The jobs of the major party roles

[Orzel]

So I decide to make a list of what a character should be able to do if they are occupying a role in a party.

Melee Weapons Guy
-High Base Damage
-High Base Attack bonus
--High Base HP
-High Base AC
-Minor Conditions (tripped, grappled, disarmed, stunned, etc..)

Ranged Weapons Guy
-High Base Damage
-High Base Attack bonus
-Damage Variety (switching arrows/bolts/bullets/etc...)
-Distracting Mook Spellscasters
-Dificult Target

Skill Monkey
-Any 4: scout, detector, face, tracker, gymnast, thief, etc
-Minor healing
-Minor magic abilities
-High Potential Damage

Divine Caster
-Party face
-Non Physical Damage
-Battlefield/crowd control
-Condition placement
-Condition removal
-Granting Special Abilities
-Instant death
-Job replication
-Skill replication
-Healing
-Ressurection
-Crafting Magic Items

Arcane Caster
-Non Physical Damage
-Damage Variety
-Battlefield/crowd control
-Condition placement
-Condition removal
-Granting Special Abilities
-Instant death
-Adventuring utility
-Job replication
-Skill replication
-Crafting Magic Items

What did I miss?

[de-trick]

Arcane Caster
-High level divine spellcasting
-Condition Placement
-Non Physical Damage


What did I miss?

should be

-High level arcana spellcasting

[Nerd-o-rama]

Battlefield control under arcane caster, which covers a lot more than just "condition placement." Some divine casters also have condition placement and battlefield control as well, especially Druids. "Instant Death" deserves its own category under both, as does "buffing/positive condition placement".

Saying Arcane/Divine spells is a little too broad, I think. There's damage, battlefield/crowd control, condition placement, instant death, and generic adventuring-aid utility under both, and probably some I'm forgetting. And healing and resurrection under Divine. All of that is part and parcel to their magic.

[Orzel]

I'm too lazy to think of and type all the junk divine and arcane magic can do. That's why there's a thread.
but...

Non Physical Damage
Damage Variety
Battlefield/crowd control
Condition placement
Condition removal
Granting Special Abilities
Instant death
Adventuring utility
Job replication
Skill replication
Healing
Ressurection
Crafting Magic Items

[Aquillion]

"High level arcane spellcasting" and "high level divine spellcasting" seems like recursive definition to me, like saying that the skill monkey's job is to "use skills." I'd be more specific...

For both high-level casters, but especially arcane ones, their job is to really cover situations that the other party members can't. I'd say that 90% of the job of negating enemy casters also falls to full arcane/divine casters on your side (often 'negating' just means 'killing/disabling first', but that's the general idea.) More broadly, circumventing enemy abilities and negating enemy advantages while creating advantages for the party (flight, battlefield, invisibility, etc) is usually the arcane caster's job.

It's worth noting that not all of these jobs are necessary for every character in that role, too. Like, a melee guy doesn't need the ability to cause minor status problems, and a caster certainly doesn't really need non-physical damage... it's even possible to make a perfectly good divine caster who doesn't really do much healing, although obviously you're always going to have it as a fallback option.

And I would turn the melee guy's roles into one thing, really: High damage output. It isn't specifically base damage or to-hit that matters (it's possible to have a totally awful melee character who excels at one or both of those statistically); it's the overall ability to dish out a lot of damage quickly. Ability to survive comes in as a distant second, to the point where I wouldn't even bother putting it on the list of melee character roles; sure, they have to be able to take hits, but for the most part that isn't the focus of their party role. Most melee builds can't force the monsters to attack them, so what matters is their ability to drop enemies quickly, not their AC or HP... a melee character with extremely high offense and low defense can still be very useful, while a melee character with extremely high defense and low offense is utterly useless.

[Orzel]

"High level arcane spellcasting" and "high level divine spellcasting" seems like recursive definition to me, like saying that the skill monkey's job is to "use skills." I'd be more specific...
That was my laziness



For both high-level casters, but especially arcane ones, their job is to really cover situations that the other party members can't. I'd say that 90% of the job of negating enemy casters also falls to full arcane/divine casters on your side (often 'negating' just means 'killing/disabling first', but that's the general idea.) More broadly, circumventing enemy abilities and negating enemy advantages while creating advantages for the party (flight, battlefield, invisibility, etc) is usually the arcane caster's job.

