PDA

View Full Version : Combat Roles



BurgerBeast
2015-04-05, 04:58 PM
So, I tend to think a lot about roles and class design, and get over-analytic when doing so. This thread is inspired by the original thread started by Philemonite (found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?295778-Fantasy-RPG-combat-roles)).

Background Thought

On the basis of the standard 3 MMORPG roles (Tank, DPS, Healer) and the D&D 4e spin-off (Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller), and the City of Heroes archetypes (Blaster, Controller, Defender, Scrapper, Tanker), I've been trying to pin down a detailed list of RPG roles [edit: RPG combat roles. I tend to be the type of thinker who likes to get right down to the nitty-gritty examining every detail and distinction. Then, and only then, I like to generalize based on a complete picture of all the possibilities.

I had come up with something like this, but think I missed the mark:

Melee: Tanker (High Defense - melee control), Scrapper (Balanced - melee AOE), Striker (High Offense - melee single target DPS)

Ranged: Controller (High Defense - ranged control), Blaster (Balanced - ranged AOE), Sniper (High Offense - ranged single target DPS)

But then I realized there's a separate niche for each of: healing, buffing, debuffing, and damage over time.

It also strikes me that there might be room for healing of mana pools (like apparently some of the Final Fantasy games have). I also considered that a particular role may be differentiated in how it is mechanically performed. For example, tanking can be accomplished by high dodge score, high parry score, high armour score, or high absorption (hit points), which depending on game mechanics could actually be mechanically different.

What I'm Trying to Do Now

More recently, I was wondering if you could use values for each variable to come up with a list of all class possibilities, for example, three two-way axes could produce eight possibilities:

Melee/Ranged
Offense/Defense
Direct/Indirect

MOD: Striker (deals big damage)
MOI: Weapon Expert (uses disarms, trips, stuns)
MDD: Medic (front line healer)
MDI: Buffer (something like a warlord, a melee buffer)
ROD: Sniper (deals big damage from range)
ROI: Controller (ranged debuffer)
RDD: Ranged healer
RDI: Ranged buffer

I am of two minds on the issue of whether some classes need to be merged, for example a debuffer doesn't seemingly need to be distinguished by melee/ranged, but on the other hand there are niches: a melee disarmer/armor reducer/stunner etc is quite different from the ranged and probably magical equivalent.

More importantly, there is room to distinguish further in some areas:

Single/Multiple Targets (sniper or blaster? healing equivalents)
Sustained/Burst (steady hitter or big hitter? healing equivalents)

It also seems to me there is room to distinguish the damage over time and heal over time types as separate from sustained. So there is also a drainer/replenisher, maybe as a part of the same axis as sustained and burst, so it would be Sustained/Burst/Over Time.

Not the Point of this Thread

I'm not looking for advice about continuing or abandoning this approach.

I'm not looking for lectures about how this post can't be answered unless you know (insert reason here).

The Point of this Thread

[edit: I'm trying to identify mechanics that make classes unique, using the methods of performing their functions as a basis for distinguishing between them.]

What character roles do you think I've missed?

What character roles do you think I've divided too far (i.e. in your opinion debuffing is just a subset of control)?

What axes would you use and what options would they include?

oxybe
2015-04-05, 05:27 PM
honestly speaking it sounds like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

the roles themselves have history in old wargames, with your infantry, artillery, skirmishers and supply units forming the basis that would eventually give way to the defender/controller/striker/leader roles.

Defenders main idea is to draw enemy fire, Strikers attack key units, Controllers lower enemy efficiency while leaders enhance ally efficiency.

Defending usually involves a mechanic to discourage enemies from ignoring them, be it in the line of 4th ed's marking (which applies penalties to attacks the markee does that don't include the marker) or including some method of encouraging the enemy into focusing on the defender in combat, either by being "sticky" or having a way to peel enemies off your allies.

Striking usually involves either consistently high damage or very large damage spikes you can call down almost at will. Stacking damage over time, crit fishing, nova-ing, sneak attacking, static bonus damage, etc... are all striker type methodologies of putting the hurt where it needs to be.

