without dealing damage? Save-or-Dies, mental domaination, banishment, debuffed to animal intelligence, etc.?

Those are methods of preventing damage, and falls under the purview of the utilitarian. There do exist utility fighters (like a hexblade).


This seems like a classification for WoW characters rather than D&D characters.

Ha, to be honest I've never played WoW, but all RPGs that work under the hp system are going to boil down to these four roles, that's probably why you're seeing it.

--

The utilitarians are the battlefield controllers. By controlling the battlefield you're manipulating damage. There's no reason to make a distinction between buffing/debuffing since it's the ends and not the means that matters (prevent/indirectly increase damage)

[Grinner]

Ha, to be honest I've never played WoW, but all RPGs that work under the hp system are going to boil down to these four roles, that's probably why you're seeing it.

Well, here's the thing. While you are correct to a degree, your combat theory breaks down when you examine the differences between the games.

In WoW, there's a mechanic called aggro. Aggro was intended to shortcut the simulation of a game world's physics in combat. In the end, it was used as a way for the "Bruisers" to focus enemy attacks on themselves, and not on their squishier compatriots.

The problem is that only a couple classes (Knights and Crusaders, I think) in D&D have the ability to create such an imperative. With no such imperative in effect, enemies are free to focus their attacks on the party's support members, and they'd be foolish not to.

And frankly, despite the drawbacks, D&D's complexity provides a wider range of viable tactics than WoW (Diplomancy/Mind control, debuffing, etc.)

[Sacrieur]

Aggro is a way of manipulating damage. This does not change the knight's or crusader's combat role as a bruiser.

[Grinner]

Aggro is a way of manipulating damage. This does not change the knight's or crusader's combat role as a bruiser.

If they're not sponging up the damage, then who is?

[White_Drake]

Is the answer the polymorphed wizard?

[Sacrieur]

The bruiser is someone who can take hits, not that they necessarily do. They don't tend to go out of their way to avoid them.

Keep in mind this isn't how you should play your character, it's how characters will end up playing. Nor are these static roles. A person can shift between two or be two at the same time (like a hexblade).

[Grinner]

Is the answer the polymorphed wizard?

At higher levels of play, yes. But at that point, the wizard is already starting to become some kind of proto-god.

[White_Drake]

Keep in mind this isn't how you should play your character, it's how characters will end up playing.

Ummm... what? :smallconfused:

@Grinner: So the animal companion the wizard traded away his familiar away for, right?

[Averis Vol]

"Damage is all that matters," Is a very........ personal experience based assumption, and if thats how your group rolls, awesome. But I can say that in my group at least, damage is far from king and in fact buckles to utility in most cases.

Sure, at lower levels damage is the executioner, but its normally the caster that puts it in position. The fighter or barbarian my get the last hit in, but the sorcerer/wizard/druid/beguiler etc, sets them up for the ultimate defeat (see grease, color spray, entangling roots, obscuring mist.....the list goes on, and that's just first level.)

Basically its the meat shields job to make sure the enemies do not get to the casters so they can do their jobs. If the caster doesn't agree to the general Gentleman's agreement then the melee will feel useless, which to my understanding, was why this agreement was placed there in the first place. (If you don't know what the agreement is, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267097))

[Sacrieur]

"Damage is all that matters," Is a very........ personal experience based assumption, and if thats how your group rolls, awesome. But I can say that in my group at least, damage is far from king and in fact buckles to utility in most cases.

Sure, at lower levels damage is the executioner, but its normally the caster that puts it in position. The fighter or barbarian my get the last hit in, but the sorcerer/wizard/druid/beguiler etc, sets them up for the ultimate defeat (see grease, color spray, entangling roots, obscuring mist.....the list goes on, and that's just first level.)

Basically its the meat shields job to make sure the enemies do not get to the casters so they can do their jobs. If the caster doesn't agree to the general Gentleman's agreement then the melee will feel useless, which to my understanding, was why this agreement was placed there in the first place. (If you don't know what the agreement is, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267097))

Utility is manipulating damage.

Turning undead, for example, is preventing damage. Casting color spray is preventing damage. Casting enlarge person is increasing the damage dealt by the fighter (indirectly doing more damage). Casting mage armor is preventing damage. Casting invisibility is preventing damage. Casting touch of fatigue is preventing/indirectly increasing damage.

I understand why a lot of you have some apprehension about it, but like it or not, that's what it all boils down to.