I didn't wan't to write "everything else" as a job. "Exploiting enemy weaknesses, Negating enemy strengtha..." is one step better than the "High X spellcasting" description.



It's worth noting that not all of these jobs are necessary for every character in that role, too. Like, a melee guy doesn't need the ability to cause minor status problems, and a caster certainly doesn't really need non-physical damage... it's even possible to make a perfectly good divine caster who doesn't really do much healing, although obviously you're always going to have it as a fallback option.
Not all but most is the goal. You can't be a skill monkey if you only have 2 skill points and no spells. Can't be a ranged guy if your shots are weak and inaccurate.



And I would turn the melee guy's roles into one thing, really: High damage output. It isn't specifically base damage or to-hit that matters (it's possible to have a totally awful melee character who excels at one or both of those statistically); it's the overall ability to dish out a lot of damage quickly. Ability to survive comes in as a distant second, to the point where I wouldn't even bother putting it on the list of melee character roles; sure, they have to be able to take hits, but for the most part that isn't the focus of their party role. Most melee builds can't force the monsters to attack them, so what matters is their ability to drop enemies quickly, not their AC or HP... a melee character with extremely high offense and low defense can still be very useful, while a melee character with extremely high defense and low offense is utterly useless.

To me, the melee guy has the job of the walking target. As long as he has his gear on, he's always ready. He serves as best target in most parties. No need to waste resources to buff. He can stand around and take fewer hits without eating buffs. In the few situations when you need to sacifice someone to get beat on, it's the melee dude's job. Because chances are, in that sitaution he can't do much but get beat up.

[Hypothetical]

If you are going to do this, you really should break it down by each class, not just by thier Base Role.

In the party I play ( well, was playing, it's on hold while we explore playing Shadowrun) my Monk ( who would fall under your Melee group) is the Party's Face. 17 Wis, 7 ranks in Dip, Sacred Vow ( for 2 extra ranks in Dip for free), on a level 3 Char.

( Yes yes, everyone thinks Monk's are gimped. It's not my fault they don't look beyond what every one else says about them, and actually think about the Class. ONce you take Vow of Poverty ( at level 3 for non-humans, level 1 for Humans) they instantly become the Immovable Object and the Irresistable Force, in one. The people who say the Monk is Gimped, are strictly wanting to play Hack and Slash, kill em kill em games. They don't care about real Role-Playing, which is what D&D is Supposed to be about.)

Going further...maybe your party has a Paliden. SHouldn't the Pally be your Face? Think it through ( again, from a true Role-Playing perspective). Here you have an Ultimate Force for Good, right there handy. SHouldn't that guy be up front talking to the King/Duke/Priest/Whatever that is handing out your assignments?

FOr that matter, maybe you have a Ranger who neglected his Bow skills, for more up front dual wielded Short Swords, because he has this nifty little thing called Honor, and he insists that all of his kills be made up close and personal, so he can look into the eyes of his enemies as they die....

Sure, Playing formula Characters is cool. If you're playing Final Fantasy or World of Warcraft. But if you're playing a real game, formulas are boring. Oh, yay, we have another Fire Wizard...cast us a Fireball oh mighty one! Yawn.....

It's rather like Alignments. Very few players I've played with have ever gone outside of thier Alignments ( and most choose something like Chaotic Good, or Lawful Nuetral). I"ve never yet seen someone play a Lawful Evil Character that, though they are Evil, are fighting to instill Law throughout the land, that didn't play it like Darth Vader. What if, just once, someone were to play a Lawfull Evil Character, that is still evil ( uses torture without thought, has no mercy on the battleground, etc) that is fighting to restore, or protect, a fully democratic and free nation? ( For referances on how that might be done, I direct your attention to a series of novels by William W. Johnstone, known collectively as the Ashes series. The top three main Characters ( Ben Raines, Ike McGowen, and Cecil Jefferies) are some of the evilest MFers you would ever want to face across a battlefield or in a dark alley, and yet the dream they are fighting for is the single freeest and loosest nation ever conceived. Start with "Out of the Ashes", and try your best to read them in the order they were published. It's not easy, because they can be very hard to find, because once people have them, they tend not to want to give them up...and there are well over 20 novels in the series...)

