Post/Author/DateTime	Post
braethias 02-13-06, 01:19 PM	I was teaching a fellow student how to play, and she asked what role each class had. I pondered for a moment, then came up with the following list. Offense(O) - Damage output, DPS(yes, a WoW term, sue me.) Line breaker. Defense(D) - Meat shield, Main tank. Hold the line type. Support(S) - Supports others, casts buffs, heals, casts those nifty spells. this is NOT limited to magic alone. Classes marked with a * are considered sketchy regarding their roles. The results are based on what role the class could fill best. A bard could easily play an offensive role, but would much better be a support type. Fighter: O, D, and S. A fighter at low levels could easily outdamage a Barbarian, (but one in a rage, maybe.) with feats. Mid level, his role shifts to a defensive stance, and if he chooses feats such as improved trip/grapple/disarm, he could easily be a support character. Barbarian: O and D. While he rages, he makes a good offense, and can even use his rage to defend. Because he does not have the same fighting qualities as a fighter, (feats) his option to support is very limited, but it is still present. Ranger: O and S. I've never actually played a ranger, so I dont know much about them, but I do know a ranger that went down the TWF tree, had numerous attacks, and was outdamaging the Half-Ogre barbarian(Even in a rage). His spells are not entirely offensive, so they're more of a support type. *Paladin: (Depends). A paladin, when fighting an evil opponent, can dish out some damage, but not against a non-evil character. The paladin is mostly a defensive type, but also can be a support type. Bard: S. A support character with a lot of AoE buffs and spells that enhance. Mild combat abilities an produce a backup defense for the weaker characters. *Monk: - The Monk is unique, being the offensive defense. With several attacks, and a high damage output, the monk can be offense, but it can also be defense. The monk makes a good all-around type, being a decent backup of any type. Rogue: O, OR S. A combat orientated rogue can dish out high amounts of damage, and can (normally) evade most blows. A combat rogue would need a lot of 'to hit' bonuses to be mostly effective, and their low amount of hit points can be harmful if the rogue is the target. Alternately, a rogue focused on skills/stealth, is a support type. Scouting ahead, disarming traps, and such. Generally, (but not always) a rogue is one or the other, not both. This mostly depends on the player. *Sorcerer: O. I believe that the sorcerer is an offensive character, due to the lack of spell selection, and greater number of spells, combined with spontaneous spell casting. A sorcerer gets his damage by spells, not melee. (Though not always). A sorcerer that selects the right spells can be a pretty nasty opponent. *Wizard: - The Wizard has no defined role. Any given day, the Wizard could be any of the combat options, Offense, Defense, or Support, depending on the spells they had chosen for that day. A wizard needs a lot of downtime to be effective. Cleric: D, S. The clerics spells automagically grant him the support type, and combat abilities give him the defensive role. A cleric with damage spells could be considered offense, but a cleric wouldn't be as good a sorcerer or wizard with damage spells. Not always the case, however. Druid: D, S. The druid, can easily fill either defensive or support roles, with a spell selection and class abilities. The Druid could be a backup type as well. Feel free to comment/add to this list. Please, be kind, and don't insult my opinions. :D
SteveoftheHills 02-13-06, 01:43 PM	I'm going to call it now and say people will disagree with your views on the Monk, Cleric, and Druid and probably the Sorcerer and Wizard (mostly because that's what sooo many people like to argue about :rolleye2: ) As for myself, I'm rather opposed to this sort of categorization of classes as it creates nothing but needless debates over pointless issues. But, hey, if that's everyone else get's their jollies, who am I to say anything about it. One thing though, I don't think anyone will disagree with the Bard being a support character :D. Edit: When I read over this again, I realized it came off as a little scathing. It's not meant as an insult, so much as a commentary on the need to constantly argue over what class is better than the other, what class does this or that job better, what classes suck, etc., which is what I see this thread de-evolving into. Also I might be a little grumpy since i haven't eaten I in a while. :D
Seerow 02-13-06, 01:51 PM	One thing though, I don't think anyone will disagree with the Bard being a support character :D. *insert random person ranting about how incredibly awesome the bard is offensively with the right setup*
SteveoftheHills 02-13-06, 02:01 PM	*insert random person ranting about how incredibly awesome the bard is offensively with the right setup* :rofl:
braethias 02-13-06, 02:09 PM	I welcome friendly critisicm, and I don't think I spelled that right. Oh well. Anywho, this isn't so much of a 'this class is better' thread, just a general idea of how to describe each class. For example, a barbarian can't do much besides smack things, so he isn't going to very good at supporting others. but he can hurt people, and that's what is important. Though if you would be so kind, elaborate on what you mean about the Cleric. and I know how ya feel, I haven't eaten since saturday. :P
Zetakya 02-13-06, 02:14 PM	Bards are not great offensively, but with the right gear/feat/stat selection you can have a Bard do a decent job filling a line-defence role in combat, protecting the much more vulnerable full casters. Hardly defence on the scale of a Fighter, but much better to force AoOs on anyone trying to get to the mage line. To the OP: Frankly your categories are more than a bit limited, you've neglected to mention scouting as a role, and your analysis of Monk and Sorcerer are off. I've also seen "Avenger" type Paladins who kicked ass on the attack but had less than stellar defence. For the most part the game is simply too flexible to pigeon hole classes like this.
