Games that separate class from role?

[7RED7]

Have you ever played a game that gave these two complete and separate treatment?

For example, if you look at class options in a game and see something like 'Soldier' then you're generally going to think of the role of that class as dealing damage or doing some sort of defending, and if you see something like Mage then you'r more likely to think of some sort of utilitarian control or burning a bunch of cannon fodder with lightning. However, if you choose to be a soldier then there is generally the assumption that you just don't get to have a lot of utility or control, and if you play a mage then you're not really encouraged to take the beating for someone else.

What I'm interested in is splitting the roles away from the classes so that you could choose a class and a role separately. The class provides the theme, some specialized training, and a broad suite of abilities. The role provides some universal abilities and determines which categories of the class' ability suite are accessible to the player. So 'Soldier' might encompass 40 abilities, but some of them are only available to Defending Soldiers, some are only available to Controlling Soldiers, and so on. Both Controlling Soldiers and Controlling Mages would have Suppressing Fire though because it's a universal granted to everyone in that role.

I've been wanting to use something like this in a game that I've been conceptualizing in my spare time, but I have yet to play a game that does this and I'm curious about how well it works in practice for most people.

[Yora]

That sounds simply like sub-classes.
AD&D had rogues, which were Thieves, Assassins, and Bards, and priests, which were clerics, druids, and shamans.

D&D 4th edition tried to do something with role and power source, like Primal Controler, Arcane Striker, and so forth, but I don't know how much that really meant in practice.

[ElenionAncalima]

Sounds sort of similar to what DND Next is doing with the backgrounds. For instance you can pick rogue as a class, but with backgrounds you could be a spy, thief, commoner, ect.

[Tengu_temp]

Sounds kinda like New World of Darkness, where each character chooses from five or more different "classes" and "organizations", which vary depending on what kind of supernatural creature you play. And each of those has different focuses and special abilities. Do note it's still a point buy system where you have much greater freedom in building your character than in DND.

In general, point buy systems let you build precisely the character you want and offer much more freedom. And the MMO-like division between tanks, DPSers and support/healers is something that many games simply don't have, instead offering you lots of different focuses and often expecting every character to carry their weight equally in combat.

[jedipotter]

{{scrubbed}}

[BWR]

SWSE gives a fair bit of customization to the various classes. Depending on what feats and talents your Soldier picks he can do a wide variety of things.

To a certain extent L5R does this too. You have different class School types - warrior, caster, monk and social, but each School focuses on different things (tied to political and/or religious faction) but the system is flexible enough to allow you to be good at things beyond your School's focus.

And there are game systems that don't have classes.

[Elkreeal]

Have you only ever played D&D 4E? D&D 3.5E lets you do this. It is one of the great things about the system.






Yes because everything a character in 4e is suited for is for their role, nor is their something like secondary rolls that vary according to approach nor are they good at anything else.
This just looks like you're trying to say something that's just "you're wrong in thinking that because you play 4e and it sucks".

I've seen defenders do more damage than strikers, strikers better at "controlling" the battle field than controllers and everything in between. Just because it seems like something it doesn't mean it's the law. Class rolls were implemented to indicate what possible traits you have as a character and the general inclination of your powers, there's no brain washing here, at best you don't know the system at all. Most classes can have shields, even assassins, it's not a "hide behind the shield" thing. There are fighters that only have one-handed weapons and a free hand, or a weapon in each hand, or just a big two-handed weapon. So basically there are 1 or 2 types of fighter, out of the 5 types of fighter that use shield, so there for everyone used shield. A defender just means he's always in the thick of battle calling every assailant on to him, means nothing else, that seems like a soldier to me.

[Jay R]

This seems to me to be a difference between rule structure and role-playing.

My current 2E character is a Mage/Thief, but he's never stolen anything. He's opened locks on long-forgotten chests, climbed walls, snuck into enemy encampments, but he's never picked a pocket or taken anything with a current owner. He's a Thief who will never be a thief. In fact, he has become an Earl and is therefore the leader of an army, despite not being a Fighter.

I once ran a Chivalry and Sorcery Knight who was an alchemist, since one rises in alchemy ranks based on specific accomplishments, not experience points.

I also played an original D&D Bard who never sang, and an assassin who never killed anybody except in combat.

Since the original D&D, the rules have always included fighters who weren't Fighters. (Actually, the character class in original D&D was called Fighting Men.) In the 2E game I'm running now, I have NPCs who are priests who aren't Clerics, fighters who aren't Fighters, bards who aren't Bards, and thieves who aren't Thieves (as opposed to the Thief who isn't a thief mentioned above).

Super-hero games make it easy to play self-centered, grim 'n' gritty super-heroes who aren't really heroes.

Similarly, my father was an excellent carpenter who never worked as a carpenter, my mother is an excellent psychologist who never worked as a psychologist, my wife's a good historian who's never worked as a historian, and I'm a moderately good accountant who's never been a accountant.

Don't confuse somebody's abilities with his or her role in life.

[captpike]

I don't think its possible to have a good class based game without linking roles to classes. it does not have to be 1-1. in 4e for example the fighter could be a very good striker, or defender or somewhere in the middle.

even if you had such a system you would have to support stuff like rogues who do in-combat healing as good as a cleric's. how would you support that? after a certain point classes become meaningless.

most classes have two roles that make sense. there are some that even have a bit of a third (like paladins, with lay on hands). rogues for example I can see easily as strikers, then as melee controllers, but I don't see them healing nor defending.

someone will undoubtedly say that 3.x did this, to them I will say that that only applied to casters and it was not so much they were able to use their resources to do different roles, so much as they could do EVERYTHING.

[Scow2]

Have you only ever played D&D 4E? D&D 3.5E lets you do this. It is one of the great things about the system.Have you even played 3.5? A fighter is a "Dead Weight". The only characters that can become "Anything" are full casters.


I would never, ever think of a 'soldier' ''defending''. That is 4E brainwashing where they make fighters ''defenders only''. After all nothing says 'fighter' or 'soldier' then ''quick hide behind the shield'', right?Actually, when most people think of fighters, they think of Meatshields/Last Man Standing/"None Shall Pass" more than "I deal OMFGWTFBBQ damage" - The guy who takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin', gets in the face of those who want to hurt the party's squishy wizard or rogue, interrupt enemy spellcasters, and keep enemies focused on you in knock-down drag-out fights, and says "No" to every single negative effect an enemy tries to throw on them.

The problem with 3.5 was there WAS no defender role because the only thing that matters is magic. The Wizard was the defender because he was the one that had stupidhigh miss chance, drew all the aggro for being the only one worth a damn, being able to lock down enemies, and interrupt enemy actions.


And again no. A wizard as a controller only is 4E stuff yet again. And sure you can think of a wizard as a blaster, but there are lots of other ones. I think of a mage as more ''one that studies and uses magic'', and not limiting them to a single role.

And with D&D 3.5E, you can make a 'mage' be anything you want them to be. You can make any character what you want them.Yes, you can make a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard anything you want it to be - but that's because they're Tier 1 classes (AKA "Do Everything Better than Everyone Else!"), not because they were intended to be so. A poor fighter can't do anything except get run over, a rogue is laughed off and ignored, a monk cries in the corner.
Beguilers are strictly controllers.
Warmages are strictly strikers with Controller secondary.
Rogues are strictly strikers with controller as a distant tertiary
Rangers are strictly strikers with a little bit of controller or Leader secondary.
Barbarians are strikers and secondary Defenders.
Fighters are a joke that might be able to Defend with a Polearm Trip build, or Strike with an ubercharger.
Monks are strictly strikers that can't do damage.
Knights are strictly defenders unless they go Ubercharger.
Paladins have a bit of flexibility between Striker, Leader, and Defender, but can only be one of the three.
Factotums are a "Do Everything, but not as good as a wizard" class.
Warlocks are Controllers with a secondary in Striking.
Dragon Shaman are strictly Leaders with Defender secondary.
Bards are strictly Leaders that can take Striker or Controller secondary
... I'm missing several, but the point still stands. 3e still has classes pigeonholed into roles, but most of them simply happen to suck at that role (especially Defenders). Unless they're a caster.

