@Eronakis - I'm not a huge fan of "melee fights melee and casters fight casters" and wouldn't necessarily say how that goes down in D&D though I do kind of get what you mean. Melee run up and throw themselves in the way of the casters behind them so that usually you have two melee based frontlines clashing while support does support from behind them.
I think D&D tactics has a lot more depth than that. You have the caster throwing silence on the barbarian who rushes in to engage the mages (who are screwed vs. him unless they have silent casting) the ranger picking off enemy casters. The rogue coming in to flank an opponent for massive damage. The druid entangling enemies at a chokepoint and then having support pick off their melee before it can even engage yours etc.
So D&D tactics have a lot depth to it. The one thing is true D&D tactics are difficult to replicate in real-time games and tend to work best in turn based games.
But the trinity feels like a "This is hard so I give up" approach to balancing real time combat. It was a good first attempt. Now its time to try new things.
It makes sense for melee to engage with other melee and other magic casters to engage with others naturally in combat. If you think of a real fight, with 6v6. Naturally melee would go after melee and magic after magic.
I am gonna have to totally disagree with you on this one, anyone that has played team combat MOBA's knows that you play against their weakness, IE: if you have a cloth clad caster, you have the beefy barb charge and put everything into taking the magic-caster out of the fight, and engage their barb with a ranger that uses ranged to kite... to keep them occupied. Always kill the healers first, and always defend your own support.
Melee don't go after Melee... Melee go after Casters.. and the only reason why Melee are fighting each other, is because Melee also defend the caster from the melee that are trying to kill them... Just like Assault defends Heavies.. .
Well what I am proposing does not even constitute the sort of combat let alone genre I was going for. MOBA's and MMORPG are two separate things. I don't know how you thought my idea was tied to MOBAS? Not sure how you came up with that. MOBAS are pvp, this is for PVE. Like I said in my post, this is for PVE Gameplay, there will be mechanics in place for melee vs melee and caster vs caster, first. if that is not the case of course melee can fight caster or vice versa. There are engage mechanics that semi-lock the player or npc to the player. If you disengage once the npc is engaged with you, then you get a disengage penalty which results in critical strikes against you which may cause death. I have thought this through and looked at all of the angles i can fathom.
If you think of a real fight, with 6v6. Naturally melee would go after melee and magic after magic.
Now, when you said "real fight" it was implied that you meant 6V6 PvP kind of fight, in which case you would be wrong.
If this was some kind of play to talk about AI and having NPC casters target PC castes.. to make some kind of Epic-Face-off style encounters for PvE, then.. sounds like fun.. but it's not the way real fights happen.
@Eronakis - I'm not a huge fan of "melee fights melee and casters fight casters" and wouldn't necessarily say how that goes down in D&D though I do kind of get what you mean. Melee run up and throw themselves in the way of the casters behind them so that usually you have two melee based frontlines clashing while support does support from behind them.
I think D&D tactics has a lot more depth than that. You have the caster throwing silence on the barbarian who rushes in to engage the mages (who are screwed vs. him unless they have silent casting) the ranger picking off enemy casters. The rogue coming in to flank an opponent for massive damage. The druid entangling enemies at a chokepoint and then having support pick off their melee before it can even engage yours etc.
So D&D tactics have a lot depth to it. The one thing is true D&D tactics are difficult to replicate in real-time games and tend to work best in turn based games.
But the trinity feels like a "This is hard so I give up" approach to balancing real time combat. It was a good first attempt. Now its time to try new things.
I still enjoy the trinity gameplay it just needs to be innovative and I still believe my proposal of it would be intriguing. But of course, you have to design what can also be practical in development. I don't think we will see the sort of thing you're wishing for with the D&D tactics for gameplay because it involves a ton of resources and a lot of variables. Would be interested to see if something did come out of it.
VERY small to start but with the coding system to expand with tons of depth.
The prefect example of how NOT to move forward is Project Gorgon.A great idea for a game but NOTHING looks finished or polished. Start with ONE zone,then completely finish that zone.Don't create a castle with four basic walls and a few NPC's just standing there to be clicked.
It actually takes way too much to completely list a game design and why it is not an easy task yet so many developers try to make it easy with cheap designs. One area that has NOT been done well is combat.We need skills that put the fight into the players hands and not be simple spells or attacks that could pretty much be automated results. Example most combat in games is very simple math,i have 100 mp and the best dmg i can get might be 300dmg from that 100 mp and there is your result,if that is enough to kill,then i win,if not i lose,automated type math is NOT fun.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It makes sense for melee to engage with other melee and other magic casters to engage with others naturally in combat. If you think of a real fight, with 6v6. Naturally melee would go after melee and magic after magic.
I am gonna have to totally disagree with you on this one, anyone that has played team combat MOBA's knows that you play against their weakness, IE: if you have a cloth clad caster, you have the beefy barb charge and put everything into taking the magic-caster out of the fight, and engage their barb with a ranger that uses ranged to kite... to keep them occupied. Always kill the healers first, and always defend your own support.
Melee don't go after Melee... Melee go after Casters.. and the only reason why Melee are fighting each other, is because Melee also defend the caster from the melee that are trying to kill them... Just like Assault defends Heavies.. .
Well what I am proposing does not even constitute the sort of combat let alone genre I was going for. MOBA's and MMORPG are two separate things. I don't know how you thought my idea was tied to MOBAS? Not sure how you came up with that. MOBAS are pvp, this is for PVE. Like I said in my post, this is for PVE Gameplay, there will be mechanics in place for melee vs melee and caster vs caster, first. if that is not the case of course melee can fight caster or vice versa. There are engage mechanics that semi-lock the player or npc to the player. If you disengage once the npc is engaged with you, then you get a disengage penalty which results in critical strikes against you which may cause death. I have thought this through and looked at all of the angles i can fathom.
If you think of a real fight, with 6v6. Naturally melee would go after melee and magic after magic.
Now, when you said "real fight" it was implied that you meant 6V6 PvP kind of fight, in which case you would be wrong.
If this was some kind of play to talk about AI and having NPC casters target PC castes.. to make some kind of Epic-Face-off style encounters for PvE, then.. sounds like fun..but it's not the way real fights happen.
The idea is to simulate a group fight vs. another group fight using AI for NPCs. What I underline is what I am going for.
It makes sense for melee to engage with other melee and other magic casters to engage with others naturally in combat. If you think of a real fight, with 6v6. Naturally melee would go after melee and magic after magic.
I am gonna have to totally disagree with you on this one, anyone that has played team combat MOBA's knows that you play against their weakness, IE: if you have a cloth clad caster, you have the beefy barb charge and put everything into taking the magic-caster out of the fight, and engage their barb with a ranger that uses ranged to kite... to keep them occupied. Always kill the healers first, and always defend your own support.
Melee don't go after Melee... Melee go after Casters.. and the only reason why Melee are fighting each other, is because Melee also defend the caster from the melee that are trying to kill them... Just like Assault defends Heavies.. .
Well what I am proposing does not even constitute the sort of combat let alone genre I was going for. MOBA's and MMORPG are two separate things. I don't know how you thought my idea was tied to MOBAS? Not sure how you came up with that. MOBAS are pvp, this is for PVE. Like I said in my post, this is for PVE Gameplay, there will be mechanics in place for melee vs melee and caster vs caster, first. if that is not the case of course melee can fight caster or vice versa. There are engage mechanics that semi-lock the player or npc to the player. If you disengage once the npc is engaged with you, then you get a disengage penalty which results in critical strikes against you which may cause death. I have thought this through and looked at all of the angles i can fathom.
If you think of a real fight, with 6v6. Naturally melee would go after melee and magic after magic.
Now, when you said "real fight" it was implied that you meant 6V6 PvP kind of fight, in which case you would be wrong.
If this was some kind of play to talk about AI and having NPC casters target PC castes.. to make some kind of Epic-Face-off style encounters for PvE, then.. sounds like fun..but it's not the way real fights happen.
The idea is to simulate a group fight vs. another group fight using AI for NPCs. What I underline is what I am going for.