solbergb 02-13-06, 02:30 PM	Arcanists do all of offense, defense and support. As do druids and some clerics (there are strictly defense/support clerics). There is no distinction between wizard and sorc. A wiz who preps a mix of spells can do all 3 roles. A sorc who has as spells known a mix of spells can do all three roles. As an example...which one provides better party defense? Fighter with fullplate, combat expertise and other tricks to raise his AC really high? wizard with wall of force, acid fog and evard's tentacles prepped Sorcerer with wall of force in "spells known" The wiz and sorc are likely to do a better job IF they have actions free to do so, at least until the wiz runs out of battlefield control spells or the sorc runs out of slots. The fighter will often do a better job if he can set up in a chokepoint, vs a melee monster, because friendly fire can go past him, whereas the spells sometimes interfere with the party counterattacking.
bikerrule_3 02-13-06, 02:33 PM	In My group we have the following, and my DM assigned are "military roles" keeping in mind also my DM is ex armed forces as well Paladin - IC (In Command) because of his status of a paladin which is a leader, also a frontline grunt cause well thats wut he does best Cleric/fighter - 2IC (2nd In Command) being a cleric puts you in a higher class and people will again follow u, he is also a support type with his longbow Ranger/rouge - Recon with her skills she has adopted it makes her perfect Ranger - His gone more gratbow the "sneak and peak" as my DM puts it so hes also a support type with his greatbow Illisionist - with her spells she is perfect for deception and tricking the enemy so mind warfair specializt Barbarian/Sorc - well hes a barbarian need i say more frontline Fighter - frontline fighter period Wizard - she is deifiantly a supporter with the spells she has
braethias 02-13-06, 02:47 PM	recon/scouting - support option in charge - support option the fighter has the defensive type because he can stand infront of the full caster and act to stop the mob from attacking them. even to avert the mob's focus. several of my fellow DM's house-ruled that you could use a combat option like tripping someone as an AoO, but they wouldnt get the AoO from triping them, whether they had improved trip or not. and a wall of force does no damage. the roles i provided are very limited for a reason. scouting is neither offensive, nor defensive, (not really) and assisst the party in some fashion, therefore, is a support action. support could be assissting someone in doing anything. same with leading. a leading character acts as the 'mind' of a group, making them more coordinated. a coordinated party is -less- likely to wipe when fighting that dragon, compared to a group of individuals. (play WoW - WSG on the horde side, you'll understand.) zetakya, i disagree. though a better statement could be - '...most part the game mechanics are simply too...' i would agree with that, but a fighter with a doohickey that allows him to cast wall of force could easily replace the wizards having to do that, leaving the wizard to go 'poke poke explode!' more.
monkmania 02-13-06, 03:52 PM	the sheer number of roles possible to be played, in addition to the uncertain line between a few of the roles makes these catagories a bit strange to work with. it's not that your categories are limiting, it's that your categories can possibly be limitless. at least maybe, you could expand each category to include some more specific subcategories -- support for instance has so many sub categories (healer, buffer, party face, trap finder, tracker, utility, etc. [and the things you mentioned]) that it doesn't do certain classes justice by placing them in one category. anyways, i'll mention, under these categories, my current party composition... Psion, Telepath: Support (party face, battlefield control [domination stunning], utility), Defensive (his stunning spells are pretty effective at "holding the line" -- here's a gray area between support and defensive), Offensive (when his augmented Mindblast works, hehe) Monk: Offensive (fast run speed catches quick opponents), Defensive (in regards to preventative measures, ie running up to enemy spellcasters [in that light it's an aggressive action that defends the rest of the party]), support (insane spot and listen checks, insane hide and move silently checks, absolutely vital wisdom checks) Paladin (+ Rhino mount): Offensive (he's going cavelier), Defensive (he's a dwarf so he's got plenty of HP and decent saves vs spells), Support (lay on hands in a pinch, Rhino will help carry stuff, paladins have good reputations so he's a useful rp'ing tool) Favored Soul (me): Offensive (cleric spells), Defensive (cleric spells), support (cleric spells -- plus i'm putting ranks into knowledge arcana and spell craft). My favorite thing about this group is that all of us fill the tradition DnD roles, but using slighty off the beaten path classes Wizard = Telepath Fighter = Paladin + Rhino Rogue = Monk Cleric = Favored Soul
demonic_dante 02-13-06, 04:18 PM	I think it would be better to put the classes into the following categories: stealthy = s warrior = w helper (non-magical) = h magical vs. enemy (can be divided into defensive/offensive) = me magical for party (buffs/healing)(not that any magic user can't do both, but what they primarily do) = mp The classes would then be like this: Barbarian = w Bard = anything (with the right build) more h than anything else Cleric = mp (see above) Druid = me + mp (little of both) Fighter = w Monk = h or w (depending on the build) probably h Paladin = w + mp (a little) Ranger = w + mp (a little) Rogue = s/h Sorcerer = me Wizard = me