[jedipotter]

Yes because everything a character in 4e is suited for is for their role, nor is their something like secondary rolls that vary according to approach nor are they good at anything else.
This just looks like you're trying to say something that's just "you're wrong in thinking that because you play 4e and it sucks".

That is not what I said. 4E D&D does limit the role each class can do. A fighter in 4E is a defender, that is what all the fighter abilities do and all you can pick from. And that is all fine if you want a narrow focused character.


Have you even played 3.5? A fighter is a "Dead Weight". The only characters that can become "Anything" are full casters.

Not true. I can make a Fighter that is an archer, horseman, body guard, pirate, or dozens of other roles. How does the fact that casters exist say my fighter can't be a pirate? It does not.



Actually, when most people think of fighters, they think of Meatshields/Last Man Standing/"None Shall Pass"

I guess that is true for most people. I think of fighters as much more, but I'm not most people.



The problem with 3.5 was there WAS no defender role because the only thing that matters is magic.

Not true. Why would magic be the only thing that mattered? Again you can make a pirate character and plunder the high seas. And, ok, a wizard can blow up the moon, so what?



Yes, you can make a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard anything you want it to be - but that's because they're Tier 1 classes (AKA "Do Everything Better than Everyone Else!"), not because they were intended to be so. A poor fighter can't do anything except get run over, a rogue is laughed off and ignored, a monk cries in the corner.

So again, ok, a spellcaster can blow up the moon, and this stops the other character's from acting how?



3e still has classes pigeonholed into roles, but most of them simply happen to suck at that role (especially Defenders). Unless they're a caster.

This is only true if the role your talking about is ''how much slaughter can the character do'', and they only ''suck'' if your benchmark is ''obliterating an army''.

You can make a perfectly good blaster fighter, say an archer, that can do a lot of damage over an area. Can a spellcaster do twice as much damage? Maybe? But so what? The point is the fighter can be a blaster. It's not like your going to compare only damage and say ''oh the fighter only did 45 damage and the wizard did 50, so the fighter sucks''.

[AMFV]

Have you ever played a game that gave these two complete and separate treatment?

For example, if you look at class options in a game and see something like 'Soldier' then you're generally going to think of the role of that class as dealing damage or doing some sort of defending, and if you see something like Mage then you'r more likely to think of some sort of utilitarian control or burning a bunch of cannon fodder with lightning. However, if you choose to be a soldier then there is generally the assumption that you just don't get to have a lot of utility or control, and if you play a mage then you're not really encouraged to take the beating for someone else.

What I'm interested in is splitting the roles away from the classes so that you could choose a class and a role separately. The class provides the theme, some specialized training, and a broad suite of abilities. The role provides some universal abilities and determines which categories of the class' ability suite are accessible to the player. So 'Soldier' might encompass 40 abilities, but some of them are only available to Defending Soldiers, some are only available to Controlling Soldiers, and so on. Both Controlling Soldiers and Controlling Mages would have Suppressing Fire though because it's a universal granted to everyone in that role.

I've been wanting to use something like this in a game that I've been conceptualizing in my spare time, but I have yet to play a game that does this and I'm curious about how well it works in practice for most people.

I think that's more a stylistic choice in play for many games than it is a game rules discussion. In D&D, I've had wizards who were soldiers, they thought of themselves as soldiers, had military experience and the like, their abilities might be not what you'd expect, but there would be soldiers in the military. Class-Concept separation varies a great deal from group to group in my experience. And it's possible to build a character whose conceptually very separate from his actual abilities.

[captpike]

alot of you seam to be confusing fluff and crunch. saying for example that your fighter can be a pirate is not relivent, ANY class can be a pirate if the player says he is.

what we are talking about is crunch, what roles the game supports for various classes.

as to something else brought up alot in these type of talks is that yes relative power matters. while you may be able to make a fighter in a party with a wizard if the fighter cant ever be important enough to matter. if everything he can do the wizard can do better and faster then the fighter class should not exist. and in fact does not have any roles.

people play RPGs to have an impact on the game world in at least a small way. a class that does not people have that mean the class failed.

[erikun]

I can't think of any game that gives you classes and uses a mechanical "something else" that provides a role for a character. Most games with classes use those classes to provide character abilities, which indirectly provide the character a "role" - in some cases, a character can purchase enough abilities on the side to take up a different role as well. There are a few class-based games where roles are something completely unrelated.

I'm not entirely sure what you are even looking for, as the primary point of having a "class" in a game is to provide a set of abilities that allow a character to do something relevant to the setting - that is, it provides the character a role. I suppose that there are systems that provide a "background package" or a set of skills representing racial abilities or training, which you'd likely find in point-based games like Gurps, Tri-Stat, or maybe M&M. However, I really wouldn't call that much of a class because you don't really "level up" in it beyond increasing the points of the package as a whole (and even that isn't manditory).

[AMFV]

alot of you seam to be confusing fluff and crunch. saying for example that your fighter can be a pirate is not relivent, ANY class can be a pirate if the player says he is.

what we are talking about is crunch, what roles the game supports for various classes.

as to something else brought up alot in these type of talks is that yes relative power matters. while you may be able to make a fighter in a party with a wizard if the fighter cant ever be important enough to matter. if everything he can do the wizard can do better and faster then the fighter class should not exist. and in fact does not have any roles.

people play RPGs to have an impact on the game world in at least a small way. a class that does not people have that mean the class failed.

Well in most games there aren't really set roles or necessarily even set classes. The idea of restrictive roles is pretty a video game centric concept, you can see it pretty prevalently in fourth edition but in 3.5 as far as D&D goes the idea of "roles" is kind of laughable at best.

In fact in 3.5 being flexible and able to change your role from time to time is the most effective thing, in other games different things are more effective, some games have a narrativist imperative and focus more on the narrative significance of roles (such as Buffy, or a few other games along those systems)

So in short as far as crunch goes... there aren't really defined roles in almost any game I've seen with the exception of fourth edition D&D.

[D-naras]

So when you say role, what exactly comes to mind? Because class is very much dependent on setting. A setting where the world is made of confections can have classes like the Ecclairator and the Tiramisorcerer. Roles IMHO are constant but variable. For instance:

Dealing Damage:

to many targets
to one target
by exploiting weaknesses
by Death of a Thousand Cuts
by One Massive Blow

Soaking Damage:

dealt to yourself
by tons of HP
by avoidance
by immunities
dealt to others
by pulling "Aggro" as it were
by redirecting hits off of their intended targets

Healing:

single target
multi-target
removing status effects
granting temporary HP

Support:

buffs
debuffs
using transformation effects

Information:

by being a delightful social butterfly
by being a horrible bully
by mind control
by divination
by connections

Movement:

by being the Ace Pilot.
due to owning the Airship
assorted magical abilities like teleportation and flight


A character can be good in any number of the above. The Ecclairator can be good at dealing damage to a single target, soaking damage done to him due to his enormous HP pool and be a god at information gathering because in the Confectionlands, Ecclairators gain huge bonuses to their social butteflynes. The Tiramisorcerer on the other hand is only limited by his choice of spells and can be exceptional at any of the above, with the exception of Airship ownership. That is the terrible price that all Tiramisorcerers must pay for supreme arcane power.

[captpike]

Well in most games there aren't really set roles or necessarily even set classes. The idea of restrictive roles is pretty a video game centric concept, you can see it pretty prevalently in fourth edition but in 3.5 as far as D&D goes the idea of "roles" is kind of laughable at best.

In fact in 3.5 being flexible and able to change your role from time to time is the most effective thing, in other games different things are more effective, some games have a narrativist imperative and focus more on the narrative significance of roles (such as Buffy, or a few other games along those systems)

So in short as far as crunch goes... there aren't really defined roles in almost any game I've seen with the exception of fourth edition D&D.

all RPGs have roles, that is because they are not constructs of game designers but because they are basic tactics.

one unit takes the damage
one unit does damage
one unit supports (heals and buffs)
one unit controls

they existed in every edition of D&D, its just that in non-4e editions rather then every class being able to do one or two of them (and only one at a time) some classes could do all of them (tier one) or none of them (fighters).

if you truly could bend every class to every role then tell me how you could heal as well as a cleirc as a fighter or rogue. without using spells.