The reason I say not to play your character to fit the role is because it's a role playing game. Your character will inevitable fall into one of the roles, but it's covered up by multiple layers of flavor and variety.

Consider touch of fatigue. The subject takes -2 to dex and -2 to str. Supposing they were wielding a sword, their dex bonus to AC just dropped by one and their bonus to damage/attack just dropped by one. Thus, they're more susceptible to damage, and less damage is likely to be done to your allies.

Now at high level, consider prismatic wall. You use it to block off half of a force of orc bandits. Now your bruisers have to deal with half as many enemies. This means half as many attacks are done on your bruisers and thereby preventing potential damage.

[Bakkan]

I still think you're slightly overstating the importance of damage. At high levels, it's entirely possible to have a combat where absolutely no-one takes any actions that could even result in damage. The casters trade forcecages, plane shifts, phantasmal killers (eww), mazes, and a thousand other things that defeat the enemy without damage even being a consideration. It's even concievable that mundanes might contribute here, as a BSF might somehow find a way to grapple a caster until one of his teammates can come over and disable him (without dealing damage).

It seems that the system you described is too narrowly focused to describe all possible contests.

EDIT: Relevant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html)

[Averis Vol]

Okay, now you're splitting hairs. Anything that has health is relevant to damage, and if thats the frail point you're balancing your opinion on, then I have no choice but to agree with you.

[Grinner]

@Grinner: So the animal companion the wizard traded away his familiar away for, right?

People do that?

@Sacrieur: I think you need to take a step back and re-examine this philosophy of yours. Four people have disagreed and provided very broad examples as evidence.

[Theoboldi]

So....what does this system actually accomplish? Is it about party balance? Is it about players recognizing which of these roles they take and helping them optimize for it? Is it supposed to help players choose a class according to what their party needs? A guide isn't really a guide when it doesn't lead anywhere. I hope that I don't seem rude for asking this, because I am genuinly confused as to what this is supposed to accomplish.

[Grinner]

So....what does this system actually accomplish? Is it about party balance? Is it about players recognizing which of these roles they take and helping them optimize for it? Is it supposed to help players choose a class according to what their party needs? A guide isn't really a guide when it doesn't lead anywhere. I hope that I don't seem rude for asking this, because I am genuinly confused as to what this is supposed to accomplish.

I think it's supposed to be an argument for optimizing for damage, but I do share some of your confusion.

[Sacrieur]

I still think you're slightly overstating the importance of damage. At high levels, it's entirely possible to have a combat where absolutely no-one takes any actions that could even result in damage. The casters trade forcecages, plane shifts, phantasmal killers (eww), mazes, and a thousand other things that defeat the enemy without damage even being a consideration. It's even concievable that mundanes might contribute here, as a BSF might somehow find a way to grapple a caster until one of his teammates can come over and disable him (without dealing damage).

It seems that the system you described is too narrowly focused to describe all possible contests.

Perhaps I did not explain myself very well. When it comes down to casters, it can become about damage potential very, very quickly without any damage taking place.

All of those spells you've mentioned. Consider putting it on a decision tree. Do you cast plane shift or not? If you don't, then that raging whatever is going to come over here and attack you, causing damage. You don't want that to happen, so you take the option to cast the spell. The damage is averted and thus prevented.

Although disabling someone does not have to do with damage, so you got me there.

[Bakkan]

Sorry, I meant to suggest that all or nearly all of the combtants in the fight were casters. So you aren't casting plane shift on a barbarian, you're casting plane shift on the cleric so he doesn't use implosion on you next round. Still no damage.

[Kelb_Panthera]

At higher levels of play, yes. But at that point, the wizard is already starting to become some kind of proto-god.

7th is not a higher level of play. Polymorph is only a 4th level spell.

@ the op: the ability to deal hp damage isn't a major factor if anyone in the party is capable of reducing an enemy to helpless status. Str damage and penalties bringing effective strength to zero means the wizard with Str 10 and an unenhanced quarterstaff can walk over and coup-de-grace the enemy. The damage almost certainly won't be lethal on its own, but the resultant save DC vs death almost certainly will. Color spray and sleep both make enemies unconcious and vulnerable to coup-de-grace from first level. There is, therefore, no point at which noteable damage dealing ability is -always- necessary.

Those aren't utility effects reducing damage, they're fight enders ending the fight.

Your hypothesis also completely ignores combat that's won without killing the enemy. A simple trans-dimensional dimension door can put an enemy on the ethereal plane where he's no longer a threat, and barring some ability to get back on his own, may never be again.