Controlling comes in many forms, from separating enemies to handle them one at a time, disabling enemies from participating combat, throwing down debuffs that lower enemy efficiency or simply negating actions entirely, controllers focus on the action economy: specifically lowering the enemy's abilities to make use of it.

Leaders are the entire opposite, bolstering ally action abilities by either giving off turn actions (4th ed warlord, represent), mitigating damage taken, recovering wounds, enhancing character capabilities, etc... Like the controller, the leader role works the action economy for the players side's benefit by giving their actions more impact.

I don't really see the need to make a distinction in role by focusing on if you're doing debuffs or going into melee: that's more of a class or character specific thing rather then role.

I always saw role as a "big picture" thing whereas class is your more specific "a manner to do this role".

BurgerBeast
2015-04-05, 05:51 PM
snip

Yeah, please read the post where it says that this is not what I'm looking for. I know that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm asking for help with that task.

edit: but I think you're right in pointing out that it looks like I'm trying to cook up new roles. I'm not. I'm trying to cook up classes that have distinctive mechanics. So in beginning with the roles, I'm trying to identify what makes classes unique. Thus, the "tank" who succeeds by debuffing is different than the "tank" who succeeds using area control. I'll add this to the original post.

Seto
2015-04-05, 06:04 PM
I'm not sure where the classic tank fits into your three-axes approach. I'd have pegged him as MDD, but you have the Medic there - which a Tank often isn't. Did you have something else in mind ?

erikun
2015-04-05, 06:42 PM
First question, what is the difference between a tank and a rogue in your system? After all, a character in armor swinging around a large sword is going to play a bit differently than a sneaky character with twin daggers. Or is this more a general concept level of thinking, where the specific playstyles aren't factored in yet?

Second, I note that you've considered "Defensive Direct" to only be limited to healing. There is a bit of a problem with this, although thinking it over the problem seems to be the entire concept of direct defense. Defense is almost by definition not direct. It is the response to a direct action towards a person, either as a reaction (countering or avoiding), or a proactive response (stopping them before they can hit me). As such, the difficulty you are having might be a difficulty with the term you are trying to definte - you are looking for a way that a character can "actively" prevent something from happening without taking an action.

If you wish to stick with your established definition, then I could see a "Defender" sort of character which blocks or parries attacks intended for other people as the MDD role, and some sort of a warding spellcaster who casts shields or immunities on allies for RDD. Both could still have the healing role as a way to remove damage that has been dealt, but either option would allow a character to more directly apply a defensive trait to a group or character.

MDI could be a Warlord character, while RDI could either be a buffer or a hexer (debuffer). With your system, the two are really much the same - and there is a difference between a character who debuffs enemies, and a Controller who controls areas of the battlefield.

JAL_1138
2015-04-05, 07:27 PM
There's also bards, who fill the niche of "middlin' at everything, occasionally particularly good at one or two things which vary depending on edition"

Karl Aegis
2015-04-06, 01:38 AM
I see lots of terms that aren't clearly defined. Am I supposed to know exactly what they mean with no context given? Like, really, why is a boat a role?

BurgerBeast
2015-04-06, 04:12 AM
I'm not sure where the classic tank fits into your three-axes approach. I'd have pegged him as MDD, but you have the Medic there - which a Tank often isn't. Did you have something else in mind ?

So I was thinking direct essentially means hit points are added or subtracted. So direct offence would be doing damage and direct defense would be healing. Indirect offence would be debuffs and indirect defense would be buffs. Does that make sense?

So the weapon expert might be MOISB (single burst).

But tanks might be MOISS (single sustained - for tanking bosses) or MOIMS (multiple sustained - for tanking multiple enemies).

I wonder if the single enemy/multiple enemy axis requires a third option: AOE.

BurgerBeast
2015-04-06, 04:36 AM
First question, what is the difference between a tank and a rogue in your system? After all, a character in armor swinging around a large sword is going to play a bit differently than a sneaky character with twin daggers. Or is this more a general concept level of thinking, where the specific playstyles aren't factored in yet?

Well, I think rogues are defined by what they do out of combat, and so how they behave in combat depends on the individual rogue. I personally like the idea of the WOW rogues which are MODSS for combat spec (single target susDPS) and MODSB for assassination and subtlety specs (single target burstDPS). Of course a rogue may operate as a ranged attacker and potentially even as a tank if the mechanics allowed such a character using high dodge rates and taunts/debuffs.