[Saithis Bladewing]

Arcane Caster
-Batman

:smallwink:

[Orzel]

If you are going to do this, you really should break it down by each class, not just by thier Base Role.

In the party I play ( well, was playing, it's on hold while we explore playing Shadowrun) my Monk ( who would fall under your Melee group) is the Party's Face. 17 Wis, 7 ranks in Dip, Sacred Vow ( for 2 extra ranks in Dip for free), on a level 3 Char.

( Yes yes, everyone thinks Monk's are gimped. It's not my fault they don't look beyond what every one else says about them, and actually think about the Class. ONce you take Vow of Poverty ( at level 3 for non-humans, level 1 for Humans) they instantly become the Immovable Object and the Irresistable Force, in one. The people who say the Monk is Gimped, are strictly wanting to play Hack and Slash, kill em kill em games. They don't care about real Role-Playing, which is what D&D is Supposed to be about.)

Going further...maybe your party has a Paliden. SHouldn't the Pally be your Face? Think it through ( again, from a true Role-Playing perspective). Here you have an Ultimate Force for Good, right there handy. SHouldn't that guy be up front talking to the King/Duke/Priest/Whatever that is handing out your assignments?

FOr that matter, maybe you have a Ranger who neglected his Bow skills, for more up front dual wielded Short Swords, because he has this nifty little thing called Honor, and he insists that all of his kills be made up close and personal, so he can look into the eyes of his enemies as they die....

Sure, Playing formula Characters is cool. If you're playing Final Fantasy or World of Warcraft. But if you're playing a real game, formulas are boring. Oh, yay, we have another Fire Wizard...cast us a Fireball oh mighty one! Yawn.....

It's rather like Alignments. Very few players I've played with have ever gone outside of thier Alignments ( and most choose something like Chaotic Good, or Lawful Nuetral). I"ve never yet seen someone play a Lawful Evil Character that, though they are Evil, are fighting to instill Law throughout the land, that didn't play it like Darth Vader. What if, just once, someone were to play a Lawfull Evil Character, that is still evil ( uses torture without thought, has no mercy on the battleground, etc) that is fighting to restore, or protect, a fully democratic and free nation? ( For referances on how that might be done, I direct your attention to a series of novels by William W. Johnstone, known collectively as the Ashes series. The top three main Characters ( Ben Raines, Ike McGowen, and Cecil Jefferies) are some of the evilest MFers you would ever want to face across a battlefield or in a dark alley, and yet the dream they are fighting for is the single freeest and loosest nation ever conceived. Start with "Out of the Ashes", and try your best to read them in the order they were published. It's not easy, because they can be very hard to find, because once people have them, they tend not to want to give them up...and there are well over 20 novels in the series...)

Only a few classes can serve only single roles and once you multi/prestige, play 2 or more roles is easy. The difference is their ability to play the role. Can a Fighter skill monkey for an entire party? Should the wizard or bard be the party's main arcane caster? There are levels of ability. Rogues are excellent skill monkey, bards and rangers are good, monks and druids are good if they focus, clerics and sorcerers tend to stink at it.

For example, most normal Rangers are good skill monkeys (6 skill points, FE, and minor divine magic) who can be an average Melee guy and/or average Ranged Guy (Full BAB, Free combat feats, decent HD).

Paladins tend to be good at Melee Guy, a backup Divine caster, a very poor skill monkey, and have no talent for arcane or ranged roles.

Fighters tend to be Melee or Ranged. They can be the skills guy with a lot of work or just back up with a few skills. Arcane and Divine magic is out of the question.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Paladins tend to be good at Melee Guy, a backup Divine caster, a very poor skill monkey, and have no talent for arcane or ranged roles.

I don't know if I would say that. They can make perfectly good ranged combatants if you focus them on it, just not quite as good as, say a Fighter or Ranger. They've still got good BAB and there's nothing stating that they have to focus on Str, not Dex.