But please enlighten us of how real fights occur.
Have you played an MOBA, or even done Arena PvP in an MMO?
If not, I encourage you to give that a try, you quickly learn that there is none of that "high noon" duels, and 'toe-to-toe' fighting.
It makes sense for melee to engage with other melee and other magic casters to engage with others naturally in combat. If you think of a real fight, with 6v6. Naturally melee would go after melee and magic after magic.
I am gonna have to totally disagree with you on this one, anyone that has played team combat MOBA's knows that you play against their weakness, IE: if you have a cloth clad caster, you have the beefy barb charge and put everything into taking the magic-caster out of the fight, and engage their barb with a ranger that uses ranged to kite... to keep them occupied. Always kill the healers first, and always defend your own support.
Melee don't go after Melee... Melee go after Casters.. and the only reason why Melee are fighting each other, is because Melee also defend the caster from the melee that are trying to kill them... Just like Assault defends Heavies.. .
Well what I am proposing does not even constitute the sort of combat let alone genre I was going for. MOBA's and MMORPG are two separate things. I don't know how you thought my idea was tied to MOBAS? Not sure how you came up with that. MOBAS are pvp, this is for PVE. Like I said in my post, this is for PVE Gameplay, there will be mechanics in place for melee vs melee and caster vs caster, first. if that is not the case of course melee can fight caster or vice versa. There are engage mechanics that semi-lock the player or npc to the player. If you disengage once the npc is engaged with you, then you get a disengage penalty which results in critical strikes against you which may cause death. I have thought this through and looked at all of the angles i can fathom.
If you think of a real fight, with 6v6. Naturally melee would go after melee and magic after magic.
Now, when you said "real fight" it was implied that you meant 6V6 PvP kind of fight, in which case you would be wrong.
If this was some kind of play to talk about AI and having NPC casters target PC castes.. to make some kind of Epic-Face-off style encounters for PvE, then.. sounds like fun..but it's not the way real fights happen.
The idea is to simulate a group fight vs. another group fight using AI for NPCs. What I underline is what I am going for.
But please enlighten us of how real fights occur.
Have you played an MOBA, or even done Arena PvP in an MMO?
If not, I encourage you to give that a try, you quickly learn that there is none of that "high noon" duels, and 'toe-to-toe' fighting.
Yes I have done arena in WoW unfortunately. That is because there are no mechanics to direct players into that way. Which is what I have been trying to convey to you lol
ok. if you don't want to accept PvP/MOBA as an example....every MMO i've ever played... unless the "tank" actively pulls the agro via a taunt or intimidate type skill... mob AI prioritizes whoever is doing the most damage to them (real or perceived... i'll get back to that in a sec). that's typically NOT the melee...
mobs (unless they have been programed with random agro) regardless of their type (melee/range/magic) typically, once the fight starts and damage begins to be dealt, overriding whatever random agro the fight started with (usually first target mob sees, but occasionally the AI is a little more advanced... for example.. in DDO rust monsters attacking warforged players first regardless of their class) target the nukers first, healers second (this is where perceived damage comes in. healer doesn't actually hurt the mob when they heal, but the tank suddenly gains HP, making the fight longer, effectively stealing damage from the mob... and pushing the healer to the top of the agro chain) and THEN they'll agro any melee/ranged that are left.
if you've ever played a game where the melees target the melees and the casters target the casters, please let me know what game that is...
Well you have roughly 4 types of units, no matter what game you are making.
You have. Assault Tactical Heavy Support
Assault: is as the name applies, Melee Assault. These are the High DPS melee Classes.
In D&D terms they are often the Warrior, Fighter, Barbarian, Monks, etc.
Tactical: are a Mixed DPS/Special Ops, they can be Ranged and/or Melee, with mixed skills and abilities, that give them a Tactical advantage on the field.
in D&D terms, These are the Rangers, Rouges, Fighters, Paladin, Rogue, Etc
Heavy: Simple as it is.. Heavy is High DPS Ranged Damage, often at the expense of any kind of Melee abilities.
In D&D terms, these are the Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerer, Magic-users, Etc.
And finally Support: Often able to help their group in the form of CC or healing or both.
in D&D terms these are the: Druids, Clerics, Bards, Etc
Now, how they interact is of course situational, but, often, supports don't face off, two support classes facing off.. often means.. everyone else is dead.. and it's just them now.
Unless there is a good reason for it, like Siege battles, Heavy's won't face off, often depending on Assault and Tactical squads to keep them safe as they kill off the opponents Assaults and Tactical (and if they can pull off, the supports as well)
If Two Heavy's are doing the face-off, either the situation demands it, IE: Both Perched and the only way for them to killed is by heavy long range attacks, or.. dammit they walked into the wrong room and are now alone together.
Tactical Squads, like Assault, often do engage each other, often because they form the bulk of front line attack and deference. Do they want to kill each other.. yah they do.. but they really want to kill that damn support or heavy first...
Well you have roughly 4 types of units, no matter what game you are making.
You have. Assault Tactical Heavy Support
....
That's how real combat goes..
Um no. There are near infinite roles in both D&D and real combat. You cannot codify every build down into 4 roles.
I mean really any system that has Paladins and Rangers occupying the same role is a system with roles too broad to be of any use. Hell. Any role that could claim to contain every use of a D&D class is a system with roles to broad to be of any use.
PvP, PnP, and real life are systems where while you may be able to group large quantities of examples into some kind of "role" there are always going to be things that fall outside it unless your role is something super broad like "people who breathe."
Edit: Reading over your system I think the issue is that your "tactical role" is too broad. Nearly every character I've played falls under your tactical role. Even if it's primary function fell within one of the other roles.
For instance druids definitely fit your description of tactical better than support. These guys can turn into bears and fight alongside your primary melee characters even if they dumped strength to 6 to get their wisdom higher (Gotta love how your physical stats become completely irrelevant in wild shape.)
Well you have roughly 4 types of units, no matter what game you are making.
You have. Assault Tactical Heavy Support
....
That's how real combat goes..
Um no. There are near infinite roles in both D&D and real combat. You cannot codify every build down into 4 roles.
I mean really any system that has Paladins and Rangers occupying the same role is a system with roles too broad to be of any use. Hell. Any role that could claim to contain every use of a D&D class is a system with roles to broad to be of any use.
PvP, PnP, and real life are systems where while you may be able to group large quantities of examples into some kind of "role" there are always going to be things that fall outside it unless your role is something super broad like "people who breathe."
Edit: Reading over your system I think the issue is that your "tactical role" is too broad. Nearly every character I've played falls under your tactical role. Even if it's primary function fell within one of the other roles.
For instance druids definitely fit your description of tactical better than support. These guys can turn into bears and fight alongside your primary melee characters even if they dumped strength to 6 to get their wisdom higher (Gotta love how your physical stats become completely irrelevant in wild shape.)
Nahh, there are very limited roles one can play, as there are very limited needs that a party needs filled.. what you are confusing is that there are many ways you can play or fill those roles.. however, how you play it, does not change what role you are playing.
Now in games like DDO, (Dungeons and Dragons Online) a Resourceful player can build their class in such a way as to full some other role then what they may excel at, case in point, a Rogue may opt to use UMD to fill the role of support, as opposed to being tactical, but this does not change the roles as they were.
and yes.. it really is as simple as those 4 roles, in fact, at one time, people believed there were only 3 roles, (IE: The Holy Trinity Model of Play).... and no one seemed too upset by that.
For instance druids definitely fit your description of tactical better than support. These guys can turn into bears and fight alongside your primary melee characters even if they dumped strength to 6 to get their wisdom higher (Gotta love how your physical stats become completely irrelevant in wild shape.)
A Druid In Wild Shape could count as assault,( depending on the forum ), they would not count as tactical, as they can't speak, or cast spells in their Wild form, as such they pretty much don't add any tactical advantage to the group. I suppose they could transform, scout and then transform back when they got back to the group, that would allow them to fill, however limited, a tactical role.
However, they does not change the roles that exist.. You are simply trying to banter about how you would go about trying to fill them, with some class I listed as another role.