Second, I note that you've considered "Defensive Direct" to only be limited to healing. There is a bit of a problem with this, although thinking it over the problem seems to be the entire concept of direct defense. Defense is almost by definition not direct. It is the response to a direct action towards a person, either as a reaction (countering or avoiding), or a proactive response (stopping them before they can hit me). As such, the difficulty you are having might be a difficulty with the term you are trying to definte - you are looking for a way that a character can "actively" prevent something from happening without taking an action.

Yeah so a lot of my thinking developed from the idea of defensive equivalents of the offensive roles. In order to mirror "direct offence" which means hit point depletion, I deemed "direct defense" to be hit point restoration. Since all of the roles define how one interacts with the group or with enemies, self-defence is not a group role but defending party members is. If a character does so by healing that is direct, and if s/he does so in different ways, this is indirect.


If you wish to stick with your established definition, then I could see a "Defender" sort of character which blocks or parries attacks intended for other people as the MDD role, and some sort of a warding spellcaster who casts shields or immunities on allies for RDD. Both could still have the healing role as a way to remove damage that has been dealt, but either option would allow a character to more directly apply a defensive trait to a group or character.

So, for me a "Defender" is MOI (M = melee, OI = debuffs enemies). You can then have MOISS who is great at maintaining constant control against one enemy, MOISB who can use powerful control abilities at intervals against one enemy, MOIMS who can maintain control on many mobs at once and MOIMB who can use powerful control abilities against many enemies at once.

So it looks like we're in agreement over the "Defender" and "Warding Spellcaster" concepts, but I label them MOI and RDI (the warder buffs which are DI, whereas debuffs would be OI), respectively.


MDI could be a Warlord character, while RDI could either be a buffer or a hexer (debuffer). With your system, the two are really much the same - and there is a difference between a character who debuffs enemies, and a Controller who controls areas of the battlefield.

Warlord, depending on concept, could be MDI, yes, but I see Warlord as MOI (providing buffs to allies from melee) and probably MOIMS.

But the Sustained/Burst axis might be better represented as a trichotomy of Sustained/Burst/Over Time. Then the Warlord would potentially be MOISO.

Your last point is a great one and I think it can be addressed by differentiating between a class that targets multiple enemies versus a class that targets AOEs. One being a buffer and one being a controller.

BurgerBeast
2015-04-06, 04:43 AM
There's also bards, who fill the niche of "middlin' at everything, occasionally particularly good at one or two things which vary depending on edition"

Yes, so this is why I think bards are defined more by what they do out of combat than in combat. A bard may be a ranged buffer or a ranged sniper, or a melee striker, or a melee debuffer. Indeed a bard may be many of these, or others, or switch between them.

BurgerBeast
2015-04-06, 04:53 AM
I see lots of terms that aren't clearly defined. Am I supposed to know exactly what they mean with no context given? Like, really, why is a boat a role?

Fair play. I avoided this because of the sheer number of possibilities. I'll try to shed some light on this:

Melee/Ranged - self explanatory.
Offense/Defense - offence targets enemies, defense targets allies.
Direct/Indirect - direct deals with hit points, indirect anything else.

So Off/Dir is DPS, Off/Ind is Debuffs, Def/Dir is Heals, and Def/Ind is Buffs.

Since there is still room for further distinction, I also mention:

Single target/Multiple target(/AOE) - I think this is self explanatory, but of note is that indirect single and multiple target defense would be thought of as buffs whereas AOE would be control. Likewise indirect single and multiple target offence would be debuffs whereas AOE would be control.

Sustained/Burst(/Over Time) - sustained implies a steady moderate effect, Burst implies irregular powerful effects, and over time (if this is indeed where it belongs) implies weak "rider" effects that continue after being applied.