[jedipotter]

alot of you seam to be confusing fluff and crunch. saying for example that your fighter can be a pirate is not relivent, ANY class can be a pirate if the player says he is.

Well, my 3.5E Pirate does not just put on a Long John Silver hat and say he is a pirate. He selects skills, feats, abilities and magic items to make himself a pirate. With the ton of wizard books there is plenty for him to take. Stormwrack, for example, has some things, like scourge of the seas. Ok, the fighter pirate can't do the wizard ''wiggle a pinky finger and blow up a whole fleet of ships'', but that does not matter. The pirate does not want to be a mass murderer, he just wants treasure from captured ships.




as to something else brought up alot in these type of talks is that yes relative power matters. while you may be able to make a fighter in a party with a wizard if the fighter cant ever be important enough to matter. if everything he can do the wizard can do better and faster then the fighter class should not exist. and in fact does not have any roles.

And this is why they made D&D 4E. So the fighter and wizard both do the exact 1d6+2 damage and are exactly fair and balanced and equal. And if you want to play different spins on the same character abilities, then 4E is your game.

The ''better and faster'' thing is just a myth, and it is mostly due to it being a self fulfilling myth. Everyone says it is true, so everyone does it.



people play RPGs to have an impact on the game world in at least a small way. a class that does not people have that mean the class failed.

But you can be a fighter pirate, with crunch, and impact the world. Over the course of a campaign you could become the most infamous pirate of them all. That would sure have impact on the world. And it would be lots of fun. And just as the wizard can blow up the moon, does not take away from that fun.

[erikun]

all RPGs have roles, that is because they are not constructs of game designers but because they are basic tactics.

one unit takes the damage
one unit does damage
one unit supports (heals and buffs)
one unit controls

they existed in every edition of D&D, its just that in non-4e editions rather then every class being able to do one or two of them (and only one at a time) some classes could do all of them (tier one) or none of them (fighters).

if you truly could bend every class to every role then tell me how you could heal as well as a cleirc as a fighter or rogue. without using spells.
I don't think Traveller has these roles, and it's been out since 1977, three years after D&D came out. RuneQuest certainly does not either, and it's been around almost as long.

I think your view of "all RPGs" is a bit D&D-centric.

[captpike]

And this is why they made D&D 4E. So the fighter and wizard both do the exact 1d6+2 damage and are exactly fair and balanced and equal. And if you want to play different spins on the same character abilities, then 4E is your game.

The ''better and faster'' thing is just a myth, and it is mostly due to it being a self fulfilling myth. Everyone says it is true, so everyone does it.


you have no place in talking about 4e given you have real idea how it works.

3.x is much much worse for having "Classes" be different. give half the classes don't really have class ability they just have feats. the other half don't even have unique spells they just pull from the communal grab-bag.





But you can be a fighter pirate, with crunch, and impact the world. Over the course of a campaign you could become the most infamous pirate of them all. That would sure have impact on the world. And it would be lots of fun. And just as the wizard can blow up the moon, does not take away from that fun.

it means that you only impacted the world because A) your DM meta-gamed for you, ignored the fact your a fighter (there is no good reason to fear a fighter in 3.x) and it means that the casters in your party were humoring you, allowing you to do things slowly they could do fast.

its like watching a 10 year old "beat" his father at basketball, its not real.

[AMFV]

all RPGs have roles, that is because they are not constructs of game designers but because they are basic tactics.

one unit takes the damage
one unit does damage
one unit supports (heals and buffs)
one unit controls

they existed in every edition of D&D, its just that in non-4e editions rather then every class being able to do one or two of them (and only one at a time) some classes could do all of them (tier one) or none of them (fighters).

if you truly could bend every class to every role then tell me how you could heal as well as a cleirc as a fighter or rogue. without using spells.

That isn't really the way it is. In fact in 3.5 those aren't defined roles at all. The first role literally cannot exist since there is no aggro mechanic and no way to force an intelligent enemy to target you. The second role exists to some degree but tends to be spread out around different character types. The third role is muddy and may include the second or fourth. The fourth roll may include some combination of all of the roles.

Suggesting those kind of roles for 3.5 shows that you really don't have a good understanding of how 3.5 combat roles work and operate. Because that isn't it. Not even close. You could make an argument for roles, where on is, "Mitigates combat damage" typically done with controlling, or some kind of avoidance system, one is deals HP damage or incapacitates the enemy, which can be combined with several other roles as well. It's just very difficult to limit 3.5 to those kind of roles.

As I've said those roles really don't exist in that particular system, in fact there are many systems that don't have them. The only system I can think of that really has those concrete roles as a design feature is 4E, where it clearly is a deliberate design feature.

[captpike]

That isn't really the way it is. In fact in 3.5 those aren't defined roles at all. The first role literally cannot exist since there is no aggro mechanic and no way to force an intelligent enemy to target you. The second role exists to some degree but tends to be spread out around different character types. The third role is muddy and may include the second or fourth. The fourth roll may include some combination of all of the roles.

Suggesting those kind of roles for 3.5 shows that you really don't have a good understanding of how 3.5 combat roles work and operate. Because that isn't it. Not even close. You could make an argument for roles, where on is, "Mitigates combat damage" typically done with controlling, or some kind of avoidance system, one is deals HP damage or incapacitates the enemy, which can be combined with several other roles as well. It's just very difficult to limit 3.5 to those kind of roles.

As I've said those roles really don't exist in that particular system, in fact there are many systems that don't have them. The only system I can think of that really has those concrete roles as a design feature is 4E, where it clearly is a deliberate design feature.

I am not saying every system is as discrete as 4e with roles, I am saying that every action every character takes that can effect the outcome of a fight falls into one of those four roles. yes there was no real way to play a effective defender in 3.x, this was a major flaw in the game given how big a archetype it is to be the guy who protects others in melee.

in 3.5 many classes had no roles and were therefor useless, some (tier 1) had too many so were overpowered. (see above post where another poster listed alot of examples)

every system has the roles, but not many work with them and make it so that the above does not happen. it is easy to just give casters everything, give non-casters what is "realistic" and call it a day. that is what 3.x did.

what is harder (and needed in a modern game) is to make sure everyone can contribute, you don't do what 3.x did and have everyone either too powerful or not powerful enough.

[AMFV]

I am not saying every system is as discrete as 4e with roles, I am saying that every action every character takes that can effect the outcome of a fight falls into one of those four roles. yes there was no real way to play a effective defender in 3.x, this was a major flaw in the game given how big a archetype it is to be the guy who protects others in melee.

in 3.5 many classes had no roles and were therefor useless, some (tier 1) had too many so were overpowered. (see above post where another poster listed alot of examples)

every system has the roles, but not many work with them and make it so that the above does not happen. it is easy to just give casters everything, give non-casters what is "realistic" and call it a day. that is what 3.x did.

what is harder (and needed in a modern game) is to make sure everyone can contribute, you don't do what 3.x did and have everyone either too powerful or not powerful enough.

That's not really a major flaw in the system, those concrete roles don't really exist in most games. I think the only place you could call that a flaw is if you were doing a direct comparison to fourth edition. Which is the only system I've seen with those roles in a concrete sense. As far as strategy goes flexibility is generally better when available than concrete roles, which is something D&D models really well, up to 4E.

[jedipotter]

3.x is much much worse for having "Classes" be different. give half the classes don't really have class ability they just have feats. the other half don't even have unique spells they just pull from the communal grab-bag.

So you want every class to have unique abilities that are all balanced and equal with each other? Well that is 4E....

And I guess any character can take most feats in 3X. Except for the ones with lots of prerequisites. A wizard can't just take say whirlwind attack by itself. And the feats limited by race and such.






it means that you only impacted the world because A) your DM meta-gamed for you, ignored the fact your a fighter (there is no good reason to fear a fighter in 3.x) and it means that the casters in your party were humoring you, allowing you to do things slowly they could do fast.

its like watching a 10 year old "beat" his father at basketball, its not real.