Force cage + cloudkill leaves the enemy making saves vs death every round until he either fails one, takes enough con damage to die anyway, or the spell effect ends. In the last instance, the spell can simply be cast again since force-cage lasts for a minimum of 13 hours. The assassin's death attack has hp damage as a consolation prize should its primary effect (an instant kill or paralysis) fail.

There are simply too many ways for a combat to be drawn to a close that have nothing to do with HP damage for your hypothesis to be correct.

[Grinner]

7th is not a higher level of play. Polymorph is only a 4th level spell.

What we have here is an example of umwelt.

I tend to play low-level games, so it's fairly high for me.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What we have here is an example of umwelt.

I tend to play low-level games, so it's fairly high for me.

Fair enough. I was simply stating that polymorph isn't a higher order effect on the whole. It's at the bottom of mid-level spells assuming you make the division [1st, 2nd, 3rd]=low level, [4th, 5th, 6th] = mid level, and [7th, 8th, 9th] = high level.

[Sacrieur]

Thanks everyone for your input.

Well it appears I got a bit carried away, and so did everyone else :P

This was never meant to define roles in all cases. This was to define the kinds of fundamental roles that exist in combat. The roles are for what characters generally do or can do.

It's not all about damage, but it's easier to define the roles in terms of damage.

[Laserlight]

To reductio slightly, you could say "In combat, what counts is doing something effective" ... which is true but not generally useful.

[Flickerdart]

Usually, the point of creating a framework is that it generates new insights (such as the Tier system allowing us to have threads about why wizards are better than not-wizards). What new insights does this framework generate?

[TuggyNE]

This was never meant to define roles in all cases. This was to define the kinds of fundamental roles that exist in combat. The roles are for what characters generally do or can do.

It's not all about damage, but it's easier to define the roles in terms of damage.

I think this would be much improved if you consider not only the granular defense of HP against death (which equates in general to losing), but the various binary defenses against the same (usually saves, sometimes touch AC). That is, considering a sort of flowchart of the different ways to ensure that the enemy is defeated, and likewise ensure that the party is not.

[Sacrieur]

To reductio slightly, you could say "In combat, what counts is doing something effective" ... which is true but not generally useful.

Damage to the desired outcome is still damage right? :cool:



Usually, the point of creating a framework is that it generates new insights (such as the Tier system allowing us to have threads about why wizards are better than not-wizards). What new insights does this framework generate?

Well, I am a person obsessed for theory and abstraction for the sake of theory and abstraction.

But there is a good application for this. I probably should have stuck in the homebrew section, but even for non-homebrewers it has a purpose. When you're making a new character and want to compliment your party, for example. Or if you're a DM and curious about how your players will act.

But, more basically, it compliments the tier system. Why is a character ranked tier 5 or tier 4? This is part of the answer. Look at what the class was intended to do, then look to how it's going to fit into one of the three roles. Is it going to be effective in that role based on the abilities it is given?

[Flickerdart]

Well, I am a person obsessed for theory and abstraction for the sake of theory and abstraction.

But there is a good application for this. I probably should have stuck in the homebrew section, but even for non-homebrewers it has a purpose. When you're making a new character and want to compliment your party, for example. Or if you're a DM and curious about how your players will act.
I'm afraid that simply designating four vague roles doesn't really accomplish that.



But, more basically, it compliments the tier system. Why is a character ranked tier 5 or tier 4? This is part of the answer. Look at what the class was intended to do, then look to how it's going to fit into one of the three roles. Is it going to be effective in that role based on the abilities it is given?
The tier system is not about combat.

[Sacrieur]

I did say part of the answer, not the complete answer. I intend to edit the original post with a more useful, enlightening description that compiles all of the concerns and points brought up in this discussion.

[Treblain]

Are you aware of 4th edition's formalized party roles? Even though it's a very different game, the class structure is something you'd be interested in examining. It's also better for your concept, since it's harder to win a battle through non-HP damage methods.

In an ideal game, there would be no "escort" PC at all unless their noncombat contribution is significant, which doesn't happen in most D&D games. (ex: in an RPG with a social encounter subsystem, having a diplomat character as a liability in combat might make sense.) I don't really see the point of having it as a role, since it doesn't tell you much. As your description acknowledges, there are several possible reasons why a character in 3.5 might not contributing to the combat, so it's more a catch-all than a role.