Some things to note: (1) this classification system may serve better to classify individual powers instead of classes, but I often then counter argue that in a class-based system, a class should specialize in a particular power-type while possibly having abilities of other types. (2) There may be room to consider "delayed/detonating" to handle powers that have timers, or that detonate when conditions are met, or areas that detonate when triggered. (3) I'm not sure how to address using summoned creatures to accomplish goals (indirect, but how to distinguish it?) or shapeshifting (does it need to be distinguished?).

erikun
2015-04-06, 02:07 PM
Well, I would note that you can have different methods of healing HP. It generally isn't as complex because your allies are generally not trying to avoid being healed, but you can have different factors to consider depending on the game used. In earlier D&D games, something as simple as not getting hit when trying to cast a healing spell was a big consideration.

You can also see things like targetted healing vs healing a group. The D&D3 Dragon Shaman has an aura ability that healed all allies under half HP within a set range, which is a good example of "AOE" direct healing while being most practical in melee. D&D4 Paladin also had moves that healed allies when they successfully struck an enemy. More direct and targetted healing would be something like the D&D4 Cleric (pick a target and heal them) or a D&D3 Cleric with the Reach Spell feat to cast Range: Touch spells from a distance.

I'm not sure how helpful this is (especially given the specific examples I used) but hopefully they give you a correct idea of what I am talking about.

BurgerBeast
2015-04-06, 02:32 PM
Well, I would note that you can have different methods of healing HP.

Certainly. So -DD-- covers 8 possible healer-types.


You can also see things like targetted healing vs healing a group. The D&D3 Dragon Shaman has an aura ability that healed all allies under half HP within a set range, which is a good example of "AOE" direct healing while being most practical in melee.

Yeah so targeted would be -DDS- and aura would be -DDM- and AOE (example: WOW shaman water stream totem) would be -DDA-, with still room for more distinctions within each.

[edit: perhaps aura is different than simple "multiple target" because auras are sustained mobile AOEs]


D&D4 Paladin also had moves that healed allies when they successfully struck an enemy.

Yeah so I think of this as "detonating" upon a particular condition. In your example striking an enemy detonates the heal. There are spells in wow that "detonate" when the target is struck, or when the target hits zero hp.


I'm not sure how helpful this is (especially given the specific examples I used) but hopefully they give you a correct idea of what I am talking about.

Very helpful. WOW spells opened my eyes to just how strategic and involved healing can be. Two other cool healing possibilities, in my opinion, are the chain heal and the detonating heal that triggers when the target is struck and then "jumps" to the next closest ally, for a set number of detonations (maybe three).

BayardSPSR
2015-04-06, 04:40 PM
I don't quite understand what you're trying to accomplish or why you're trying to accomplish it. It sounds like you're trying to build a theoretical framework for understanding class systems in RPGs, but you keep using MMOs for examples - which explains why your list doesn't describe the potential for a character class to be focused on something other than combat. Once your list is done, what are you going to do with it?

Milodiah
2015-04-06, 05:05 PM
Perhaps another value is reliability; several games make the implicit distinction between constant, middling-value or erratic, all-or-nothing numeric values (a running strategy versus a Hail Mary pass in football). Although that doesn't often come into play as a primary class feature, many games set it up to where the swordsman up front is cranking out predictable, consistent hits each attack, while the more esoteric types try a massive strike that either obliterates or fizzles. Granted, this can be extended to situational values; the dude with the sword or rifle can be counted on to do roughly the same thing regardless of what the circumstances may be, while something more specialized (ie hydrokinesis-style magic like waterbenders) will be wonderful on the coast but rather useless in a desert.

ExLibrisMortis
2015-04-06, 05:59 PM
Many designs allow people to have a primary, secondary, [...] and n-ary specialized roles, and many designs give all classes at least a little bit of everything. Pretty much every class has some dps ability, and if you want to include non-combat, pretty much every class has crafting abilities and social abilities. A lot of classes have a 'solo build' (generalist) and a 'team build', which is specialized, and may not cover everything you absolutely need, like having no dps or no heals of your own.

The number of axes you need depends on the specific instance of a class system you are studying. For example, for LOTRO, I'd use area vs. single target, physical dps vs. tactical dps vs. debuff vs. heals, tank vs. tough vs. flimsy and burst vs. sustained. Then, each class will, depending on how it's geared and statted, have several roles. You might have a class that is "primary tough, area burst dps, secondary tough, single target burst dps or tank, area burst dps, tertiary all other except heals" (roughly a champion). But, depending on the level of detail you want, that might not be good enough, and these axes do overlap - primary heals are tough simply because of those heals (unless they can't heal themselves).