[CrazedGoblin]

Skill Monkey
-Any 4: scout, detector, face, tracker, gymnast, thief, etc
-Minor healing
-Minor magic abilities
-High Potential Damage

im a mix of the above and abit of ranged aswell :smallbiggrin:

[Orzel]

I don't know if I would say that. They can make perfectly good ranged combatants if you focus them on it, just not quite as good as, say a Fighter or Ranger. They've still got good BAB and there's nothing stating that they have to focus on Str, not Dex.

Paladins make fine ranged weapons guys. Ranged weapons guys is a easy role to fill (Full BAB or an extra Damage source and some spare feats/stats is all that's needed most of the time). It's rare to see one though for many reasons hence why I said they tend to have no talent at it.

[Aquillion]

To me, the melee guy has the job of the walking target. As long as he has his gear on, he's always ready. He serves as best target in most parties. No need to waste resources to buff. He can stand around and take fewer hits without eating buffs. In the few situations when you need to sacifice someone to get beat on, it's the melee dude's job. Because chances are, in that sitaution he can't do much but get beat up.I don't think that's a really important role, though, and certainly not part of D&D's core roles. The problem is that most of the time, you can't "sacrifice someone to get beat on"; it simply isn't an option. For the most part, the players don't decide who monsters focus on, the DM does, and unless you fight nothing but stupid animals DM is usually going to play them as attacking the casters and lightly-armored skillmonkey types whenever possible... and it usually is going to be possible, since most monsters have good movement and can afford to eat a few attacks of opportunity.

For the most part, when you have someone 'tanking' for the party successfully it's really the DM being nice, not anything the party is doing successfully. This isn't World of Warcraft, where the AI and tank-type abilities are deliberately set up to let tough guys hold the monster's attention... unless you have some way to force enemy attackers to focus the heavily-armored fighters and ignore the much more vulnerable mages, archers, and skillmonkies, the party tank role is useless. Most of the game's ways of controlling who the enemy attacks are weak and highly limited (and don't work on opponents that are immune to mind-affecting effects, which later on is almost everything worth worrying about), so, basically, party tank isn't a useful role for anyone in D&D.

Melee-types do need decent defense, of course, since they're going to be at the front line and hopefully dealing a lot of damage... if they don't have good defense, opponents will just smush them because it's easy to smush them. But I don't think the overall mechanics of D&D support any real tank role at all; defense is strictly secondary in any of the game's main roles... Often an important secondary, but still secondary.

Likewise, it isn't at all unique to fighters. If anything, mages, skill-monkies, and so forth need plans for defense much more than fighter-types... all fighter-types get high HD, while the mages and skill-monkies are still going to be subject to monster attacks if they don't look out for themselves. Everyone needs a plan for defense of some sort. "Hope the fighter is between me and the enemy and the monster doesn't think to go around" just doesn't cut it.

[Damionte]

I don't break down party role by class, but by abilities.

Damage / Melee
Damage / Range
Damage / Soak

Battlefield Control
Healing

things like that. Different classes can get certain things done. A warrior could handle battlefield control. While an Archer or Nuking mage could do ranged damage. Breakign it down by class doesn't always work.

[TheOOB]

Well, to be short, a character does whats needed. The four classic roles just happen to be roles that most campaigns need. Heres my take

Primary Roles

Tank(Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, ect)
-Primary: Fight on front line, deal melee damage, divert enemies from weaker targets/soak damage
-Secondary: Reduce enemy's damage dealing ability(trip, disarm, ect), perform athletic skills(climb, jump, swim, door bashing).

Skill Monkey(Rogue, Ninja, Spell Thief, ect)
-Primary: Deal with traps, scout, use campaign neccesary skills(diplomacy, open lock, forgery, ect depending on campaign)
-Secondary: Damage enemies(via sneak attack, skirmish, ect), provide support

Divine Caster(Cleric, Druid, Favored Soul, ect)
-Primary: Keep party alive, buffing
-Secondary: Deal with undead(clerics only), damage(melee and spell), secondary tank

Arcane Caster(Wizard, Sorcerer, ect)
-Primary: Battlefield Control(grease, solid fog, glitterdust, ect), Utility(Fly, Knock, Teleport, ect).
-Secondary: Buffing, offensive magic(avoid damage, everyone can do damage).

