Quote from: jadrax;519176That's not the same thing, your getting tied up in game mechanics. Ajax was the archetypal front line fighter, big strong and massive. Odysseus was slight, cunning and relied on trickery and intelligence. There's nothing to stop a defensive fighter doing huge damage, indeed Achilles (who was invulnerable) was also a death machine. But its still Odysseus through tactics and trickery who wins the day. (Which is kind of the moral, and gets explored even more in the Odyssey). Ajax charged his foes and cut through hordes of lesser men, if Odysseus had tried that he would have been going home on his shield.

It's a pretty common fictional trope, I could have said B.A. Barraccus and Hannibal Smith instead.

If the word 'focus' upsets you as terminology, I can happy accept element instead. As jibbajibba pointed out, where already dissecting the wings off the butterfly here, as there's a huge chunk of the game that's not about fighting that's excluded here.

In your final example, that true if Archer Guy is a Fighting Man. But as soon as you have the Thief with his abilities of stealth, climbing and other ways of getting advantage on the combat, you have a far superior light armour fighter. Which as an aside leads to one of the problems with the fighting Man, in that his versatility goes down each time a new 'type' of warrior comes along and nicks part of his portfolio. That I am afraid, pre-dates WotC by years. Hell, most of this stuff I was having the exact same discussions back when I was in secondary school (only you know, without the internet).

You got you mythology wrong Bro.. Odysseus was so strong that he was the only man on Ithaca able to string his bow... its why he has 18(00) strength in Deity and Demi-gods by the way.

I know its irrelevant but I am in an airport with an hour to kill so ... meh...

Now you do highlight one of the shortfalls of DnD, although I suspect unwittingly, In reality its almost impossible to shoot a longbow in plate armour. The armour doesn't articulate correctly, the line of the string is restricted by sticky-out bits of metal and steel gauntlets really weren't meant for notching arrows.

I still don't really think the MMO roles are a good match though. The best missile guy is always going to be a fighter with a bow and never a thief, not only does the fighter have a better to hit, more attacks and later specialisation but the thief's backstab bonus doesn't apply to missile fire so it's really a bit of a waste all round.

Now I for one would like to see the lightly armoured fighter encouraged in DnD which is why I am pro AC getting bonus with level. I think lightly armoured fast warriors are a genuine archetype, from fiction, history and myth so a reasonable way to generate a fighter like that would be good, but since the tools in DnD are crude, being HP and AC, it's hard to do within the framework.

Quote from: jibbajibba;519198You got you mythology wrong Bro.. Odysseus was so strong that he was the only man on Ithaca able to string his bow... its why he has 18(00) strength in Deity and Demi-gods by the way.

From my recollection, it was a trick bow, and he pulled it by doing something clever with his foot?

Quote from: jadrax;519207From my recollection, it was a trick bow, and he pulled it by doing something clever with his foot?

Nope just too strong for anyone else to string

Quote from: jibbajibba;519209Nope just too strong for anyone else to string

The thing about the foot, (having looked it up) is conjecture based on how you would actually string a recurved bow. However, the Ian Johnston translation, which is what I have to hand describes it thus:

Quote"But shrewd Odysseus, once he'd raised the bow and looked it over on all sides, then—just as someone really skilled at playing the lyre and singing has no trouble when he loops a string around a brand-new peg, tying the twisted sheep's gut down at either end— that how easily Odysseus strung that great bow."

Dunno, that's not a description of a test of strength to me, more point out how skilled he is. Especially as I do not recall him being described as particularly strong anywhere else.

Edit: The Samuel Butler translation I think is even more explicit in pointing out its not strength that's important here.

QuoteFor long Odysseus stood with the bow in his hands, handling it as a minstrel handles a lyre when he stretches a cord or tightens a peg. Then he bent the great bow; he bent it without an effort, and at his touch the bow-string made a sound that was like the cry of a swallow. The wooers seeing him bend that mighty bow felt, every man of them, a sharp pain at the heart. They saw Odysseus take up an arrow and fit it to the string. He held the notch, and he drew the string, and he shot the bronze-weighted arrow straight through the holes in the back of the axe-heads.