You could put a framework around a class system by identifying a set of axes (however you want to do that), and compile rankings for each combination. In the LOTRO example above, that means I'd rank each of the 10 classes in their ability to 'tank burst area dps', then rank each of them in 'tank burst area heals' and so on (you might even be able to do this empirically by testing outgoing and incoming dps and hps numbers in controlled circumstances, like repeatable instances). Then I'd compile these rankings for each class, and the array of scores gives its possible roles*.

Conceivably, a terribly unbalanced class could be at the top in all lists (giving it all roles) or at the bottom (giving it no roles), even if it is better at some things than others, and in that sense still specialized. In D&D 3.5 terms, this means that monks - tier 5 classes - have no roles, and wizards - tier 1 classes - have all of them, though monks are still clearly better at melee dps than at healing. You could say that in D&D, the tier system is basically the axis you need, because the only real variable is RAW power: "how strongly can you affect the story, according to this class' rules?".


*Depending on the system, you may not be able to fill all of these roles at once, as they represent different builds.

NichG
2015-04-06, 07:25 PM
If I'm trying to be as general as possible across as many possible systems as I can imagine, I get something along the lines of:

- Fork: This role creates decision branch points for the opponent which force them to decide between multiple non-ideal outcomes. In MMORPG terms this'd be aggro manipulation, but it can take much broader meanings in a tabletop game. The main point here is to cause the goals of the conflict to become entangled and to enable partial-victory or partial-defeat outcomes.
- Insurance: This role acts to soften the severity of incorrect decision-making or bad random outcomes
- Enabler: This role is able to provide things which are needed for other characters to interact with the challenge - for example, giving the fighter flight so he can attack a flying monster
- Complexifier: This role centers around manipulating the mental difficulty to the players/DM of making optimal decisions - for example, things like magical shields that have to be taken down in the right order.
- ECG (External Consequence Generator): This role centers around connecting non-trivial long-term consequences to the events of the combat. For example, a character who can cause XP drain or permanent HP loss.
- Pacer: This role manipulates/controls the pacing of events. Basic damage could fall under here, but in other games in which there are explicit tension meters this'd be a character whose stuff interacts with the tension meter.
- Logistics: This role centers around the management of resources that persist between combats - a character who can improve the efficiency of consumable use, for example, or a cleric in old-school D&D where hitpoints tended to otherwise not to refresh between fights.
- Scout: This role is able to obtain information about enemy weaknesses, positions, abilities, etc, etc.
- Synergizer: This role can take actions which are more effective in concert with the actions of others than they would be alone. Buffers are an example of this, but you could also count things like D&D Rogues making use of flanking. One big consequence of characters of this role is to introduce failure points where one side can be weakened more than usual for losing a member if targeted.
- Bypass: This role is able to introduce secondary methods of achieving victory, or can pursue existing secondary methods more efficiently due to its abilities. Generally I haven't seen this in a dedicated form, but there's no reason it couldn't exist. One example that tends to come up is things like a combat centered on two groups simultaneously trying to get the same artifact/treasure/MacGuffin first - someone who can stealth over and pick up the thing while everyone else is distracted is being a Bypass.
- Ender: In one campaign I was in, there was a trope was that bosses had a hitpoint threshold where they became vulnerable to sufficiently awesome/cataclysmic one-shot kills, but otherwise you'd have to keep wailing on them for a few more rounds. Generally there'd be one guy in the party who kept a couple nukes up his sleeve to pull off the finishing moves. Not for every campaign or system, but its useful as a way to keep fights from dragging when they're a foregone conclusion.

I can probably keep going. Note, these aren't the roles I'd say any system would have, these are just roles I could imagine existing in different systems with different conceits. E.g. most games won't make a Pacer a special dedicated thing, but there are games where stress meters play a central role.

Karl Aegis
2015-04-06, 11:15 PM
I still don't get why an aquatic transport ship is a role. Is there supposed to be some sort of sense to all this that isn't clearly explained? Why did cutlery get added as a role?