Well, it is more like grandpa making things easy for Dad. Or in the case of the RPG, the DM just letting the player get away with anything. That is the real problem with spellcasters in 3X. If the DM sits back and does nothing but cater to the spellcasters everyone will say ''that is how the game should be played''. But should the DM step up and do anything, the players of spellcaster characters will complain ''that is not how the game is played.''

[captpike]

Well, it is more like grandpa making things easy for Dad. Or in the case of the RPG, the DM just letting the player get away with anything. That is the real problem with spellcasters in 3X. If the DM sits back and does nothing but cater to the spellcasters everyone will say ''that is how the game should be played''. But should the DM step up and do anything, the players of spellcaster characters will complain ''that is not how the game is played.''

that is the problem, both are bad. its why if the classes are balanced and a evil powerful warlord is as dangerous as a evil wizard it makes things much better.

[AMFV]

that is the problem, both are bad. its why if the classes are balanced and a evil powerful warlord is as dangerous as a evil wizard it makes things much better.

You forgot to add in my opinion. Because many people love and enjoy 3.5, or Rolemaster, or WoD, or the many games without clear definition of roles, in fact that's the majority of games.

[jedipotter]

that is the problem, both are bad. its why if the classes are balanced and a evil powerful warlord is as dangerous as a evil wizard it makes things much better.

But true balance is impossible. Unless you just copy the class whatever one you think is best, and give the abilities to all the classes. So the fighter would have the 3rd level power Firecut that they can use a couple times a day, has a range, and explodes over an area for 1d6 damage/level. Oh, and the fighter can apply metapower feats to it an put in in powered items.

And most people on the boards would say ''balance'' is something like ''contributing to the game equally'', but how do you measure that?

[captpike]

You forgot to add in my opinion. Because many people love and enjoy 3.5, or Rolemaster, or WoD, or the many games without clear definition of roles, in fact that's the majority of games.

I refuse to add "in my opinion" to everything I say. I also refuse to censer myself for the sole purpose of making people feel better.

and like I said roles are not opinion they are fact, some inferior games don't acknowledge this, and end up making the game unbalanced (3.x) that does not change the fact that they do exist, they have existed and they will exist in every RPG ever made. trying to make a RPG without roles would be like making one without damage, it would not be a RPG.

and yes people enjoy 3.x games, that does not mean there are not huge flaws in the basic way they are made, flaws that should be learned from and fixed. (many of which were fixed in 4e)

[captpike]

But true balance is impossible. Unless you just copy the class whatever one you think is best, and give the abilities to all the classes. So the fighter would have the 3rd level power Firecut that they can use a couple times a day, has a range, and explodes over an area for 1d6 damage/level. Oh, and the fighter can apply metapower feats to it an put in in powered items.

And most people on the boards would say ''balance'' is something like ''contributing to the game equally'', but how do you measure that?

perfect anything is impossible, that does not mean one should not try, you get as close as is practical.

just because something is difficult does not mean you should not try.

[AMFV]

I refuse to add "in my opinion" to everything I say. I also refuse to censer myself for the sole purpose of making people feel better.

and like I said roles are not opinion they are fact, some inferior games don't acknowledge this, and end up making the game unbalanced (3.x) that does not change the fact that they do exist, they have existed and they will exist in every RPG ever made. trying to make a RPG without roles would be like making one without damage, it would not be a RPG.

and yes people enjoy 3.x games, that does not mean there are not huge flaws in the basic way they are made, flaws that should be learned from and fixed. (many of which were fixed in 4e)

They aren't fact, the roles simply do not exist in any real way in 3.5. Or in WoD, or in Traveler, or in Shadowrun, or in AD&D, or in FATE, or in any game I've ever played with the exception of 4E. They could be considered guidelines at best, but even that is pretty difficult to properly justify, most roleplaying games simply do not have a combat or encounter system that works like that, or with a framework like that. And prior to the existence of MMORPGs you'll find few who would decry that as a flaw.

[captpike]

They aren't fact, the roles simply do not exist in any real way in 3.5. Or in WoD, or in Traveler, or in Shadowrun, or in AD&D, or in FATE, or in any game I've ever played with the exception of 4E. They could be considered guidelines at best, but even that is pretty difficult to properly justify, most roleplaying games simply do not have a combat or encounter system that works like that, or with a framework like that. And prior to the existence of MMORPGs you'll find few who would decry that as a flaw.

then please detail a class that can pull its own weight in a fight without doing any of following:

takes damage for the party
does damage
supports (heals and buffs)
controls

the reason they exist in MMOs is because they are natural construct of basic tactics.

[AMFV]

then please detail a class that can pull its own weight in a fight without doing any of following:

takes damage for the party

What does takes damage for the party mean? If you mean forces something to attack you rather than something else then that's not really present in most fights. Certainly in WoD, and definitely not in 3.5 at least in that system under standard conditions.

If you mean takes damage at all, then that's not really a fair categorization, that's a role that is shared by everybody in most systems. WoD, D&D, Shadowrun, those all have shared damage among the party.



does damage

Again this is generally a roll filled by everybody. In the majority of roleplaying systems many character types can do damage well. Actually in 3.5 this is one roll the wizard does not excel in without highly focused optimization.



supports (heals and buffs)

Certainly not present in every game, in Shadowrun there is almost never a dedicated healer or buffer for example. In 3.5 combat healing is waste of time and buffing may be a waste of time mid-combat. So not really a role either



controls


Controlling has such a wide meaning that I would have to ask to better clarify it, if you mean that one makes certain tactics impossible because they are no longer desirable that's an option.



the reason they exist in MMOs is because they are natural construct of basic tactics.

Not really, they are construction of basic video game tactics and in large part that results from an aggro system, since there is no such system in roleplaying games, it means that the roles fundamentally do not work as well. Without a way to force enemies to target the Tank, healing becomes inefficient and difficult to work properly, without an effective controller, the tank may not be able to take all the damage. DPSing becomes more important where there is a rage timer, that's why those roles exist, because of the nuances of the video game systems, I've kind of picked up them apart in the earlier sections of the post.

[Scow2]

Well in most games there aren't really set roles or necessarily even set classes. The idea of restrictive roles is pretty a video game centric concept, you can see it pretty prevalently in fourth edition but in 3.5 as far as D&D goes the idea of "roles" is kind of laughable at best.

In fact in 3.5 being flexible and able to change your role from time to time is the most effective thing, in other games different things are more effective, some games have a narrativist imperative and focus more on the narrative significance of roles (such as Buffy, or a few other games along those systems)

So in short as far as crunch goes... there aren't really defined roles in almost any game I've seen with the exception of fourth edition D&D.Actually, party roles are present in every game, though they change from system to system depending on what it emphasizes. It's not a videogame concept - it's a real-world teamwork concept known as Distribution of Labor. Roles emerge to allow players to specialize in getting certain tasks done, and some classes lend themselves better to specific jobs than others.

[AMFV]

Actually, party roles are present in every game, though they change from system to system depending on what it emphasizes. It's not a videogame concept - it's a real-world teamwork concept known as Distribution of Labor. Roles emerge to allow players to specialize in getting certain tasks done, and some classes lend themselves better to specific jobs than others.

Well there's distribution of labor but not always rigidly defined roles. In a roleplaying game oftentimes many people can fill differing roles depending on how broadly you define them fairly quickly. Truly rigid role definition is usually only present in video games. The only thing you might see that's even close to that in the real world, where there's no swift changing between roles is in sports, and that's not even always the case.

While you might divide labor up between different people according to their skillset in very few roleplaying games is it strictly segregated, particularly along the lines that were suggested earlier, as I explained in my response. We miss most of the real life roles, including supervision, which tends to be critically important in the real world, where tasks proceed at real time and having somebody on the outside to observe and change operations as necessary is critical, I would say the supervision-worker designation is more common in the real world and that certainly translates poorly into an RPG.