I used to enjoy playing a War Priest Cleric, in DDO, and thus filed the role of Assault, I kinda blew chunks as a healer/support.. but that was not a role I was trying to fill.
None the less.. it did not change what Roles there were, only how we went about filling them.
I've always strongly opposed the idea that the trinity originated from D&D. The issue is your tactical role as states is broad as hell.
Lets talk about the last 4 characters I've played.
Of course all of these character filled the role of being the primary large scale strategist of the party but that's mainly a meta-playstyle I fill with all my characters so we can ignore it.
Character: Elven Ranger Functions Listed in Order of Prevalence: Ranged DPS Scout Caster Tracker / Survival Expert Trapper Animal Trainer
Character Overview: This character started as a low level ranger who used a composite bow and put off a massive quantity of shots for rounds to total up to the highest damage character in the party. He could focus all of his attacks on a single character or divide them between multiple targets. He also trapped the camp every night to protect us any time we stayed in one place for too long and used traps cleverly during assaults in a few instances. At later levels he had a flying mount which coupled with his great spot was seriously useful for scouting. His combat style involved hanging in the back flinging out as many arrows as possible until it switched to flying around out of melee reach flinging out as many arrows as possible. He also kept the party fed on any long excursions using his survival skill. He also had ranger spells like entangle and endure elements I used to great effect. Eventually I had him leave the campaign for story purposes.
His role in your system. "Tactical"
Character: Lesser Aasimar Paladin of Freedom Functions Listed in Order of Prevalence: Party face (Bluff, Intimidate, Disguise.) 1 shotting large evil enemies Tons of lay on hands points (Short healing bursts that can't be relied upon longterm but can people's butts in a pinch.) Tank (Best saves in the party by far, high health, high AC.)
Character Overview: This character was a griffon rider paladin who traded his paladin mount for the spirited charge feat which allowed him to do three times his paladin level in damage on a charge. Using a spirited charge with lance from the back of his griffon he turned this into an attack that could one shot boss encounters (Literally his most famous moment in the campaign is when right after a party member yelled "We need to get out of here! We're going to die!" he punched a main boss in the face on a spirited charging smite, it crit, and the boss died before we got to hear his full theme song.) if they were evil and just really, really, hurt for anything else. Mainly combat for him involved a lot of swooping in and out of melee range things and slamming them for uber damage and healing anyone who got too hurt. I also constantly was using disguises to get us into places. Had a few fun sessions where I RPed "The Slavemaster paladin of Tyranny" and "Murderator, Paladin of Slaughter" to get in and out of various places without a fight.
His role in your system. "Tactical"
Character: Human Variant Mixed Martial Class (Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter) Functions Listed in Order of Prevalence: Disarming Opponents Netting Opponents Melee DPS Tracker / Survival Expert Front Line Fighter Interceptor
This character was a non-lethal specialist who chumped more than one major encounter by taking the main bosses's weapon. The best part was when the DM sent a kobold blackguard boss to talk to us while we were unarmed and unarmored in a prison cell not realizing the capabilities of my character and I just took his weapon in a single round, took his head off with his own sword, then broke us all out. He also carried nets that I used to great affect several times and is movement speed was fast as heck so he could chase down and net fleeing opponents with ease. His melee DPS was honestly pathetic for a melee based character but he had decent armor, dex, and combat expertise which made him great at standing and fighting on the frontlines.
His role in your system. "Tactical"
Character: Generic Human Factotum Functions Listed in Order of Prevalence: Party Face Knowledge Bot Magical Support
This character is the least martial of my recent characters. He has every single social skill with the exception of intimidate (Diplomacy, Bluff, Disguise, Forgery, Sense Motive) and does the talking for most every encounter. He also has at least one rank in every knowledge and can currently speak 9 languages. He's skill focused to the point of it actually hurting his combat prowess a bit but what he has in his advantage is insanely high use magic device and very good overall mental stats. This allows him to cast literally any spell attached to a wand in the entire game, in a campaign where level is capped at 6. He also has a special homebrew ability that allows him to make fire based touch attacks every round and he can use inspiration points to add his int to damage. He's going to be taking single cleric level so he can wear mithril fullplate with a heavy mithril shield and take domains. In combat he hangs in the back on a mount flinging out fire attacks and spells from wands.
His role in your system. "Tactical"
___________________
Any role system that has all 4 of these characters playing the same role is a role system that's pretty useless.
No two of these character fight in the same fashion. Some are frontline. Some hang to the back. Some charge in and out of combat. Some aren't even really that combat focused. Some are tanky. Some are not. Some have amazing DPS, some have pathetic DPS. Some have great saves. Others have pretty crappy saves. There is ranged damage. There is melee damage. There is support spells. There is healing.
Your "tactical" role seems like a cheap way of saying "My way of dealing with roles I can't define."
Which just so happens to cover every single character I've ever played other than the generic barbarian I played in my first campaign ever.
For instance druids definitely fit your description of tactical better than support. These guys can turn into bears and fight alongside your primary melee characters even if they dumped strength to 6 to get their wisdom higher (Gotta love how your physical stats become completely irrelevant in wild shape.)
A Druid In Wild Shape could count as assault,( depending on the forum ), they would not count as tactical, as they can't speak, or cast spells in their Wild form, as such they pretty much don't add any tactical advantage to the group. I suppose they could transform, scout and then transform back when they got back to the group, that would allow them to fill, however limited, a tactical role.
However, they does not change the roles that exist.. You are simply trying to banter about how you would go about trying to fill them, with some class I listed as another role.
I used to enjoy playing a War Priest Cleric, in DDO, and thus filed the role of Assault, I kinda blew chunks as a healer/support.. but that was not a role I was trying to fill.
None the less.. it did not change what Roles there were, only how we went about filling them.
Natural Spell [General]
Prerequisites
Wis 13, wild shape ability.
Benefit
You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape.
Here is the final nail in the coffin of your theory if you still need one. This is a party. Using only the rules and classes in the PHB let's build ourselves something.
Skills: Concentration, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Knowledge Nature, Listen (Plus any potentially granted by Int bonus)
This character hangs to the back of the party and uses buffs and healing until level 5. At level 5 he gains wildshape and becomes a frontline fighter. Using natural spell he continues is support roll while simultaneously fighting on the front lines. His animal companion also gives you a bonus frontliner from his first level on and he can train additional animals to fight for you as well.
This character wears full plate with a tower shield and a dwarven waraxe. His good con and first level fighter keep him at high health for a cleric. He uses is domain to rebuke earth subtype creatures that fight alongside him helping increase his viability as your primary frontliner until the druid hits level 5. However as a cleric he boasts a wide array of support spells and some good heals.
Player 3: Halfling Rogue Role: Tactical
Primary Stats: (Int/Dex) Dumps: (Wis/Cha)
Skills: Spot, Listen, Search, Hide, Move Silently, Disable Device (Slight of Hand and Pick Lock will almost certainly be included in this high int characters int modifier skills)
This is mainly your trap disabling character and scout however it also dual wields daggers and is fond of sneaking up and full attacking enemies with flanking for massive sneak attack damage.
Player 4: Halfling Ranger Role: Tactical
Primary Stat: Dex Dump: Cha
Skills: Survival, Craft Trapmaking, Ride, Use Rope, Spot, Knowledge Geography, Knowledge Dungeoneering (And whatever else his int allows)
This character wield a composite bow that he uses for heavy ranged damage output. His animal companion also serves as a mount allowing him great mobility even inside dungeons. He also supports with ranger spells.
_________________
See what I did there? Not only did I make a party using all one role but I made a GOOD party using just a single role. Yet these are 4 fairly different characters.
The only real weakness I could see to this party is the lack of arcane spells could hurt them but it isn't their "High DPS Ranged Damage" I find concerning so much as the lack of arcane utility spells. The ranger has the High DPS Ranged Damage covered.
When I can make a good party using one role, you know your role system is broken. That being beyond the fact that as I look back not only am I having a hard time thinking of characters of my own that wouldn't be considered tactical, but almost every other player character in our parties were tactical too.