NichG
2015-04-07, 12:56 AM
I still don't get why an aquatic transport ship is a role. Is there supposed to be some sort of sense to all this that isn't clearly explained? Why did cutlery get added as a role?

Fork, at least, I intended in the sense of the chess term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28chess%29).

Gracht Grabmaw
2015-04-07, 05:36 AM
I will never understand this mindset.
I think character classes are already the bane on creativity and now people insist that on top of limiting themselves to a specific set of abilities with very little overlap their characters also need to be specialized to always do one thing and one thing only in combat. If you really want such a narrow and limited gaming experience, go play an MMO.

JAL_1138
2015-04-07, 06:05 AM
I will never understand this mindset.
I think character classes are already the bane on creativity and now people insist that on top of limiting themselves to a specific set of abilities with very little overlap their characters also need to be specialized to always do one thing and one thing only in combat. If you really want such a narrow and limited gaming experience, go play an MMO.

Play a bard. They do everything. Especially in 5e, where your options range from archery beast (steal Swift Quiver) to melee monster (poach Paladin smites) to healer to buffer to debuffer to skillmonkey to single-target blaster to AoE blaster to Ancient Brass Dragon (True Polymorph).

NichG
2015-04-07, 06:59 AM
The thing about roles isn't 'each character gets one' or anything like that, its just a way of understanding what a system might emphasize, de-emphasize, require, consider optional, or render irrelevant. Creative options are maximized when the system is tuned and designed to make different methods of contributing actually turn out to be different in significant ways. Part of the process of getting to that point is to understand all of the ways that characters can be mechanically different in the first place.

Otherwise you end up with issues like 3.5's class imbalance, where some choices are just so much worse than others that they just get passed over every single time.

Now, there is such a thing as getting stuck into a limited mindset. Just importing MMORPG stuff isn't going to let you discover something new - you have to contrast as well, and figure out what roles would simply be impossible in an MMORPG because of the way it works, but which could come to the fore in a tabletop game.

Gracht Grabmaw
2015-04-07, 07:11 AM
Play a bard. They do everything. Especially in 5e, where your options range from archery beast (steal Swift Quiver) to melee monster (poach Paladin smites) to healer to buffer to debuffer to skillmonkey to single-target blaster to AoE blaster to Ancient Brass Dragon (True Polymorph).

One class that can do everything doesn't solve the problem at all. It begs the question of why combat roles are there in the first place.

Jay R
2015-04-07, 09:38 AM
Don't merely define the combat roles. Define what your PCs can do best, and help each other's PCs best.

And ideally, you should have a defined role for each player in a confined corridor, in a forest, and on a plain, and maybe separate plans if the enemy are flyers, or are missile-heavy. For instance, if the enemy are attacking from above, the shields aren't protecting the rest of the party. Give up that role, drop the shield, and string your back-up bow.

JAL_1138
2015-04-07, 10:52 AM
One class that can do everything doesn't solve the problem at all. It begs the question of why combat roles are there in the first place.

Because in order to do one, you've got to somewhat not do the others--even with a bard, you've got to build towards one or two more than the others, or only do one at a time. Same reason a rifle team doesn't do the same thing as a mortar crew, even if they could theoretically switch places and roles easily by changing equipment and retraining.

If *everyone* does *all* these things *equally* well *at all times,* then from a mechanical standpoint characters feel very samey. So you specialize to some extent. The roles are *both* a name for what the character is *actually doing* in combat (descriptive) and a way to focus in on what you *want to do* in combat (prescriptive).

BayardSPSR
2015-04-07, 05:57 PM
I will never understand this mindset.
I think character classes are already the bane on creativity and now people insist that on top of limiting themselves to a specific set of abilities with very little overlap their characters also need to be specialized to always do one thing and one thing only in combat.

To be honest, I agree. I prefer to have combat roles emerge from the characters the players choose, rather than having the players choose combat roles. For instance, having a player take a front-line position because they're playing a skilled warrior with heavy armor, not having a player play a skilled warrior with heavy armor because they want to "tank."

Likewise, if the same warrior also has a bow they should be perfectly capable of using it effectively, not shoehorned into the role of "standing in the front and being attacked." The character determines how much potential they have to be effective in potential roles, rather than the role defining the character, as class systems tend to.