Furthermore an RPG often encourages diversity of roles and versatility, which is the exact opposite of encouraging rigid roles. Being able to fill multiple roles is usually the best solution a stark contrast to video games where there is a desire to box people into one, also as I've said a trait present in 4E, at least to my knowledge, although it is possible that no RPG really enforces that particular bound.

So while division of labor exists, rarely do you find standardized roles in the same fashion as is being discussed here, particularly not in the same terms, those are usually only present in a video game. By his definition we have a Tank, a DPS, a healer, and a Controller, those are pretty much the cookie cutter roles, in a Role-Playing game that's not so much the case.

[StoryKeeper]

I just wanted to toss in my two copper pieces:

* Not all systems have roles. I can't think of a class system that doesn't have roles, but games like FATE or Don't Rest Your Head don't necessarily lead to one guy being tanky, one guying being could at damage output, etc. You can probably build a character that has the option of filling such a role, but the game isn't designed around those roles existing within your party.

* D&D, at least version 3.X and upwards, do have roles. I'm really not clear (despite having read this entire thread thus far) how you can argue otherwise, AMFV. There are a bajillion threads on this very forum where people refer to roles or inclinations of D&D classes. 4th edition was just more overt about it.

A fighter has lots of hitpoints and easy access to heavy armor proficiency. "Aggro" may not be a thing in 3.X, but he's clearly going to be more comfortable on the front line trying to freak out nearby enemies than a bard or a rogue is.

A rogue has sneak attack and will have an easier time doing tons of damage than most fighters or clerics.

The cleric can heal while most other classes can't for the most part.

That doesn't mean you can't figure out a way to buff your allies with a rogue or do skill-monkey stuff with a fighter, but some classes are clearly better at some things than others.

Fighters will have an easier time standing at the front and getting hit without dying. This means that they can "tank" by making it annoying for enemies to have to move around them or by simply having a GM who has enemies go, "Oh crud! A big scary guy with a sword is right next to me! I think I'll focus on dealing with him rather than that skinny guy all the way over there."

Rogues will have an easier time dealing damage to a single target than a fighter. Sure, you can take feats to increase your fighter's damage, and Pathfinder even helps level things out a fair bit, but the rogue is still going to be better at hurting things than your fighter assuming a comparable degree of optimization for damage output.

Clerics will be better at "buffing" and "supporting" their allies than fighters or rogues in most cases. Sure, a fighter might be able to take the right feats to do some sort of controller build that indirectly buffs the party, but he's doing that by investing multiple feats into it and succeeding on attack rolls, and then he generally has to keep up the pressure to retain that advantage. A cleric just snaps his fingers and gives everyone a bonus to Strength or AC or whatever.

* "Being able to fill multiple roles is usually the best solution a stark contrast to video games where there is a desire to box people into one, also as I've said a trait present in 4E, at least to my knowledge, although it is possible that no RPG really enforces that particular bound."
-AMFV

Which is why everyone plays bards, right? After all, they can heal, stab things, buff people, and have lots of skills. Oh wait, the bard is often laughed at because D&D reward specialization over diversity.

To be fair, some RPGs (not D&D) do encourage diversity by making it progressively more costly or difficult to improve a single type of ability. For example a forces mage in New World of Darkness can by a 5th dot in the blow-stuff-up form of magic, but he could also become passably competent in multiple other disciplines for the same cost.


* Just because 4th edition feels very "samey" with its classes doesn't mean that balance is impossible or bad. People generally acknowledge fighters in 3.5 to be underwhelming compared to wizards. This doesn't even have to be because the wizard is using a cheesey build. The wizard can end a fight with one min-control spell while the fighter might have to hack away at hit points round after round to get similar results. I don't demand that a system make two classes completely identical in abilities, but it isn't much fun to just finish killing your first enemy or two only to realize that the wizard already dealt with the other 10 by virtue of having more potent or flexible powers. But 1st tier casters are kind of their own discussion.


* In regards to the opening poster's question, class-based games usually imply that there's some sort of role involved. Classless games and games that let you flavor your abilities in lots of different ways will allow for similar thematics but without the innate crunch differences. In FATE, for example, you could be a "fiendish warlock" with glowing magical effects, skull-decorated armor, and so forth. With basically the same mechanics, you could instead be a high-tech Tony Stark style guy with comparable abilities. Or a fire-ball slinging warmage in FATE might be mechanically similar to an elven archer.

The only thing that comes to mind as using classes but not promoting a certain for a given class is Guild War 2. I know, I know. It's not tabletop. It is, however, notable for letting you be a solid tank, controller, or dps guy with any of the classes available provided you choose the right options.

[AMFV]

I just wanted to toss in my two copper pieces:

* Not all systems have roles. I can't think of a class system that doesn't have roles, but games like FATE or Don't Rest Your Head don't necessarily lead to one guy being tanky, one guying being could at damage output, etc. You can probably build a character that has the option of filling such a role, but the game isn't designed around those roles existing within your party.

* D&D, at least version 3.X and upwards, do have roles. I'm really not clear (despite having read this entire thread thus far) how you can argue otherwise, AMFV. There are a bajillion threads on this very forum where people refer to roles or inclinations of D&D classes. 4th edition was just more overt about it.

Not really, they talk about general roles, but not really a defined, what roles would you define in 3.5? BFC? That's not really a role, it's a particular set of spells. Debuffing? Also not a role but a particular set of spells, buffing? The same. Most of the roles are covered by certain set of spells not classes. Furthermore they aren't really strictly defined in practice. Generally the ability to cover all roles is usually the best.

So what would you define as the roles as?



A fighter has lots of hitpoints and easy access to heavy armor proficiency. "Aggro" may not be a thing in 3.X, but he's clearly going to be more comfortable on the front line trying to freak out nearby enemies than a bard or a rogue is.


Not even close to a bard with Mirror Image and Concealment up, the fighters taking all of those hits, the bard's not taking half of them. (Less actually)



A rogue has sneak attack and will have an easier time doing tons of damage than most fighters or clerics.

A charge build fighter will wipe the rogue in damage, with very little difficulty, of course not minding the two levels of barbarian. Also the rogue sucks against undead, Rogues are some of the worst most situational damage in D&D, they need tons of feats to do damage, have medium BAB, and are unreliable, they aren't really that great.



The cleric can heal while most other classes can't for the most part.


A Wizard with Arcane Disciple can heal, a bard can heal, anyone with UMD and a wand can heal, healing in combat is typically inefficient and wastes actions, which are the real currency in 3.5.



That doesn't mean you can't figure out a way to buff your allies with a rogue or do skill-monkey stuff with a fighter, but some classes are clearly better at some things than others.

But a wizard, druid, cleric, or artificer can do all of the roles, easily and change between them, inasmuch as there are roles. Which again their really aren't.



Fighters will have an easier time standing at the front and getting hit without dying. This means that they can "tank" by making it annoying for enemies to have to move around them or by simply having a GM who has enemies go, "Oh crud! A big scary guy with a sword is right next to me! I think I'll focus on dealing with him rather than that skinny guy all the way over there."


Or a smart GM, who will go, "Wait, almost all enemies have flight, or Some other alternative movement mode, and those that can't can tumble." Also smart enemies will notice that scary guy with a sword is doing like zero damage, and will cast hold person on him, if they feel like wasting the time to incapacitate him, or have him not die completely useless.



Rogues will have an easier time dealing damage to a single target than a fighter. Sure, you can take feats to increase your fighter's damage, and Pathfinder even helps level things out a fair bit, but the rogue is still going to be better at hurting things than your fighter assuming a comparable degree of optimization for damage output.

Again, not really true, particularly in any of the dozens of cases where the rogue is worthless.



Clerics will be better at "buffing" and "supporting" their allies than fighters or rogues in most cases. Sure, a fighter might be able to take the right feats to do some sort of controller build that indirectly buffs the party, but he's doing that by investing multiple feats into it and succeeding on attack rolls, and then he generally has to keep up the pressure to retain that advantage. A cleric just snaps his fingers and gives everyone a bonus to Strength or AC or whatever.