Maybe will auto-repeat, but hey, it's about one's dream MMO. First: yes, I won't be reading any forums if I create it. Because soon I will know I am bad person, epic failure, my game will fail very soon, my mmo is a clone of a clone and no feature works or would work.
First, I would wait for others to clear path for me. When market is full of "da full loot pvp permadeath hardcore no quests" - I would enter with themepark. Almost zero competition is good, you know.
So, it begins [wall of text]:
1. Themepark 2. Free to play, very close to Lotro: VIP, Premium, Free. Free players have restrictions, must purchase expansions - but hey, my MMO has Grind Points. Kill 50 rats, get 5 GP, pay some 500 for quest pack. Basic content available to all; advanced regional quests - for VIPs or to purchase. 3. In-game store:yes, it exists. Sells only cosmetic items that gives no status. Wanna that purple hat? Feel free to buy, only 2,99$. Wanna Rainbow Donkey? Well, it's only 9,99$. Preorders do exist, each with certain cosmetic item that won't be on sale. 4. Low fantasy. You know, all those Dwarves, Elves... 5. PvE only. Absolutely po PvP, voluntary or not. For PvP, feel free to go to other mmos. 6. Quests. Many of them. I would demand to be a champion in number of quests. The more, the better. 7. Everything has its price. My game would state very clearly: for every action there is some reaction. Are you race A? Nice, race B and D loves you; race C is neutral; and to make things worse, races L and M hates you (better avoid their towns and their NPCs). Are you race D? Well, you are strongest being, getting many bonuses in fights and crafting - too bad every other race dislikes/hates you. Or are your tiny tiny race K? You perform not good in combat - but hey, everyone (except that grumpy race A) loves you and almost every NPC aids you. Quests would have choices. NPC asks to kill 10 rats. You may kill 10 rats, return and tell "job's done". You can kill nothing and tell "job's done". You can threaten NPC - "gimme reward or else...". So, if you kind to NPC "John" from race A, he may tell others - hey, this player is nice! Be kind to many - farmers of race A would start to look at you as a Hero, they could aid you or even defend you. Be bad - and farmers would start hating you, soon entire race may hate you. Be cheater - and all trade NPCs soon would tell: "Sorry, no business with Mr. Cheater, get out" (or you could cheat them you are not cheater...). Of course, sometimes player would have a real choice. Like: race A asks to burn village of race B. Race B somehow is not happy, asks you to burn race A outpost instead.And you must choose one of two. Your skills would be affected too. The more you use on your-level/higher lvl enemies - the better the skill. Do not use - and you get weak standard skill. Same with crafting: mine everything and you may be an expert in mining, getting more ore. Mine one time a month and your outcome would not be that good. Classes are at some expense too. Wanna ranged unit? Ok, have your ranger - alas, ranger is lame in close combat. Wanna that Melee tank? Good...but tank is of no good in ranged combat/magic. Your equipment is at price too. Wanna heavy armour? ok, here it is...just now your vision is low, your speed is low (but armour protection is the highes). Wanna light armour? here it is, you run quick, your vision is good...but very little protection. Enemy threw a fire on you? Too bad you are in heavy armour and can drown...should you be in light one - off to river to extinguish flames. 8. Simplicity and meaningfull. In my game I would try to make everything very clearly understandable. Name skills so that it is clear what does what. Character setup is simple with little options to play with, there are little skills, but if you have it - you need it. If I have 28 skills and use only 8 - I do not need remaining 20. Game tends to have one type of currency and, say, Universal Token. The higher quest/dungeon - the more tokens. RNG is left only to low-level vendor trash. Dungeons are based on (maybe complicated system): *there is guaranteed reward everyone would get *there is guaranteed reward - 1 or 2 pieces - players would compete for *there is NN% chance that item such and such would be looted. When awarding player, my software would scan player/player alts, then check if they have any of loot equipment. The more you have, the less chances to loot: player with zero equipment has best chance. Then, software would consider other chances, like - jhow often you play game, how often you play this dungeon, once again - favoring first timers. Also, if my software detects that player did not get, say, Scroll of Dark power in last 5 dungeons - it will reward with that Scroll. 9. Doable content. I would make every single quest/deed soloable. Maybe this level 35 dungeon is soloable only at lvl.60, but still soloable. However, rewards are always better when in group. You get more experience and loot is always better. 10. Player housing. Most mmos do not look into it: I would. Player may get already built house or he can build his own. One account - one housing plot, unless you buy for real cash. Of course, some decorations are in store: wanna that Bright Window - feel free to buy for 1.99$ 11. Return to begining: low lvl areas would offer quests for high levels. You know, evil never sleeps... 12. Time of day, season of year - everything changes and impacts everything, including you. Snow is problematic to go in, while in summer it may be really hot in your heavy armour). But hey, in winter some rivers may become roads (provided ice is not too thin).
For instance druids definitely fit your description of tactical better than support. These guys can turn into bears and fight alongside your primary melee characters even if they dumped strength to 6 to get their wisdom higher (Gotta love how your physical stats become completely irrelevant in wild shape.)
A Druid In Wild Shape could count as assault,( depending on the forum ), they would not count as tactical, as they can't speak, or cast spells in their Wild form, as such they pretty much don't add any tactical advantage to the group. I suppose they could transform, scout and then transform back when they got back to the group, that would allow them to fill, however limited, a tactical role.
However, they does not change the roles that exist.. You are simply trying to banter about how you would go about trying to fill them, with some class I listed as another role.
I used to enjoy playing a War Priest Cleric, in DDO, and thus filed the role of Assault, I kinda blew chunks as a healer/support.. but that was not a role I was trying to fill.
None the less.. it did not change what Roles there were, only how we went about filling them.
Natural Spell [General]
Prerequisites
Wis 13, wild shape ability.
Benefit
You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape.
___________________
That's core btw. It's from the player's handbook.
Hummm...
You can't cast Spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn't break your Concentration on a spell you've already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as Call Lightning, that you've already cast.
So while you could complete a spell that you cast before you took wild shape, assuming the new form allows it, none the less, I am still 100% correct that can't cast spells in while shape.
What were you hoping to accomplish with this waste of posting, you sound like one of those ginormous jerks at the DnD table that sucks the fun out of the game as you endlessly rules-lawyer as opposed to playing the game.
Here is the final nail in the coffin of your theory if you still need one. This is a party. Using only the rules and classes in the PHB let's build ourselves something.
Skills: Concentration, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Knowledge Nature, Listen (Plus any potentially granted by Int bonus)
This character hangs to the back of the party and uses buffs and healing until level 5. At level 5 he gains wildshape and becomes a frontline fighter. Using natural spell he continues is support roll while simultaneously fighting on the front lines. His animal companion also gives you a bonus frontliner from his first level on and he can train additional animals to fight for you as well.
This character wears full plate with a tower shield and a dwarven waraxe. His good con and first level fighter keep him at high health for a cleric. He uses is domain to rebuke earth subtype creatures that fight alongside him helping increase his viability as your primary frontliner until the druid hits level 5. However as a cleric he boasts a wide array of support spells and some good heals.
Player 3: Halfling Rogue Role: Tactical
Primary Stats: (Int/Dex) Dumps: (Wis/Cha)
Skills: Spot, Listen, Search, Hide, Move Silently, Disable Device (Slight of Hand and Pick Lock will almost certainly be included in this high int characters int modifier skills)
This is mainly your trap disabling character and scout however it also dual wields daggers and is fond of sneaking up and full attacking enemies with flanking for massive sneak attack damage.
Player 4: Halfling Ranger Role: Tactical
Primary Stat: Dex Dump: Cha
Skills: Survival, Craft Trapmaking, Ride, Use Rope, Spot, Knowledge Geography, Knowledge Dungeoneering (And whatever else his int allows)
This character wield a composite bow that he uses for heavy ranged damage output. His animal companion also serves as a mount allowing him great mobility even inside dungeons. He also supports with ranger spells.