Quote from: Premier;519164It also assumes that the basic assumptions of combat are identical to the ones in 3rd / 4th edition D&D. Which is untrue for... well, anything other than 3rd / 4th edition D&D.*

No other version of D&D distinguishes between defensive "Tanks" and offensive "Strikers", since no other version shamelessly copies the assumptions of MMORPGs. No other version of D&D limits spellcasters to either "Artillery" or "Healer", since no other version was written by designers who were so limited in their understanding of the game that they couldn't possibly imagine anything else to do with spells.

*As a note, it logically follows from this that these tactical roles are anything but "iconic". Show me an archetypal "defensive fighter" or "offensive fighter" figure from fiction or legend. You can't, there's only "fighter". That is iconic.

I kind of half agree with you. The TSR D&D roles map closer to "infantry", "artillery", and I guess "reinforcement" - fighters are infantry in that they slug it out and are expected to last a long time slugging it out (but they're more like modern infantry in that they can engage at range as well as close-in, since bows are good weapons); magic-users are artillery in that they are fragile and do not want anything getting next to them; clerics would then reinforce the other infantry (and are somewhat less good at it than the fighters); thieves pitch in where they can.

Also, your TSR D&D combat role tends to depend on your ability scores. If you're a thief and the best all-around athlete in the party you're going on the front lines.

On the other hand the 3e cleric is much less limited to healing and the 3e wizard is more tolerant of getting up close and personal as well, because they're overall more powerful classes. I don't buy that 3e limits their "roles" (the tank/striker/artillery/healer thing) more. It's the other way around.

Quote from: jadrax;519182I struggle to think of a role of a wizard that matches up to its role as artillery. It's what makes the class unique. Look at the shear number of Damage spells compared to everything else. They can do other things, and indeed you could build one that did not do Artillery at all, but you would be making a concious decision to play against the norm.

Not as much in TSR D&D (especially before 2e -- the spell list exploded with 2e and splats).

Worse for this argument, mages could not just select spells from the list in the rules. They had to find them somehow in the campaign world and get them in their spellbook. In OD&D (post Supplement I) and AD&D the caster might not be able to learn a spell even if he discovered it.  2e added schools of magic which meant some casters might not even be able to attempt to learn the artillery spells.

Lots of casters in games I've been in/ran since 1975 did not have a lot of artillery spells -- some by choice, but many because even if they had wanted them, they never found many to add to their spell books in the game.

To be honest, I have zero interest in classifying classes by type of combat they are theoretically best at if played the way the designer assumes they will be played. I want the classes to be general archetypes defining what people do in the game as a whole, not just by what they do in combat. Or if they simply must be classified by combat ability, I'd like them classified as "combatant" (most class abilities revolve around combat, out of combat abilities are clearly secondary), "semi-combatant" (many class abilities are not directly related to combat, but the class can hold their own in combat in needed), and "non-combatant" (most class abilities are not directly related to combat, the class should only go into direct combat as a last resort.  Non-combatant classes are necessary, btw, as not every tabletop player is interested enough in combat to be happy with a character focused on it.

The problem with using MMO combat roles is they are based on games where every character is expected to be very capable in combat and all characters need to be very capable in combat because -- like most computer-ran games -- most of what you can do is going to be combat.  I don't want that type of influence in D&D.

Quote from: jadrax;519182I struggle to think of a role of a wizard that matches up to its role as artillery. It's what makes the class unique. Look at the shear number of Damage spells compared to everything else. They can do other things, and indeed you could build one that did not do Artillery at all, but you would be making a concious decision to play against the norm.

I just had a look at the 1e PHB M-U spell lists. I didn't go past 2nd level spells, but there are a total of 54 spells listed in those first two, and I see only three damage spells.