Again that's not really roles, that's more you applying D&D classes toward your idea of roles, which aren't really that strict in combat, or 3.5, if you can change every day or more often, or cover different roles per day, that's not really a defined role per se.



* Just because 4th edition feels very "samey" with its classes doesn't mean that balance is impossible or bad. People generally acknowledge fighters in 3.5 to be underwhelming compared to wizards. This doesn't even have to be because the wizard is using a cheesey build. The wizard can end a fight with one min-control spell while the fighter might have to hack away at hit points round after round to get similar results.

Fourth Edition isn't bad... But it does have more defined roles. That's the case, 3.5 simply doesn't really have defined roles, you can build towards a certain idea, but as far as forced roles go, they don't really exist.



* In regards to the opening poster's question, class-based games usually imply that there's some sort of role involved. Classless games and games that let you flavor your abilities in lots of different ways will allow for similar thematics but without the innate crunch differences. In FATE, for example, you could be a "fiendish warlock" with glowing magical effects, skull-decorated armor, and so forth. With basically the same mechanics, you could instead be a high-tech Tony Stark style guy with comparable abilities. Or a fire-ball slinging warmage in FATE might be mechanically similar to an elven archer.

Well that depends on the classes and how heavily customizable they are, again in 3.5, you don't really have any strong roles in the same fashion. It's just not that definied, you can ersatz define roles, or may have one role at one time or one at another, but they're far to transitive to be called defined roles or assigned to specific classes.

Edit: Also the worse thing is that in 3.5 you can get by with all controllers, or all debuffers, or all healers, or all damage, just fine, that kind of makes the whole role idea at the very least limited and ineffective as it is applied to that system. In fact all controllers, buffers, or debuffers is probably more effective than including the other roles in most circumstances.

[StoryKeeper]

"Fourth Edition isn't bad... But it does have more defined roles. That's the case, 3.5 simply doesn't really have defined roles, you can build towards a certain idea, but as far as forced roles go, they don't really exist."

Ah, I think I found our disconnect. You seem to be stating that roles don't exist because you can potentially build most classes to serve most battlefield functions. I'm stating that, while you can build most classes for most functions, some classes have more options or innate aptitude for certain functions. Does that sound about right? Or am I misunderstanding you?

For instance, you mention how a charge-build fighter can outdamage a rogue. Yes, that particular build is able to have higher damage output, but that's a relatively optimized and specific build. Basically, I agree that you can get most classes to do pretty much anything, but some classes are innately better at them than others. I named the rogue as the class in general. You pointed out a relatively specific build.

A bard can heal, with a wand, but that's not the result of his class. Clerics are good at healing (in as much as healing is useful in 3.5) right out of the box. I could avoid giving a cleric anything healing-related at all, and he'd still be a half-decent backup healer just because of his ability to cast healing spells spontaneously.

I could build a 3.5 warlock with an emphasis on tanking by giving him a decent Constitution score, enchanted armor, and maybe some invocations to help him heal or avoid damage, but most of his options are going to lend themselves more towards mobility or dealing damage than to taking a punch on the chin. Meanwhile, the fighter with his larger hit die and automatic access to more effective armor is working half as hard to be just as survivable.

It's not that you can't serve a given function with some classes. It's just that other classes do it a lot more easily, with less thought required to pull of an unorthodox or highly optimized build.

I won't go into the usefulness of situational damage because I don't feel it directly relates to the topic. I generally find my rogues are presented with more than enough squishy meat-people that can be backstabbed even if there are a lot of foes that can't be, and those who play Pathfinder will have a larger number of monster types to attack. A rogue usually won't have a problem dealing lots of damage more easily than most of his fellow party members provided he can get off his sneak attack.

"But a wizard, druid, cleric, or artificer can do all of the roles, easily and change between them, inasmuch as there are roles. Which again their really aren't."
I'm specifically avoiding classes such as these because, as stated repeatedly in this thread already, these classes can do anything, and they can generally do it better than their less magical friends. So yes, my argument that roles exist do sort of break down when presented with the full casters that can do everything better than non full casters, but I feel that that's its own discussion.

Roles that I've always felt existed in 3.X and Pathfinder include:
-Meatshield: Characters who are relatively durable due to higher hit points, armor class, magical effects, or what have you.

-Blaster: Characters who are good at dealing damage to multiple enemies at once. This is generally the guy with AoE damage spells, but a fighter with cleave or something similar would fall into this role as well.

-Manipulator/Controller: This one's relatively vague. It's basically someone who either alters enemy conditions or the battlefield itself. So this could be the guy who put a wall up to block off the enemy, the chain fighter who goes around tripping everyone in sight, or even a conjuror who puts an emphasis on locking down enemies with summoned monsters (though summoned monsters could really fill multiple role quite easily.)

-Healer: Kind of self-explanatory. Note that I'm not arguing the usefulness of healing versus higher damage output, but this is definitely an acknowledged "role" within D&D.

-Striker: The "DPS" guy. Where I see a blaster doing damage to multiple enemies, I see the striker doing lots of damage to a single enemy at a time. This is where rogues or charging fighters fall for me.


"Well that depends on the classes and how heavily customizable they are, again in 3.5, you don't really have any strong roles in the same fashion. It's just not that definied, you can ersatz define roles, or may have one role at one time or one at another, but they're far to transitive to be called defined roles or assigned to specific classes.

Edit: Also the worse thing is that in 3.5 you can get by with all controllers, or all debuffers, or all healers, or all damage, just fine, that kind of makes the whole role idea at the very least limited and ineffective as it is applied to that system. In fact all controllers, buffers, or debuffers is probably more effective than including the other roles in most circumstances"

I'll grant you, 3.5 is a lot more flexible with its classes than 4e is. You're definitely right there.

Saying that casters disprove the existence of roles just doesn't work for me because full casters are generally acknowledged to be better at pretty much everything than anyone else. Yes, a wizard can out-tank a fighter, out-kill a rogue, and be better at locking down foes or general utility functions than anyone else. That doesn't mean that all classes are innately good at different tasks. It means that wizards (and other full casters) are simply a lot more flexible and powerful than less magically inclined classes.

[LibraryOgre]

Sounds similar to what goes on in Star Wars: The Old Republic.

Each class has a certain suite of abilities, and two subclasses that specialize it. So a Jedi Knight (class) can go Guardian (Tank) or Sentinel (DPS). A Jedi Consular can go Sage (Heals, DPS) or Shadow (DPS, off tank). A Smuggler can go Gunslinger (DPS) or Scoundrel (Heals, DPS). A Trooper can go Commando (Heals, DPS) or Vanguard (Tank, DPS), with further specialization possible within the roles (so you can have a Scoundrel who is very healy, or a Scoundrel who focuses more on DPS).

[Frozen_Feet]

This thread suffers from really bad definitions of "class" and "role".

When I think of "class", I think of either a) a construct that gives game abilities to a character (Fighter, Mage, Thief), b) character caste/vocation within the gameworld (guardsman, police officer, burglar) or c) both.

When I think of "role", I think of either a) the character's caste/vocation within the gameworld or b) the character's narrative purpose in a meta-game sense (PC/NPC, hero/villain, protagonist/antagonist).

The tactical roles talked about in this thread (attacker, defender, support, control) don't neatly fit any of these. Maybe, and just maybe, in terms of the first category: a construct that gives game abilities to a character.

In that light, the question is ass-backwards. Only 4th Ed D&D actually enforces any connection between class and tactical role that I'm aware of. In pretty much any other game system, a character of any construct, caste or narrative purpose can fulfill any of the talked-about tactical roles.

For example, in AD&D, the "class" Fighter (construct) can easily enough attack enemies ("I hit it with my sword!"), defend allies ("I get between the enemy and my friend!"), support ("I give potion/first-aid to fallen comrade!") and control ("I break the dam, letting water flood in the corridor and stopping my enemies!") Sure, it's much harder to optimize for some of these, than some others, but it's doable - a group of all Fighters is easily doable.