_________________
See what I did there? Not only did I make a party using all one role but I made a GOOD party using just a single role. Yet these are 4 fairly different characters.
The only real weakness I could see to this party is the lack of arcane spells could hurt them but it isn't their "High DPS Ranged Damage" I find concerning so much as the lack of arcane utility spells. The ranger has the High DPS Ranged Damage covered.
When I can make a good party using one role, you know your role system is broken. That being beyond the fact that as I look back not only am I having a hard time thinking of characters of my own that wouldn't be considered tactical, but almost every other player character in our parties were tactical too.
If you were asked to coordinate an mmo development with unlimited funding and you had total control, what features will it have ?
Me: Opening remarks.... The game would be for everyone. It would be the single go to mmo that would cover ages 10 to 90. In order to do this it would have to be a VERY LARGE MMO, much like Vanilla World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2 and the vision of what Vanguard set out to be. After all their is only one way to make a true mmo, VERY LARGE, anything less is not an mmo. The purchase price would be $69.95 and first month free, then $14.95 a month, with no free trial. Don't need one, it will be a quality game with a detailed description of what the buyer is getting...... Unsure ?..... Wait for reviews !
The company will be reputable with no hidden agenda.
Thats as far as I made it. Wait for reviews? Reviews from who? Paid reviewers or people who get free copies of games to "review"? Reviews from what, people like on these forums? Ya...no thanks. Reviews are probably the most useless thing. Also, a $70 box tab and a $15 sub can shove off without testing and its not even about the money, and thats also coming from someone who prefers the Sub model. Maybe....maybe....if there was an open beta test where everyone who cared enough to could try it out. Like just saying "its a quality game" means jack, look at all the crap that AAA companies spew forth, oh with good reviews too, til real players start the game...and it dies shortly after. This hypothetically company, if anything, just lost reputation right off the bat and automatically becomes suspicious. If they have no hidden agenda, then let people test/try the game without putting up any money, stand on your work, if you can, not just trying to sucker people out of retail box fees who will dump it within a few hours.
Don't let your artists design the game (leads to random game development). You and your designers should design the game, not the artists (but maybe listen to the artists if you suck).
For instance druids definitely fit your description of tactical better than support. These guys can turn into bears and fight alongside your primary melee characters even if they dumped strength to 6 to get their wisdom higher (Gotta love how your physical stats become completely irrelevant in wild shape.)
A Druid In Wild Shape could count as assault,( depending on the forum ), they would not count as tactical, as they can't speak, or cast spells in their Wild form, as such they pretty much don't add any tactical advantage to the group. I suppose they could transform, scout and then transform back when they got back to the group, that would allow them to fill, however limited, a tactical role.
However, they does not change the roles that exist.. You are simply trying to banter about how you would go about trying to fill them, with some class I listed as another role.
I used to enjoy playing a War Priest Cleric, in DDO, and thus filed the role of Assault, I kinda blew chunks as a healer/support.. but that was not a role I was trying to fill.
None the less.. it did not change what Roles there were, only how we went about filling them.
Natural Spell [General]
Prerequisites
Wis 13, wild shape ability.
Benefit
You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape.
___________________
That's core btw. It's from the player's handbook.
Hummm...
You can't cast Spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn't break your Concentration on a spell you've already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as Call Lightning, that you've already cast.
So while you could complete a spell that you cast before you took wild shape, assuming the new form allows it, none the less, I am still 100% correct that can't cast spells in while shape.
What were you hoping to accomplish with this waste of posting, you sound like one of those ginormous jerks at the DnD table that sucks the fun out of the game as you endlessly rules-lawyer as opposed to playing the game.
That is how druids function while in wild shape without the natural spell feat. However Natural Spell, a core feat from the Player's Handbook which is god in terms of D&D "Which source is right" hierarchy says:
"You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape."
The PHB wouldn't have a feat like that if you can't cast spells in beast form after taking it. Arguing otherwise comes off as ridiculous and reeks of pure desperation to be right.
As to your second question, you stated your Tactical role was the mixed role. For instance the paladin class is an assault/support class and you have it listed as tactical. Obviously a character tearing faces of on the frontlines as a bear is not pure support. It's an assault / support mixture. What you call tactical.
However if you would like to lay the debate to rest entirely I can easily sub out that druid for a paladin without hurting the party at all. Do I need to do that or can you just admit being wrong for once?
For instance druids definitely fit your description of tactical better than support. These guys can turn into bears and fight alongside your primary melee characters even if they dumped strength to 6 to get their wisdom higher (Gotta love how your physical stats become completely irrelevant in wild shape.)
A Druid In Wild Shape could count as assault,( depending on the forum ), they would not count as tactical, as they can't speak, or cast spells in their Wild form, as such they pretty much don't add any tactical advantage to the group. I suppose they could transform, scout and then transform back when they got back to the group, that would allow them to fill, however limited, a tactical role.
However, they does not change the roles that exist.. You are simply trying to banter about how you would go about trying to fill them, with some class I listed as another role.
I used to enjoy playing a War Priest Cleric, in DDO, and thus filed the role of Assault, I kinda blew chunks as a healer/support.. but that was not a role I was trying to fill.
None the less.. it did not change what Roles there were, only how we went about filling them.
Natural Spell [General]
Prerequisites
Wis 13, wild shape ability.
Benefit
You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape.
___________________
That's core btw. It's from the player's handbook.
Hummm...
You can't cast Spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn't break your Concentration on a spell you've already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as Call Lightning, that you've already cast.
So while you could complete a spell that you cast before you took wild shape, assuming the new form allows it, none the less, I am still 100% correct that can't cast spells in while shape.
What were you hoping to accomplish with this waste of posting, you sound like one of those ginormous jerks at the DnD table that sucks the fun out of the game as you endlessly rules-lawyer as opposed to playing the game.
That is how druids function while in wild shape without the natural spell feat. However Natural Spell, a core feat from the Player's Handbook which is god in terms of D&D "Which source is right" hierarchy says:
"You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape."
The PHB wouldn't have a feat like that if you can't cast spells in beast form after taking it. Arguing otherwise comes off as ridiculous and reeks of pure desperation to be right.
As to your second question, you stated your Tactical role was the mixed role. For instance the paladin class is an assault/support class and you have it listed as tactical. Obviously a character tearing faces of on the frontlines as a bear is not pure support. It's an assault / support mixture. What you call tactical.
However if you would like to lay the debate to rest entirely I can easily sub out that druid for a paladin without hurting the party at all. Do I need to do that or can you just admit being wrong for once?
See this is why you don't think GW2 has healers,(something you are very wrong about)
What GW2 did, was it simply allowed the classes to fill several roles, something I see you can't seem to fathom, but, that does not change what the roles are.
Edit Added:
The Roles are Assault Tactical Support Heavy
What you don't seem to grasp, is that these roles need to be filled, even in Games that allow soloing, they simply provide the means for all those roles to be filled by a solo player (either by internal or external means), this in no way removes those roles, or changes their nature.
Internal means, are simple as they sound. The Player can preform all the tasks on their own.
External means the needs are filled by outside sources, this could take the form or, say, healing stations or potions/food to recover health, or, say a pet or NPC that engages to the opponents, or fills some other role for the player they are not equipped to do their own.
Even the act of filling additional roles, IE: say Heavy/Support, or Assault/Support does not change the nature of the roles themselves.
Now, if you want to go on tangent about how your druid plays the assault role and is totally badass about it, you can, but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about in regard to the Roles that need to be filled, nor does it change the nature of the roles themselves.
If you cannot fathom I was using those classes as a means of an example, that is a problem with your reading and comprehension.. and has nothing to do in any legitimate sense, with the nature of roles.
I am very sorry that I tried to give easy examples and it broke your brain...
Open world, open pvp/pve, no catering to the self entitled millenium generation spoonfed players. No themepark, just a sandbox, no forced grouping, just deliver the tools and let the community slug it out.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Well you have roughly 4 types of units, no matter what game you are making.
You have. Assault Tactical Heavy Support
Assault: is as the name applies, Melee Assault. These are the High DPS melee Classes.