Burning Hands
Magic Missile
Shocking Grasp

That's 18-to-1, man.  There are several other controller-ish spells like Web and Sleep, which would be handy in a combat, but the 1e wizard doesn't get to blow up an entire room full of goblins until he's 5th level.  There are plenty of spells that have no combat utility at all, and plenty more that have only incidental combat utility.

Again this post contains terminology, people might want to replace some words to stop their heads exploding. I am mainly picking an choosing words that make the most descriptive sense to me.

Quote from: TAFMSV;519380I just had a look at the 1e PHB M-U spell lists. I didn't go past 2nd level spells, but there are a total of 54 spells listed in those first two, and I see only three damage spells.

Burning Hands
Magic Missile
Shocking Grasp

That's 18-to-1, man.

Yes, well I think there is a reason Wizards are described as weak at low levels.

QuoteThere are several other controller-ish spells like Web and Sleep, which would be handy in a combat, but the 1e wizard doesn't get to blow up an entire room full of goblins until he's 5th level.  

Now 'Control' is an interesting one. I am not convinced it really exists as an iconic tactical role outside of computer games.

It seems to me that in the computer games they took the Wizards role of Artillery and split it into AoE and Single Target, and destroyed the Light Tanks 'Flanker' role and turned them into what people are calling a 'Striker'. Which I think is a retrograde step.

Then to make up for the lost singe target damage, they started giving casters lost of ways stun and do 'crowd control'. Although 4th seems to use the word 'control' purely for blowing up lots of shit at once.

I don't remember 'crowd control' really happening to any extent in D&D, and I think that is the limitations of computer games coming into effect. I would be interested to hear if anyone has any different experiences?

QuoteThere are plenty of spells that have no combat utility at all, and plenty more that have only incidental combat utility.

Undoubtedly, and their nice for the wizard and in no way am I saying they should not exist or do not add anything to the class. But these spells are not helpful for determining a Wizard's most likely tactical role in combat.

Quote from: jadrax;519455Now 'Control' is an interesting one. I am not convinced it really exists as an iconic tactical role outside of computer games.

...and D&D4e

Quote from: jadrax;519455It seems to me that in the computer games they took the Wizards role of Artillery and split it into AoE and Single Target, and destroyed the Light Tanks 'Flanker' role and turned them into what people are calling a 'Striker'. Which I think is a retrograde step.

Then to make up for the lost singe target damage, they started giving casters lost of ways stun and do 'crowd control'. Although 4th seems to use the word 'control' purely for blowing up lots of shit at once.

I don't remember 'crowd control' really happening to any extent in D&D, and I think that is the limitations of computer games coming into effect. I would be interested to hear if anyone has any different experiences?

The limitations of computer games assigned wizards the role of artillery, since computer games didn't do the parts that wizards are good at, like reading dead languages, altering people's minds, floating through the air, manipulating objects at a distance, frightening strangers, learning important facts by communicating with inanimate objects, breaking warded portals, changing appearances of things and people, &c.  That's the original RPG wizard, and what I would consider iconic.  The iconic wizard in a typical melee is, as likely as not, dead weight.  

Quote from: jadrax;519455Undoubtedly, and their nice for the wizard and in no way am I saying they should not exist or do not add anything to the class. But these spells are not helpful for determining a Wizard's most likely tactical role in combat.

On the contrary, they tell you plenty about the M-U's combat role, which is STAY OUT OF THE WAY.  They aren't designed to be artillery (not with regularity, at least).  The role of a wizard is to be a wizard.

Quote from: TAFMSV;519468On the contrary, they tell you plenty about the M-U's combat role, which is STAY OUT OF THE WAY.  They aren't designed to be artillery (not with regularity, at least).  The role of a wizard is to be a wizard.

You know, you play experience is actually so far from mine I am actually lost for words. It's a wide wide world indeed.