That doesn't mean understanding the different ways a character can contribute to a fight can't be useful. Of course, THAT doesn't mean this thread is doing that well.

Leon
2015-04-08, 02:21 PM
3 Lines. Front Mid and Rear.

Fighter/Paladin/Barb are you expected front liners but the Divine classes can often fit in here with ease.

Mid line is where you expect to find the lighter combatants that offer mid range combative ability or support such as Bards, Rangers, Non front line divine classes ~ more caster focused but still combative.

Back line is the Caster's main point of hold ~ to get to these softer targets things generally have to get past the 2 other lines to threaten the pure support classes. They also have the range to cover all aspects of the field

It also works well as a Marching order though you generally want at least a mid liner to cover the rear

BurgerBeast
2015-04-23, 08:34 PM
I will never understand this mindset.
I think character classes are already the bane on creativity and now people insist that on top of limiting themselves to a specific set of abilities with very little overlap their characters also need to be specialized to always do one thing and one thing only in combat. If you really want such a narrow and limited gaming experience, go play an MMO.

So, let me get this straight:

(1) "[You] think character classes are the bane of creativity" but you play pathfinder, 3.5, and Dungeon World.

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that limitations can actually increase creativity. If the right tool for the job is always available, then you really don't need to get creative. When the right tool is not available…

The Grue
2015-04-24, 10:54 PM
So, let me get this straight:

(1) "[You] think character classes are the bane of creativity" but you play pathfinder, 3.5, and Dungeon World.


This is the general RPG subforum, so I'm not sure how you can make that assumption.

BurgerBeast
2015-04-29, 12:33 AM
This is the general RPG subforum, so I'm not sure how you can make that assumption.

This is his signature:


Your face is unoptimized.

Currently playing:
Pathfinder: Farric Macragge, dwarven oracle of the Dark Tapestry
3.5 Forgotten Realms: Dead Horse, wild elf barbarian

Currently running:
Dungeon World/PDQ System Hybrid "Isle of the Lost"

The Grue
2015-04-29, 01:48 AM
Regardless, it's an ad hominem attack.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-29, 02:25 AM
Trying hard to backport character classifications like this and make them core parts of tabletop RPGs has always felt ass-backwards to me, as they emerged from a certain metagame and way of playing wargames and early D&D. These identities formed around abilities character classes had, rather than other way around. Hence, you can not have an exhaustive and universal list.

For example, in any game that actually pays attention to units of distance, melee/ranged is not sufficient granularity. You will probably need to break melee into two or three categories, and ranged into three or four categories, possibly a lot more if artillery or advanced weaponry is in use.

In any game or setting where supernatural effects behave differently, or woe betide you, there are multiple supernatural effects behaving differently, you will need to add an axis for those.

Likewise, single-target and multi-target isn't sufficient granularity for a system which has area-of-effect weaponry.

Also, folding "healing" as it's seen in RPGs into "defense" is quite questionable as a choice. Defense is that act of preventing your opponent from doing damage; healing is restoring damage after it's done. If anything, by classifying buffs as indirect defense and healing as direct defense, you get it exactly the wrong way around. Direct/Indirect probably isn't the axis you're looking for, probably - it's Active/Passive. Direct/Indirect is useful axis for describing the movement of long-range abilities, not much else.

With Active/Passive distinction, you'll find about half of what you think as "controlling" is Actively Defensive when it prevents enemy movement or shuts down their abilities, and half is Actively Offensive when its straight stat debuffs or other injuries.

You also completely lack certain key strategic roles. None of your existing axises adequately model logistical or information gathering.

EDIT: To illustrate the principle, I'll do what I did in a different thread and talk about Pokemon metagame:

Pokemon has six basic stats: Hitpoints, Attack, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense, Speed.