The Fighter can also be a guard, a mercenary, a knight, a nomad or a pig farmer so the "class" of Fighter still allows for a wide variety of different "roles" in terms of vocation.

And since Fighters are not restricted by alignment, they can fulfill pretty much any narrative "role" (hero, villain, side-character...).

In all iterations of World of Darkness, your "class" is the kind of creature you are, and all other "roles" are left up to your imagination.

Ditto for Exalted.

GURPS and other point-based systems don't have either mechanically enforced "classes" or "roles".

So really, I'd say it's more common for games to have classes separate from roles, than other way around.

[AMFV]

"Fourth Edition isn't bad... But it does have more defined roles. That's the case, 3.5 simply doesn't really have defined roles, you can build towards a certain idea, but as far as forced roles go, they don't really exist."

Ah, I think I found our disconnect. You seem to be stating that roles don't exist because you can potentially build most classes to serve most battlefield functions. I'm stating that, while you can build most classes for most functions, some classes have more options or innate aptitude for certain functions. Does that sound about right? Or am I misunderstanding you?


I'm saying that there are no necessary roles, tanks aren't necessary, it's possible to build around having no damage dealt at all in the game. Controlling is the most powerful, but you can manage without it. Healing in combat can be rendered unnecessary by having controlling present. Basically the roles are fungible almost completely.



For instance, you mention how a charge-build fighter can outdamage a rogue. Yes, that particular build is able to have higher damage output, but that's a relatively optimized and specific build. Basically, I agree that you can get most classes to do pretty much anything, but some classes are innately better at them than others. I named the rogue as the class in general. You pointed out a relatively specific build.

A bard can heal, with a wand, but that's not the result of his class. Clerics are good at healing (in as much as healing is useful in 3.5) right out of the box. I could avoid giving a cleric anything healing-related at all, and he'd still be a half-decent backup healer just because of his ability to cast healing spells spontaneously.

Right, but healing isn't a necessary or important role in 3.5, you can use controlling, debuffing or buffing to mitigate damage, thus making healing irrelevant since it can't control, buff, or debuff at the same time.



I could build a 3.5 warlock with an emphasis on tanking by giving him a decent Constitution score, enchanted armor, and maybe some invocations to help him heal or avoid damage, but most of his options are going to lend themselves more towards mobility or dealing damage than to taking a punch on the chin. Meanwhile, the fighter with his larger hit die and automatic access to more effective armor is working half as hard to be just as survivable.

Tanking is completely irrelevant in 3.5, more so than healing, surviving is the worst type of thing to be good at, when at high levels the game transforms into rocket tag.

The point, the more significant point is that no role in 3.5 is required and all of them can be done without, so why have them, I mean you can classify things, but there are no really necessary roles, not even damage, all of them can either be done without or avoided. That's the difference between most roleplaying games and 4E, so far as I'm aware. I could be mistaken, it's possible that there really aren't needed roles in 4E either.

So again the main point is that there really aren't any necessary roles, any can be substituted or done without completely.

[erikun]

Well there's distribution of labor but not always rigidly defined roles. In a roleplaying game oftentimes many people can fill differing roles depending on how broadly you define them fairly quickly. Truly rigid role definition is usually only present in video games. The only thing you might see that's even close to that in the real world, where there's no swift changing between roles is in sports, and that's not even always the case.
I agree; division of labor does not automatically mean roles, and it certainly does not mean that the system itself is creating roles for characters.

As an example, think about a team with three characters. One is tougher than the rest, one is faster, while one is a ranged attacker. One division of labor would be to have the tough character move up and engage opponents directly, while the fast one circles around and attacks the flanks and archers, and the ranged character picks off difficult targets and forces opponents into cover.

However, this doesn't mean that there are system-defined roles for them. This doesn't mean that the system as a specific fast-moving role, defined by classes or character abilities, which is supposed to circle around and pick off enemy archers. It doesn't mean there are Tough classes and Fast classes and Ranged classes. Rather, it means that with this set of abilities, and in this particular game, that's how the three characters work together to overcome challenges.


Ah, I think I found our disconnect. You seem to be stating that roles don't exist because you can potentially build most classes to serve most battlefield functions. I'm stating that, while you can build most classes for most functions, some classes have more options or innate aptitude for certain functions. Does that sound about right? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of D&D3e classes either fit all the roles or were just poor in their "chosen" role compared to others. I could build a Cleric, for instance, that was as good of a meatshield as a Fighter - even before spellcasting. Bards get healing spells and could heal as well as a Cleric. The Wizard, tossing out a basic Fireball, deals more damage than a Rogue and to more targets, more frequently. The Artificer, entirely through it's design, can replicate every other class.

Even if we're ignoring the powerful T1/T2 classes, we still run into problems. Any sort of Blaster (as you call it) will be throwing out around 1d6/level in damage, making them the Striker as well. Most Manipulator/Controllers are the same class as the Blaster. Healer is not that necessary of a role in D&D3e, and when it comes to patching characters up after a fight, anyone with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds will be better than even a Cleric without one. That just leaves the Meatshield, and with enough CON literally anyone (even the party Wizard) can become a Meatshield.

[StoryKeeper]

"The point, the more significant point is that no role in 3.5 is required and all of them can be done without, so why have them, I mean you can classify things, but there are no really necessary roles, not even damage, all of them can either be done without or avoided. That's the difference between most roleplaying games and 4E, so far as I'm aware. I could be mistaken, it's possible that there really aren't needed roles in 4E either. "

Ah, now this makes sense to me, and I can totally agree with that. There's no role that's specifically mandatory in D&D (even in 4th edition.) Your party might be more effective if you, for instance, traded a healer for another damage dealer or something along those lines, and you certainly aren't required to have a striker or a tank or a healer or whatever.

I feel 4th edition encourages players to make sure certain roles are filled (killing tough monsters is more of a headache without a striker), but some of the 4e books actually address how to handle a party that lacks a given role or has multiples of another role.

"
Even if we're ignoring the powerful T1/T2 classes, we still run into problems. Any sort of Blaster (as you call it) will be throwing out around 1d6/level in damage, making them the Striker as well. Most Manipulator/Controllers are the same class as the Blaster. Healer is not that necessary of a role in D&D3e, and when it comes to patching characters up after a fight, anyone with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds will be better than even a Cleric without one. That just leaves the Meatshield, and with enough CON literally anyone (even the party Wizard) can become a Meatshield. "

You make good points here, but I still think a lot of those problems do come back to full casters. The guys who can blast, mind-control monsters, manipulate terrain, and heal all by themselves tend to be casters. A wizard/sorcerer does 1d6/level damage while hitting multiple targets and being good at other things, but what other class does that? I may well be forgetting about some classes, but it seems to me the classes with that degree of flexibility are usually casters, are they not?

[AMFV]

"The point, the more significant point is that no role in 3.5 is required and all of them can be done without, so why have them, I mean you can classify things, but there are no really necessary roles, not even damage, all of them can either be done without or avoided. That's the difference between most roleplaying games and 4E, so far as I'm aware. I could be mistaken, it's possible that there really aren't needed roles in 4E either. "

Ah, now this makes sense to me, and I can totally agree with that. There's no role that's specifically mandatory in D&D (even in 4th edition.) Your party might be more effective if you, for instance, traded a healer for another damage dealer or something along those lines, and you certainly aren't required to have a striker or a tank or a healer or whatever.

I feel 4th edition encourages players to make sure certain roles are filled (killing tough monsters is more of a headache without a striker), but some of the 4e books actually address how to handle a party that lacks a given role or has multiples of another role.

See this is where the editions diverge, killing tough monsters is less of a headache in 3.5 if you go into complete and total overkill along one role, damage can do it, or controlling or debuffing or buffing. So you're almost better off excluding certain roles, which aren't really formally defined in any significant way either.

[Morty]

This thread suffers from really bad definitions of "class" and "role".

When I think of "class", I think of either a) a construct that gives game abilities to a character (Fighter, Mage, Thief), b) character caste/vocation within the gameworld (guardsman, police officer, burglar) or c) both.