Secondary Roles

Support(Bard, ect)
Primary: Utility, Aid other roles in performing their tasks

Archer(Warmage, ranger, ect)
Primary: Provide damage at a range

[Callix]

Orzel, the only class that can truly tank is the Knight. The Fighting Challenge ability lets you force the enemy to fight you, as long as no-one else attacks them. The main reason that fighters are always regarded as underpowered, IMO, is that while they can get a good AC, they can largely be shut down with fly/air walk/prismatic wall/your pick of defensive ability, and safely ignored. Even those with no magical abilities will ignore an enemy that is tough and not particularly dangerous thanks to their largely static damage. That's why things like ToB are so useful.

[TheOOB]

Orzel, the only class that can truly tank is the Knight. The Fighting Challenge ability lets you force the enemy to fight you, as long as no-one else attacks them. The main reason that fighters are always regarded as underpowered, IMO, is that while they can get a good AC, they can largely be shut down with fly/air walk/prismatic wall/your pick of defensive ability, and safely ignored. Even those with no magical abilities will ignore an enemy that is tough and not particularly dangerous thanks to their largely static damage. That's why things like ToB are so useful.

Any fighting class can tank, the DM just has to account for the fact that most enemies tend to focus their attention on the big huge guy with armor and a sword standing right next to them and attacking rather then the comparitively frail other party members.

[Jack Mann]

Why?

I mean, the first round, maybe, but once the caster starts, well, casting, it should be clear to anything intelligent that this is the one to go after. And anything that isn't all that intelligent is more likely to go after the weakest-looking member, as that's the one that's easier to grab and run off to eat.

Sure, your less gifted humanoids and giants like orcs and ogres are going to run at the big armored guy, but anything smarter or dumber than that is probably going to go after the mage.

It's not just that the mage is likely more dangerous, it's that (at lower levels, anyway) he's easier to shut down (both out of character and from an in character perspective). If you rate the mage and the fighter as equally dangerous, then you can spend, say, four rounds fighting both of them before killing the fighter, and one round fighting just one, or you can spend one round before killing the mage, and then four rounds with only one opponent. It should be pretty obvious that the frail-looking guy in robes is probably going to be an easier target than the guy in armor, especially if you're faster than the armored fighter.

[mrjoegangles]

Ranged Weapons Guy
Skill Monkey
-Any 4: scout, detector, face, tracker, gymnast, thief, etc
-Minor healing
-Minor magic abilities
-High Potential Damage

What did I miss?

Skill monkey is not the term Id use. My parties like to use what we call utility characters. That is characters that shine outside of straight combat/casting

A warlock is a good example. Low # of skill points but he has personnal buffs that can make him the best diplomat (+7 to diplomacy/intimidate/bluff at first level on a charisma based character.... dang thats nasty) or gymnist (+7 to tumble/balance/jump) or encyclopedia (+7knowledge checks)

Later on he can use magic items, detect magic at will, and can create magic items even without the proper spells. Sure his damage output isnt as great as most fighters or casters but his between combat roles can be amazing if played right. (infinate charm person, shatter, invisibility, spiderclimb)

So instead of skill monkey id say utility player, cause combats only half the game. And there are more skills then pick lock.

[Orzel]

I mentioned nothing about tanking. There is no tanking in D&D.

There is combat. When you have combat every 1-3 hours for 10 hours each adventuring day, the only guy with good HP, Attack, damage, and AC when the fights starts is the weapons guys and the druid. Good combat buffed are short, weapons guys are always ready.

So when you need to escape and you need someone to provide cover from the mook squad
or bash an enemy caster before he gets a chance to finish a spell combo
or something that doesn't suck up the first 3 rounds of combat (not everyone has extend and quickened spell)

Starting the battle with high offense and defense is a good thing. I can't count the amount of times people start using preparation spells and items then get themselves "removed from combat". Next wizard I tell "Axes go through wind wall" then loses 1/2 his HP gets punched in the face.

[Saph]

Why?

I mean, the first round, maybe, but once the caster starts, well, casting, it should be clear to anything intelligent that this is the one to go after . . .

What you're not taking into account is the difference between attacks and full attacks. For a monster, that's usually a big difference.