In D&D terms they are often the Warrior, Fighter, Barbarian, Monks, etc.
Tactical: are a Mixed DPS/Special Ops, they can be Ranged and/or Melee, with mixed skills and abilities, that give them a Tactical advantage on the field.
in D&D terms, These are the Rangers, Rouges, Fighters, Paladin, Rogue, Etc
Heavy: Simple as it is.. Heavy is High DPS Ranged Damage, often at the expense of any kind of Melee abilities.
In D&D terms, these are the Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerer, Magic-users, Etc.
And finally Support: Often able to help their group in the form of CC or healing or both.
in D&D terms these are the: Druids, Clerics, Bards, Etc...
...That's how real combat goes..
Your tactical role is just a mixture role of anything you find difficult to define but now you say "Oh well you can mix the roles." If that's the case why did you include the tactical role at all?
The fact is that P&P works on a system that has no roles in the way the trinity does. It is a hodgepodge of very diverse builds that need to come together in way that can overcome challenges.
The closest you have to essential role is someone who can do healing. With all other roles you can deal with their loss by compensating in other areas. For instance with good enough CC and ranged damage can actually completely compensate for the need for a frontline AKA your "assault" role. You could also do the opposite and focus everything on the frontline AKA your "assault" role and do away with the need for ranged support AKA your "heavy" role.
Or you could create a team focused on skipping combat entirely with lots of stealthy and diplomatic characters. I actually have played a campaign where we did one combat the entire campaign.
This gets even more evident in PvP. I've ran in exceptionally effective groups that included nothing but melee DPSers who just jump out, take the opposing team unaware, then stealth away before support arrives. Those groups completely lacked anything you would refer to as "heavy" or "support."
When:
A. Roles are mixed / Not clearly defined. B. No roles are essential for an effective group.
You don't have a role based system.
You're just making stuff up to sound authoritative.
But P&P and PvP are not strongly role based which is why there is so much debate and disagreement on what PvP and P&P roles actually are. Anyone who is telling you they "know what the D&D/PvP roles are" In any kind of authoritative tone is full of crap.
Comments
I think D&D tactics has a lot more depth than that. You have the caster throwing silence on the barbarian who rushes in to engage the mages (who are screwed vs. him unless they have silent casting) the ranger picking off enemy casters. The rogue coming in to flank an opponent for massive damage. The druid entangling enemies at a chokepoint and then having support pick off their melee before it can even engage yours etc.
So D&D tactics have a lot depth to it. The one thing is true D&D tactics are difficult to replicate in real-time games and tend to work best in turn based games.
But the trinity feels like a "This is hard so I give up" approach to balancing real time combat. It was a good first attempt. Now its time to try new things.
Now, when you said "real fight" it was implied that you meant 6V6 PvP kind of fight, in which case you would be wrong.
If this was some kind of play to talk about AI and having NPC casters target PC castes.. to make some kind of Epic-Face-off style encounters for PvE, then.. sounds like fun.. but it's not the way real fights happen.
The prefect example of how NOT to move forward is Project Gorgon.A great idea for a game but NOTHING looks finished or polished.
Start with ONE zone,then completely finish that zone.Don't create a castle with four basic walls and a few NPC's just standing there to be clicked.
It actually takes way too much to completely list a game design and why it is not an easy task yet so many developers try to make it easy with cheap designs.
One area that has NOT been done well is combat.We need skills that put the fight into the players hands and not be simple spells or attacks that could pretty much be automated results.
Example most combat in games is very simple math,i have 100 mp and the best dmg i can get might be 300dmg from that 100 mp and there is your result,if that is enough to kill,then i win,if not i lose,automated type math is NOT fun.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
But please enlighten us of how real fights occur.
If not, I encourage you to give that a try, you quickly learn that there is none of that "high noon" duels, and 'toe-to-toe' fighting.
ok. if you don't want to accept PvP/MOBA as an example....every MMO i've ever played... unless the "tank" actively pulls the agro via a taunt or intimidate type skill... mob AI prioritizes whoever is doing the most damage to them (real or perceived... i'll get back to that in a sec). that's typically NOT the melee...
mobs (unless they have been programed with random agro) regardless of their type (melee/range/magic) typically, once the fight starts and damage begins to be dealt, overriding whatever random agro the fight started with (usually first target mob sees, but occasionally the AI is a little more advanced... for example.. in DDO rust monsters attacking warforged players first regardless of their class) target the nukers first, healers second (this is where perceived damage comes in. healer doesn't actually hurt the mob when they heal, but the tank suddenly gains HP, making the fight longer, effectively stealing damage from the mob... and pushing the healer to the top of the agro chain) and THEN they'll agro any melee/ranged that are left.
if you've ever played a game where the melees target the melees and the casters target the casters, please let me know what game that is...
You have.
Assault
Tactical
Heavy
Support
Assault: is as the name applies, Melee Assault. These are the High DPS melee Classes.
In D&D terms they are often the Warrior, Fighter, Barbarian, Monks, etc.
Tactical: are a Mixed DPS/Special Ops, they can be Ranged and/or Melee, with mixed skills and abilities, that give them a Tactical advantage on the field.
in D&D terms, These are the Rangers, Rouges, Fighters, Paladin, Rogue, Etc
Heavy: Simple as it is.. Heavy is High DPS Ranged Damage, often at the expense of any kind of Melee abilities.
In D&D terms, these are the Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerer, Magic-users, Etc.
And finally Support: Often able to help their group in the form of CC or healing or both.
in D&D terms these are the: Druids, Clerics, Bards, Etc
Now, how they interact is of course situational, but, often, supports don't face off, two support classes facing off.. often means.. everyone else is dead.. and it's just them now.
Unless there is a good reason for it, like Siege battles, Heavy's won't face off, often depending on Assault and Tactical squads to keep them safe as they kill off the opponents Assaults and Tactical (and if they can pull off, the supports as well)
If Two Heavy's are doing the face-off, either the situation demands it, IE: Both Perched and the only way for them to killed is by heavy long range attacks, or.. dammit they walked into the wrong room and are now alone together.
Tactical Squads, like Assault, often do engage each other, often because they form the bulk of front line attack and deference. Do they want to kill each other.. yah they do.. but they really want to kill that damn support or heavy first...
That's how real combat goes..
I mean really any system that has Paladins and Rangers occupying the same role is a system with roles too broad to be of any use. Hell. Any role that could claim to contain every use of a D&D class is a system with roles to broad to be of any use.
PvP, PnP, and real life are systems where while you may be able to group large quantities of examples into some kind of "role" there are always going to be things that fall outside it unless your role is something super broad like "people who breathe."
Edit: Reading over your system I think the issue is that your "tactical role" is too broad. Nearly every character I've played falls under your tactical role. Even if it's primary function fell within one of the other roles.
For instance druids definitely fit your description of tactical better than support. These guys can turn into bears and fight alongside your primary melee characters even if they dumped strength to 6 to get their wisdom higher (Gotta love how your physical stats become completely irrelevant in wild shape.)
Now in games like DDO, (Dungeons and Dragons Online) a Resourceful player can build their class in such a way as to full some other role then what they may excel at, case in point, a Rogue may opt to use UMD to fill the role of support, as opposed to being tactical, but this does not change the roles as they were.
and yes.. it really is as simple as those 4 roles, in fact, at one time, people believed there were only 3 roles, (IE: The Holy Trinity Model of Play).... and no one seemed too upset by that.
However, they does not change the roles that exist.. You are simply trying to banter about how you would go about trying to fill them, with some class I listed as another role.
I used to enjoy playing a War Priest Cleric, in DDO, and thus filed the role of Assault, I kinda blew chunks as a healer/support.. but that was not a role I was trying to fill.
None the less.. it did not change what Roles there were, only how we went about filling them.
Lets talk about the last 4 characters I've played.
Of course all of these character filled the role of being the primary large scale strategist of the party but that's mainly a meta-playstyle I fill with all my characters so we can ignore it.