When I think of "role", I think of either a) the character's caste/vocation within the gameworld or b) the character's narrative purpose in a meta-game sense (PC/NPC, hero/villain, protagonist/antagonist).

The tactical roles talked about in this thread (attacker, defender, support, control) don't neatly fit any of these. Maybe, and just maybe, in terms of the first category: a construct that gives game abilities to a character.

In that light, the question is ass-backwards. Only 4th Ed D&D actually enforces any connection between class and tactical role that I'm aware of. In pretty much any other game system, a character of any construct, caste or narrative purpose can fulfill any of the talked-about tactical roles.

For example, in AD&D, the "class" Fighter (construct) can easily enough attack enemies ("I hit it with my sword!"), defend allies ("I get between the enemy and my friend!"), support ("I give potion/first-aid to fallen comrade!") and control ("I break the dam, letting water flood in the corridor and stopping my enemies!") Sure, it's much harder to optimize for some of these, than some others, but it's doable - a group of all Fighters is easily doable.

The Fighter can also be a guard, a mercenary, a knight, a nomad or a pig farmer so the "class" of Fighter still allows for a wide variety of different "roles" in terms of vocation.

And since Fighters are not restricted by alignment, they can fulfill pretty much any narrative "role" (hero, villain, side-character...).

In all iterations of World of Darkness, your "class" is the kind of creature you are, and all other "roles" are left up to your imagination.

Ditto for Exalted.

GURPS and other point-based systems don't have either mechanically enforced "classes" or "roles".

So really, I'd say it's more common for games to have classes separate from roles, than other way around.

Very well put, but it seems your coherent and concise explanation was in vain.

[Knaight]

I am not saying every system is as discrete as 4e with roles, I am saying that every action every character takes that can effect the outcome of a fight falls into one of those four roles. yes there was no real way to play a effective defender in 3.x, this was a major flaw in the game given how big a archetype it is to be the guy who protects others in melee.


all RPGs have roles, that is because they are not constructs of game designers but because they are basic tactics.

one unit takes the damage
one unit does damage
one unit supports (heals and buffs)
one unit controls
I can think of plenty of games where every character involved in combat does damage (I call it actually fighting things), where nobody has the role of taking the damage (plenty of games where everyone is on a vehicle and the only damage being taken is to the ship, where the closest role would be preventing the ship from being damaged), and games where support roles as defined by healing and buffing don't exist are a dime a dozen. You're looking at a very D&D paradigm and extrapolating outward. For instance, in a space opera game you could have someone who is very good at killing vehicles, one who is very good at killing people from far away, one who is very good at using vehicles, and one who is very good at killing people reasonably close up.

[erikun]

You make good points here, but I still think a lot of those problems do come back to full casters. The guys who can blast, mind-control monsters, manipulate terrain, and heal all by themselves tend to be casters. A wizard/sorcerer does 1d6/level damage while hitting multiple targets and being good at other things, but what other class does that? I may well be forgetting about some classes, but it seems to me the classes with that degree of flexibility are usually casters, are they not?
Warmages use the same blasting spells as the wizard/sorcerer. Warlocks deal at least 1d6 every 2 levels, much like the rogue, but do so as a ranged touch attack and against all targets... and have their spellcasting versatility with it.

The issue that I has was that anyone who fit in the "Blaster" role was almost by definition a spellcaster, and more importantly, did enough damage to fill the "Striker" role as well. And I can't think of a "Manipulator/Controller" that wasn't a spellcaster, or even how that would work in D&D3e (unless you count tripping/Tome of Battle for control).

As such, you end up with one role of "Controller" which could do Blaster-Striker role. You have some classes which can do "Blaster" and are Strikers as well. Everyone can effectively act as Defenders and the Healer role is nearly overshadowed by anyone with a magic item. This is what I mean by D&D3e not having any clearly defined roles: they were either so easy to achieve that anyone could do them (Defender, Healer) or one role ended up overshadowing the other roles completely (Blaster over Striker, Controller over Blaster/Striker).

[AMFV]

I can think of plenty of games where every character involved in combat does damage (I call it actually fighting things), where nobody has the role of taking the damage (plenty of games where everyone is on a vehicle and the only damage being taken is to the ship, where the closest role would be preventing the ship from being damaged), and games where support roles as defined by healing and buffing don't exist are a dime a dozen. You're looking at a very D&D paradigm and extrapolating outward. For instance, in a space opera game you could have someone who is very good at killing vehicles, one who is very good at killing people from far away, one who is very good at using vehicles, and one who is very good at killing people reasonably close up.

It's not even a very D&D paradigm for most editions as has already been explained. Since taking damage is kind of everybody in most pre 4E systems, although some tanking becomes possible with ToB stuff. The roles tend to be pretty muddled as far as I can understand it in most systems not built with roles as part of their system architecture and design philosophy. The only one I'm really familiar with like that is 4E, although there may be others I'm not familiar with, but that was clearly a design intention in that system.

[Elderand]

It's not even a very D&D paradigm for most editions as has already been explained. Since taking damage is kind of everybody in most pre 4E systems, although some tanking becomes possible with ToB stuff. The roles tend to be pretty muddled as far as I can understand it in most systems not built with roles as part of their system architecture and design philosophy. The only one I'm really familiar with like that is 4E, although there may be others I'm not familiar with, but that was clearly a design intention in that system.

I think the point Knaight was trying to make was that all those things can be done in dnd, in fact are even encouraged by game design (except striker which is relatively recent).

The whole Blaster wizard, healbot cleric, fighter in the front and skill monkey rogue is a thing. The game may not play that way in practice but it was clearly what the developpers had in mind to a certain degree.

That vision of party team is very dnd based, it doesn't work or has an equivalent in all systems.

[AMFV]

I think the point Knaight was trying to make was that all those things can be done in dnd, in fact are even encouraged by game design (except striker which is relatively recent).

The whole Blaster wizard, healbot cleric, fighter in the front and skill monkey rogue is a thing. The game may not play that way in practice but it was clearly what the developpers had in mind to a certain degree.

That vision of party team is very dnd based, it doesn't work or has an equivalent in all systems.

True, I will admit that the paradigm may flatly not work at all in some systems. In 3.5 it really doesn't either, but you could some kind of debate for the same sort of thing working, or at least being intended, although I think it wasn't so much a design constraint.

[Frozen_Feet]

The original fighter, thief, cleric, mage distinction was most empathically not the same as attacker, defender, support, control of 4th Ed.

Instead, the Fighter was the infantry, being both the attacker and the defender. Thief was the special operative - his role was primarily support, paving the way for others by disarming traps, scouting ahead etc.. Cleric was a medic first, infantry second - primary task being that of supporting the Fighter, but also providing another combatant. The mage was artillery - long-range attack mode to dispatch of large amounts of enemies very quickly. Elves could alternate between infantry and artillery to fill the role that was lacking, while dwarves were different sort of infantry with some support functions thrown in.

This is very apparent if you know of D&D's wargaming roots. Fighter as primarily defender wasn't a thing before AD&D, and thief as primarily attacker wasn't a thing before 2nd Ed Player's option at earliest, but more likely 3rd edition. While Cleric as primarily support was always there, they were always meant to be attackers and defenders as well. And while the seeds for Mages to be controllers were there from the beginning, their primary role was that of long-range attacker rather than control - I can't really pinpoint when they came to be considered primarily controllers, but I have a feeling it's a 3rd edition conceit.

While I could agree on the attacker, defender, support, control paradigm being a natural evolution of the original roles, I feel it took a long time before it crystallized in its current form. I also think computer games did have a significant influence on it - buffing and healing in combat, as well as separate tanks, have always been more useful in computer games than in any pen-and-paper game. That's because in computer games, it's usually not possible to avoid fighting, and hence taking damage. Movement is also more limited in, say, tile-based game format, than it is in free-flowing prose or a game table using real measurements. Because of these factors, it's much more possible and much more vital to a) block enemy game pieces with your own game pieces and b) keep your own game piece from being captured by the enemy.

Just try playing something like Disgaea while thinking "in-combat healing is useless". Just try it.