Example:

Gribbly Monster One is fighting Generic Adventuring Party. It's the second round of combat. The fighter is standing next to Gribbly. The wizard is as far away as he can get, probably 30-60 feet distance.

Assuming Gribbly attacks, it has two choices:

a) Full attack the fighter
b) Move towards the wizard (taking an AoO in the process) and attack him.

Let's say Gribbly is a Wyvern. So the choice is between:

a) Sting +10 melee (1d6+4 plus poison) and bite +8 melee (2d8+4) and 2 wings +8 melee (1d8+2) and 2 talons +8 melee (2d6+4), aimed at the fighter, or:

b) Sting +10 melee (1d6+4 plus poison) aimed at the wizard, and get AoO'ed in the process.

Now do you see why beating on the melee guy isn't such a bad choice for many monsters? When it's a choice between hitting one guy six times and hitting another guy once, the second guy has to be a REALLY tempting target to make it worth it.

Of course, if the monster has some kind of ability that only fires once a round but can hit whoever it wants, then yes, zapping the wizard becomes a much better choice. And if you do ever get a chance to full attack a squishy character, go for it. But if the fighters keep putting themselves in harm's way, then they're likely to get a beating too.

This is at low-mid levels. At very low levels, moving away from the fighter to hit the wizard is an even worse choice, because you're effectively doubling the number of swings the fighter gets at you (one extra AoO every round).

Conclusion: There is often a very good reason for monsters to attack fighters in melee. "Just avoid them and attack the wizard" isn't always the best option.

- Saph

[LotharBot]

I'm always hearing people talk about how their character spends the first 2 rounds of combat buffing and then gets involved in the fight. With my party (http://rubblerousers.blogspot.com/), the melee characters will grind up most enemies within 2 rounds anyway. Occasionally we spot an enemy coming and have 2-3 rounds to buff, but if combat starts and you're sitting there wasting actions on buffing yourself, chances are you won't actually do anything to the enemy because they'll be dead by the time you act again. DM'ing a party from levels 1-19 has made me stop being a believer in the things I've heard about melee types not being useful high-level.

As for party roles/abilities:
IN COMBAT:
- single-target damage - Melee, ranged, occasionally casters
- multi-target damage - casters, occasionally melee (cleave, whirlwind), ranged
- "... or suck" effects (blindness, grapple, silence, stun, etc.) - anyone can do these, including rogues with crippling strike.
- "... or die" effects (disintegrate, wrathful castigation, vorpal, disrupting, etc.) - same as above. Casters have more "on-command" save or die effects, but melee types do still have them.
- battlefield control (bull rush, trip, wall of force, forcecage, grease) - normally casters, but fighters can do some of this
- damage absorption - melee and buffed divine casters (you can think of this as a form of battlefield control -- if the enemy can't get past you or drop you quickly, you can control their actions somewhat)
- party healing / restoration - divine casters
- support (boosting others via buffs, flanking, aid another, etc.) - casters, rogues
- distracting/interrupting enemy casters - anyone who can get them in their sights.
- information - wizards and anyone else with appropriate knowledge skills. Provided, of course, you don't just metagame everything.

OUT OF COMBAT:
- diplomacy / "party face" - usually a rogue, bard, paladin, or sorcerer
- scouting / tracking - usually rogue or ranger -- someone who can sneak around the corner and see what's waiting, or locate an enemy (possibly through Gather Info)
- stealing and trickery - usually a rogue
- trap disabling / creating a safe path - usually a rogue
- magic item creation or procurement - casters, often wizards
- quick transportation (teleport, planeshift) - usually arcane casters
- information / "following the plot hook" - rogues, bards, or wizards (with knowledge checks)

You can cover all of these roles by taking a "standard four" party (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric) but that's by no means the only way to cover the roles. And they're not always grouped in the "melee / ranged / skill monkey / divine caster / arcane caster" arrangement in the OP. In a nature-oriented campaign you might have a 3-person party of ranger, druid, and sorcerer and have most of the roles covered. Or you might have a six-player party of barbarian, ranger/rogue, bard, cleric, monk, and wizard that covers the roles in an entirely different way. Don't worry too much about meeting the archetype, just worry about covering what the rest of your party doesn't.