Character: Elven Ranger
Functions Listed in Order of Prevalence:
Ranged DPS
Scout
Caster
Tracker / Survival Expert
Trapper
Animal Trainer
Character Overview: This character started as a low level ranger who used a composite bow and put off a massive quantity of shots for rounds to total up to the highest damage character in the party. He could focus all of his attacks on a single character or divide them between multiple targets. He also trapped the camp every night to protect us any time we stayed in one place for too long and used traps cleverly during assaults in a few instances. At later levels he had a flying mount which coupled with his great spot was seriously useful for scouting. His combat style involved hanging in the back flinging out as many arrows as possible until it switched to flying around out of melee reach flinging out as many arrows as possible. He also kept the party fed on any long excursions using his survival skill. He also had ranger spells like entangle and endure elements I used to great effect. Eventually I had him leave the campaign for story purposes.
His role in your system. "Tactical"
Character: Lesser Aasimar Paladin of Freedom
Functions Listed in Order of Prevalence:
Party face (Bluff, Intimidate, Disguise.)
1 shotting large evil enemies
Tons of lay on hands points (Short healing bursts that can't be relied upon longterm but can people's butts in a pinch.)
Tank (Best saves in the party by far, high health, high AC.)
Character Overview: This character was a griffon rider paladin who traded his paladin mount for the spirited charge feat which allowed him to do three times his paladin level in damage on a charge. Using a spirited charge with lance from the back of his griffon he turned this into an attack that could one shot boss encounters (Literally his most famous moment in the campaign is when right after a party member yelled "We need to get out of here! We're going to die!" he punched a main boss in the face on a spirited charging smite, it crit, and the boss died before we got to hear his full theme song.) if they were evil and just really, really, hurt for anything else. Mainly combat for him involved a lot of swooping in and out of melee range things and slamming them for uber damage and healing anyone who got too hurt. I also constantly was using disguises to get us into places. Had a few fun sessions where I RPed "The Slavemaster paladin of Tyranny" and "Murderator, Paladin of Slaughter" to get in and out of various places without a fight.
His role in your system. "Tactical"
Character: Human Variant Mixed Martial Class (Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter)
Functions Listed in Order of Prevalence:
Disarming Opponents
Netting Opponents
Melee DPS
Tracker / Survival Expert
Front Line Fighter
Interceptor
This character was a non-lethal specialist who chumped more than one major encounter by taking the main bosses's weapon. The best part was when the DM sent a kobold blackguard boss to talk to us while we were unarmed and unarmored in a prison cell not realizing the capabilities of my character and I just took his weapon in a single round, took his head off with his own sword, then broke us all out. He also carried nets that I used to great affect several times and is movement speed was fast as heck so he could chase down and net fleeing opponents with ease. His melee DPS was honestly pathetic for a melee based character but he had decent armor, dex, and combat expertise which made him great at standing and fighting on the frontlines.
His role in your system. "Tactical"
Character: Generic Human Factotum
Functions Listed in Order of Prevalence:
Party Face
Knowledge Bot
Magical Support
This character is the least martial of my recent characters. He has every single social skill with the exception of intimidate (Diplomacy, Bluff, Disguise, Forgery, Sense Motive) and does the talking for most every encounter. He also has at least one rank in every knowledge and can currently speak 9 languages. He's skill focused to the point of it actually hurting his combat prowess a bit but what he has in his advantage is insanely high use magic device and very good overall mental stats. This allows him to cast literally any spell attached to a wand in the entire game, in a campaign where level is capped at 6. He also has a special homebrew ability that allows him to make fire based touch attacks every round and he can use inspiration points to add his int to damage. He's going to be taking single cleric level so he can wear mithril fullplate with a heavy mithril shield and take domains. In combat he hangs in the back on a mount flinging out fire attacks and spells from wands.
His role in your system. "Tactical"
___________________
Any role system that has all 4 of these characters playing the same role is a role system that's pretty useless.
No two of these character fight in the same fashion. Some are frontline. Some hang to the back. Some charge in and out of combat. Some aren't even really that combat focused. Some are tanky. Some are not. Some have amazing DPS, some have pathetic DPS. Some have great saves. Others have pretty crappy saves. There is ranged damage. There is melee damage. There is support spells. There is healing.
Your "tactical" role seems like a cheap way of saying "My way of dealing with roles I can't define."
Which just so happens to cover every single character I've ever played other than the generic barbarian I played in my first campaign ever.
Natural Spell [General]
Prerequisites
Wis 13, wild shape ability.
Benefit
You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape.
___________________
That's core btw. It's from the player's handbook.
Player 1: Human Druid (Old)
Role: Tactical
Primary Stat: Wisdom
Secondary: Int/Cha
Dumps: Str/Dex/Con
Skills: Concentration, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Knowledge Nature, Listen (Plus any potentially granted by Int bonus)
This character hangs to the back of the party and uses buffs and healing until level 5. At level 5 he gains wildshape and becomes a frontline fighter. Using natural spell he continues is support roll while simultaneously fighting on the front lines. His animal companion also gives you a bonus frontliner from his first level on and he can train additional animals to fight for you as well.
Player 2: Dwarven Cleric (First level fighter)
Domain: Earth/Protection
Role: Tactical
Primary Stats: Strength/Con/Wisdom
Dumps: Cha
Skills: Knowledge Religion, Spellcraft
This character wears full plate with a tower shield and a dwarven waraxe. His good con and first level fighter keep him at high health for a cleric. He uses is domain to rebuke earth subtype creatures that fight alongside him helping increase his viability as your primary frontliner until the druid hits level 5. However as a cleric he boasts a wide array of support spells and some good heals.
Player 3: Halfling Rogue
Role: Tactical
Primary Stats: (Int/Dex)
Dumps: (Wis/Cha)
Skills: Spot, Listen, Search, Hide, Move Silently, Disable Device (Slight of Hand and Pick Lock will almost certainly be included in this high int characters int modifier skills)
This is mainly your trap disabling character and scout however it also dual wields daggers and is fond of sneaking up and full attacking enemies with flanking for massive sneak attack damage.
Player 4: Halfling Ranger
Role: Tactical
Primary Stat: Dex
Dump: Cha
Skills: Survival, Craft Trapmaking, Ride, Use Rope, Spot, Knowledge Geography, Knowledge Dungeoneering (And whatever else his int allows)
This character wield a composite bow that he uses for heavy ranged damage output. His animal companion also serves as a mount allowing him great mobility even inside dungeons. He also supports with ranger spells.
_________________
See what I did there? Not only did I make a party using all one role but I made a GOOD party using just a single role. Yet these are 4 fairly different characters.
The only real weakness I could see to this party is the lack of arcane spells could hurt them but it isn't their "High DPS Ranged Damage" I find concerning so much as the lack of arcane utility spells. The ranger has the High DPS Ranged Damage covered.
When I can make a good party using one role, you know your role system is broken. That being beyond the fact that as I look back not only am I having a hard time thinking of characters of my own that wouldn't be considered tactical, but almost every other player character in our parties were tactical too.
First: yes, I won't be reading any forums if I create it. Because soon I will know I am bad person, epic failure, my game will fail very soon, my mmo is a clone of a clone and no feature works or would work.
First, I would wait for others to clear path for me. When market is full of "da full loot pvp permadeath hardcore no quests" - I would enter with themepark. Almost zero competition is good, you know.
So, it begins [wall of text]:
1. Themepark
2. Free to play, very close to Lotro: VIP, Premium, Free. Free players have restrictions, must purchase expansions - but hey, my MMO has Grind Points. Kill 50 rats, get 5 GP, pay some 500 for quest pack. Basic content available to all; advanced regional quests - for VIPs or to purchase.
3. In-game store:yes, it exists. Sells only cosmetic items that gives no status. Wanna that purple hat? Feel free to buy, only 2,99$. Wanna Rainbow Donkey? Well, it's only 9,99$. Preorders do exist, each with certain cosmetic item that won't be on sale.