From these, the following metagame combat roles emerge:

Physical Attacker: Has good Attack stat. Can dominate opponents with weak Defense.
Special Attacker: Has good S. attack stat. Can dominate opponents with weak S. defense.
Mixed Attacker: Has good Attack and S. Attack. Can dominate opponents with weak Defense and S. Defense
Physical Sweeper: Has good Attack stat and good Speed. Can be expected to take out multiple slower, low Defense targets in a row.
Special Sweeper: Has good S. attack stat and good Speed. Can be expected to take out multiple sloer, low S. defense targets in a row.
Mixed Sweeper: Has good Attack, S. attack and speed. Can be expected to take out multiple slower, low Defense or S. defense targets in a row.
Physical Wall: Has good Defense and HP stat. Will dominate opponents relying on Attack stat and can stop a physical sweep.
Special Wall: Has good Defense and HP stat. Will dominate opponents relying on S. Attack stat and can stop a special sweep.
Mixed Wall. Has good Defense, S. defense and HP stats. Can stop either physical or special sweep.

And then you get a few combinations where something can be a Wall and an Attacker at the same time. You could just barely hammer these to fit your three axises, but you would lose key distinctions between them. Sweepers and Attackers of all types are Directly Offensive, for example.

And then you get to more specific roles that are only facilitated by certain moves or movesets and couldn't be generalized to other settings, such as:

Spiker/Stealth Rocker: Has good Speed and is capable of laying a trap which will damage opponents coming to a battlefield.
Spinner: Has good Speed and specific moves to get rid of spikes and Stealth Rock.
Suicide lead: Has good Speed but low HP, and is expected to be taken out after performing one tactically important task.

The first would be indirectly offensive and indirectly defensive in your classification - the former because it damages switching opponents, the latter because it discourages the other player from fielding certain type combinations.

The second would be directly defensive, but has nothing to do with healing.

The third could be pretty much anything in your classification; you don't really have an axis to describe it, because the role is as much defined by what happens to the one performing it, than just what they do.

Friv
2015-04-29, 10:47 AM
What I'm Trying to Do Now

More recently, I was wondering if you could use values for each variable to come up with a list of all class possibilities, for example, three two-way axes could produce eight possibilities:

Melee/Ranged
Offense/Defense
Direct/Indirect

I'm going to be a terrible person (apologies in advance) and point out that you need a few other things if you want to be really dealing with what people are good at. You need three three-way axes, which produce twenty-seven possibilities:

Melee/Ranged/Artillery: Melee characters target who is closest, range characters snipe high-value targets, and artillery characters primarily target groups of people.

Offense/Defense/Environment: Offense characters target enemies, defense characters target allies, and environment characters don't target characters at all, but instead create situations that could favor or harm people depending on other factors.

Health/Conditions/Tactics: Health targets HP and direct injury or healing. Conditions creates penalties or advantages that affect people (bonuses to hit, movement penalties, etc). Tactics modify the choices that people are allowed to take (extra actions, special abilities, mind control, etc).

(You can roll Conditions and Tactics together, but they're pretty broad concepts in a combat RPG, so I think for symmetry they're better apart.)

For example, an ROH (Range, Offense, Health) would be a sniper, dealing direct damage to important enemies, but an AEH (Artillery, Environment, Health) would be a siege engine character who obliterates buildings, collapses bridges, and destroys the environment to deny enemy fortifications. Both would be ROD in your original system, dealing direct damage at range.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-30, 07:33 AM
I'll note that separating HP damage and other debuffs from each other is a conceit of the genre. On a real battlefield, killing an enemy is rarely the priority, removing them from the battlefield is - and to that end, it makes little difference if they're bleeding to death, or asleep, stuck in tar because of Bestow Curse, or made immobile by Ray of Enfeeblement.

HP damage and debuffs are both offense directly targeting the living force of the enemy. They're not truly different roles. In RPGs, especially CRPGs, these are separated only because the fight usually isn't over before the other guy reaches 0 HP and is killed.

If they're separated by anything at all, it's a lethal/non-lethal axis, which is noticeably absent from your classification too.

KillianHawkeye
2015-04-30, 05:09 PM
I still don't get why an aquatic transport ship is a role. Is there supposed to be some sort of sense to all this that isn't clearly explained?

I didn't see anyone address this yet.

I'm guessing you're confused by the OP's use of the word "tanker?" The tanker, while also a word for a type of ship, in this context is referring to the person who is acting as the tank. This is the "heavily armored combat vehicle" tank, not the "storage container, usually for a liquid or gas" kind of tank.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.