Quote from: jadrax;519176That's not the same thing, your getting tied up in game mechanics. Ajax was the archetypal front line fighter, big strong and massive. Odysseus was slight, cunning and relied on trickery and intelligence. There's nothing to stop a defensive fighter doing huge damage, indeed Achilles (who was invulnerable) was also a death machine. But its still Odysseus through tactics and trickery who wins the day. (Which is kind of the moral, and gets explored even more in the Odyssey). Ajax charged his foes and cut through hordes of lesser men, if Odysseus had tried that he would have been going home on his shield.

It's a pretty common fictional trope, I could have said B.A. Barraccus and Hannibal Smith instead.

Let me weigh in and point out that nothing in your description of Ajax screams 'defensive' to me.  In fact, I'd point out that you are trying to draw a line between 'fighters that fight and fighters that plan' which, frankly, is idiotic in an RPG.

BA Barraccus and Ajax and Achillies fucking murderize people. THat is offensive. THey are big and strong and hard and they wade into hordes of lesser men and murderize them. That is offensive.

Oh, you say, but they are hard and armored... so that's defensive, right? I mean, Achillies is invulnerable!

And hopefully, I've just enlightened you.  Dudes that wade into hordes of lesser men and murderize them are FIGHTERS. THey have to be hard to survive their murderizing, they have to murderize in order for anyone to, you know, care!

Not that Odessyus was exactly a slouch in murderizing motherfuckers either.

Quote from: Spike;519481Let me weigh in and point out that nothing in your description of Ajax screams 'defensive' to me.  In fact, I'd point out that you are trying to draw a line between 'fighters that fight and fighters that plan' which, frankly, is idiotic in an RPG.

BA Barraccus and Ajax and Achillies fucking murderize people. THat is offensive. THey are big and strong and hard and they wade into hordes of lesser men and murderize them. That is offensive.

Oh, you say, but they are hard and armored... so that's defensive, right? I mean, Achillies is invulnerable!

And hopefully, I've just enlightened you.  Dudes that wade into hordes of lesser men and murderize them are FIGHTERS. THey have to be hard to survive their murderizing, they have to murderize in order for anyone to, you know, care!

Yes, I agree that the terminology could be better. I am not trying to say a defensive fighter shouldn't do damage. The key is he does that damage by going toe-to-toe. In many cases to turn out a very old cliché the best defence is a strong defence, and I think again Computer Games and 4ed are responsible for redefining the role as something nonsensical.

Where as the Odysseus style fighter to my mind is not so much 'a fighter who plans' as a fighter whose key role is using mobility to disrupt your opponent's tactics. Flanker or Skirmisher are both terms I have seen used.

But that's not accurate to Odessyus or Hannibal.

Odessyus planned the Trojan Horse, he tricked a Cyclopes into thinking he was No One.. That was pretty much the entire point of recruiting him, he was cunning and clever and a planner. And, like every Myceanan Hero, he was also a badass, but that's neither here nor there.

That's the point I was trying to make. Subdividing Fighters tends to mean you try to weaken them in areas where you want other subdivisions to be strong, but that doesn't work.

THe Baseline for a dude who's schtick is he's a fighter is 'badass'. Everything else is flavor put on top of badass.

Quote from: Spike;519491But that's not accurate to Odessyus or Hannibal.

O.k., so with the A-Team example because I think its the simpler. Every week (from what I remember) the A-Team wound get in a fight, and every week there would be an Evil B.A. for B.A. to fight.

B.A.'s role is to counteract the Evil B.A. (and Evil B.A. mirrors that), as soon as one of them gets lose the fight is over because they can take down everything else on their own. That's a defensive fighter, front line fighter, Big Tough Guy whatever you want to call it.

Hannibal Smith is not in that role, what he is doing in the fight is different. But having different tactical roles in combat dosen't diminish either of them.

Quote from: jadrax;519455Undoubtedly, and their nice for the wizard and in no way am I saying they should not exist or do not add anything to the class. But these spells are not helpful for determining a Wizard's most likely tactical role in combat.

That's okay as I have no interest in classifying classes by their "role in combat". A character's "role in combat" should be decided by the player, not by the character class and character classes should not be designed around artificial combat roles.