4. Low fantasy. You know, all those Dwarves, Elves...
5. PvE only. Absolutely po PvP, voluntary or not. For PvP, feel free to go to other mmos.
6. Quests. Many of them. I would demand to be a champion in number of quests. The more, the better.
7. Everything has its price. My game would state very clearly: for every action there is some reaction. Are you race A? Nice, race B and D loves you; race C is neutral; and to make things worse, races L and M hates you (better avoid their towns and their NPCs). Are you race D? Well, you are strongest being, getting many bonuses in fights and crafting - too bad every other race dislikes/hates you. Or are your tiny tiny race K? You perform not good in combat - but hey, everyone (except that grumpy race A) loves you and almost every NPC aids you.
Quests would have choices. NPC asks to kill 10 rats. You may kill 10 rats, return and tell "job's done". You can kill nothing and tell "job's done". You can threaten NPC - "gimme reward or else...". So, if you kind to NPC "John" from race A, he may tell others - hey, this player is nice! Be kind to many - farmers of race A would start to look at you as a Hero, they could aid you or even defend you. Be bad - and farmers would start hating you, soon entire race may hate you. Be cheater - and all trade NPCs soon would tell: "Sorry, no business with Mr. Cheater, get out" (or you could cheat them you are not cheater...).
Of course, sometimes player would have a real choice. Like: race A asks to burn village of race B. Race B somehow is not happy, asks you to burn race A outpost instead.And you must choose one of two.
Your skills would be affected too. The more you use on your-level/higher lvl enemies - the better the skill. Do not use - and you get weak standard skill. Same with crafting: mine everything and you may be an expert in mining, getting more ore. Mine one time a month and your outcome would not be that good.
Classes are at some expense too. Wanna ranged unit? Ok, have your ranger - alas, ranger is lame in close combat. Wanna that Melee tank? Good...but tank is of no good in ranged combat/magic.
Your equipment is at price too. Wanna heavy armour? ok, here it is...just now your vision is low, your speed is low (but armour protection is the highes). Wanna light armour? here it is, you run quick, your vision is good...but very little protection. Enemy threw a fire on you? Too bad you are in heavy armour and can drown...should you be in light one - off to river to extinguish flames.
8. Simplicity and meaningfull. In my game I would try to make everything very clearly understandable. Name skills so that it is clear what does what. Character setup is simple with little options to play with, there are little skills, but if you have it - you need it. If I have 28 skills and use only 8 - I do not need remaining 20.
Game tends to have one type of currency and, say, Universal Token. The higher quest/dungeon - the more tokens.
RNG is left only to low-level vendor trash. Dungeons are based on (maybe complicated system):
*there is guaranteed reward everyone would get
*there is guaranteed reward - 1 or 2 pieces - players would compete for
*there is NN% chance that item such and such would be looted.
When awarding player, my software would scan player/player alts, then check if they have any of loot equipment. The more you have, the less chances to loot: player with zero equipment has best chance. Then, software would consider other chances, like - jhow often you play game, how often you play this dungeon, once again - favoring first timers. Also, if my software detects that player did not get, say, Scroll of Dark power in last 5 dungeons - it will reward with that Scroll.
9. Doable content. I would make every single quest/deed soloable. Maybe this level 35 dungeon is soloable only at lvl.60, but still soloable. However, rewards are always better when in group. You get more experience and loot is always better.
10. Player housing. Most mmos do not look into it: I would. Player may get already built house or he can build his own. One account - one housing plot, unless you buy for real cash. Of course, some decorations are in store: wanna that Bright Window - feel free to buy for 1.99$
11. Return to begining: low lvl areas would offer quests for high levels. You know, evil never sleeps...
12. Time of day, season of year - everything changes and impacts everything, including you. Snow is problematic to go in, while in summer it may be really hot in your heavy armour). But hey, in winter some rivers may become roads (provided ice is not too thin).
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
This is from Roll20,
So while you could complete a spell that you cast before you took wild shape, assuming the new form allows it, none the less, I am still 100% correct that can't cast spells in while shape.
What were you hoping to accomplish with this waste of posting, you sound like one of those ginormous jerks at the DnD table that sucks the fun out of the game as you endlessly rules-lawyer as opposed to playing the game.
"he continues his support role"
need I say more?
Thats as far as I made it. Wait for reviews? Reviews from who? Paid reviewers or people who get free copies of games to "review"? Reviews from what, people like on these forums? Ya...no thanks. Reviews are probably the most useless thing. Also, a $70 box tab and a $15 sub can shove off without testing and its not even about the money, and thats also coming from someone who prefers the Sub model. Maybe....maybe....if there was an open beta test where everyone who cared enough to could try it out. Like just saying "its a quality game" means jack, look at all the crap that AAA companies spew forth, oh with good reviews too, til real players start the game...and it dies shortly after. This hypothetically company, if anything, just lost reputation right off the bat and automatically becomes suspicious. If they have no hidden agenda, then let people test/try the game without putting up any money, stand on your work, if you can, not just trying to sucker people out of retail box fees who will dump it within a few hours.
~I am Many~
You and your designers should design the game, not the artists (but maybe listen to the artists if you suck).
"You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape."
The PHB wouldn't have a feat like that if you can't cast spells in beast form after taking it. Arguing otherwise comes off as ridiculous and reeks of pure desperation to be right.
As to your second question, you stated your Tactical role was the mixed role. For instance the paladin class is an assault/support class and you have it listed as tactical. Obviously a character tearing faces of on the frontlines as a bear is not pure support. It's an assault / support mixture. What you call tactical.
However if you would like to lay the debate to rest entirely I can easily sub out that druid for a paladin without hurting the party at all. Do I need to do that or can you just admit being wrong for once?
What GW2 did, was it simply allowed the classes to fill several roles, something I see you can't seem to fathom, but, that does not change what the roles are.
Edit Added:
The Roles are
Assault
Tactical
Support
Heavy
What you don't seem to grasp, is that these roles need to be filled, even in Games that allow soloing, they simply provide the means for all those roles to be filled by a solo player (either by internal or external means), this in no way removes those roles, or changes their nature.
Internal means, are simple as they sound. The Player can preform all the tasks on their own.
External means the needs are filled by outside sources, this could take the form or, say, healing stations or potions/food to recover health, or, say a pet or NPC that engages to the opponents, or fills some other role for the player they are not equipped to do their own.
Even the act of filling additional roles, IE: say Heavy/Support, or Assault/Support does not change the nature of the roles themselves.
Now, if you want to go on tangent about how your druid plays the assault role and is totally badass about it, you can, but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about in regard to the Roles that need to be filled, nor does it change the nature of the roles themselves.
If you cannot fathom I was using those classes as a means of an example, that is a problem with your reading and comprehension.. and has nothing to do in any legitimate sense, with the nature of roles.
I am very sorry that I tried to give easy examples and it broke your brain...
No themepark, just a sandbox, no forced grouping, just deliver the tools and let the community slug it out.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
The fact is that P&P works on a system that has no roles in the way the trinity does. It is a hodgepodge of very diverse builds that need to come together in way that can overcome challenges.
The closest you have to essential role is someone who can do healing. With all other roles you can deal with their loss by compensating in other areas. For instance with good enough CC and ranged damage can actually completely compensate for the need for a frontline AKA your "assault" role. You could also do the opposite and focus everything on the frontline AKA your "assault" role and do away with the need for ranged support AKA your "heavy" role.
Or you could create a team focused on skipping combat entirely with lots of stealthy and diplomatic characters. I actually have played a campaign where we did one combat the entire campaign.
This gets even more evident in PvP. I've ran in exceptionally effective groups that included nothing but melee DPSers who just jump out, take the opposing team unaware, then stealth away before support arrives. Those groups completely lacked anything you would refer to as "heavy" or "support."
When:
A. Roles are mixed / Not clearly defined.
B. No roles are essential for an effective group.
You don't have a role based system.
You're just making stuff up to sound authoritative.
But P&P and PvP are not strongly role based which is why there is so much debate and disagreement on what PvP and P&P roles actually are. Anyone who is telling you they "know what the D&D/PvP roles are" In any kind of authoritative tone is full of crap.