D&D 3E/3.5 3.5E Player's Handbook II - the book that invented combat roles

[mkill]

The 3.5 Players Handbook II was published in May 2006, 2 years before 4th edition. A quick comparison between this book and 4E PHB I shows the following names in common (designers only): David Noonan, Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, Mike Mearls, Stephen Schubert, Christopher Perkins. Robert J. Schwalb is only in the 3.5 book, but he did other stuff for 4E.


The Classes

PHB II offers 4 new classes:
* Beguiler
* Dragon Shaman
* Duskblade
* Knight

The Beguiler is the Controller. He's pretty much a 3.5 Sorcerer with a limited spell list that has mainly Enchantment and Illusion (control spells!), and a few extra class features. Note that he controls by messing with the mind of his enemies directly. He does not have the summoning and terrain effect powers of 4E controllers, and almost no area damage.
Interestingly, his "Cloaked Casting" allows him to use something similar to Combat Advantage when casting spells. (Similar to how 4E's Combat Advantage can be used by melee flankers, ranged weapon users and spellcasters).

The Dragon Shaman is the Leader. Like 4E leaders, he has healing as a class feature. It's a 6th level ability that works similar to Lay on Hands. He also gets Marshall/Runepriest-like auras. Like 4E chars, he has scaling AC (literally dragon scales). He also gets a breath weapon, which is something between an at-will and an encounter power (it recharges after 1d4 rounds).
Sadly, the Dragon Shaman never made it to 4E. There is a Shaman as a leader class in 4E, but it doesn't have the dragon fluff, and it works very different mechanically. From the fluff, the 4E Sorcerer comes closest.

The Duskblade is a Striker. It can channel spells into its blade for extra damage, making them into something like daily attack powers. Looking closer at some of the Duskblade spells, like Lesser Deflect, we see another 4E staple: Utility powers. This one is an immediate action (!) that gives a one-time AC bonus against an attack.
It doesn't really have a 4E equivalent, but could be described as a Striker version of the Swordmage.

Finally, the Knight, the Defender, with a d12 hit die. The Knight doesn't have the iconic "I'll smack you if you attack my friend" mark yet, but look how close he gets. The class feature is called "Knight's Challenge". You can use this power for different things, but "Test of Mettle", is a pure MMO aggro mechanic - if the opponent fails a will save, he has to attack you.
The other interesting Defender ability is level 3 Bulwark of Defense. It's worded a bit differently, but in 4E lingo it prevents adjacent enemies from shifting.
From 6th level, the Knight can also absorb half the damage that would be dealt to an adjacent ally as an immediate action (!).
All in all his abilities are somewhat fiddly, and lack the streamlined ease of use of the 4E Defenders. The Knight pretty much became the Fighter in 4E. Ah, so much confusion could have been avoided if the 4E PHB Fighter would have been called Knight!


Party Building Advice

It's quite interesting to see how much of 4E is already in this book, halfway into the lifetime of 3.5. The book does not slap the combat roles on each class like a label, but it is very obvious that these are the concepts that the developers were experimenting with at the time.

In fact, all you need to do is move forward to page 149, where it defines... Combat Roles (!), in a chapter called "Building the Party".

A typical adventuring party consists of four characters, each representing one of the iconic elements of fantasy roleplaying. The fighter, the wizard, the cleric, and the rogue form the classic group. The fighter relies on weapons to mete out damage and wears armor to avoid injury. The wizard uses spells to destroy armies and to circumvent hazards. The cleric supports the other characters through healing spells and "buff" spells that enhance abilities, though he can also aid the fighter in combat. The rogue bypasses traps, assists the fighter and the cleric on the battlefield, and brings to bear an impressive skill set that makes her the party's "go-to" person in just about any situation. ...

It then goes on to explain party teamwork over the next 10 pages. It names 4 roles: Warrior, Expert, Arcane Spellcaster and Divine Spellcaster.

4E changed the rogue to a damage dealer, to strengthen his in-combat role vis a vis the other classes. The role of the fighter was moved from attack/defense balanced to a defense focus, to make space for the rogue. (Rectified later with the Slayer). 4E also severed the tie between leader and divine magic as well as controller and arcane magic.

The reasons I'm writing this is to show that like Book of 9 Swords did with martial powers, combat roles were already foreshadowed in a 3.5 book. They are not a pure 4E thing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The reasons I'm writing this is to show that like Book of 9 Swords did with martial powers, combat roles were already foreshadowed in a 3.5 book. They are not a pure 4E thing.

Not that I have anything against 4e players, but I always stayed away from Bo9S and PHB II (and many other books with their additions... like reserve feats, for example) when I played 3.5, because I didn't like some of the innovations. Interesting that it lines up with 4e mechanics to some degree, and that I rejected 4e mechanics when they were announced.

That's not to say that my tastes haven't changed: my RPG allows for the casting of spells at will, as well as daily spikes via spells slots; martial characters can fall into stances and use maneuvers, but they're open to anyone who qualifies for them (no feats necessary) and who makes a successful attack roll against a set DC. I don't have anything like roles, since it's a classless game.

I do think it's interesting that the designed mainly lined up like that, though. Testing ground with PHB II, or just slow change in vision and philosophy? I'm not sure when it was released. As always, play what you like

 

[Plane Sailing]

Moved to a more appropriate forum

 

[was]

Ahh, the good old Bo9S. To this day, its the only rpg book I've returned to my FLGS for a refund after reading it.

 

[Dandu]

i kno, rite? its so anime...

 

[Vegepygmy]

The reasons I'm writing this is to show that like Book of 9 Swords did with martial powers, combat roles were already foreshadowed in a 3.5 book. They are not a pure 4E thing.

You are hardly the first to notice that late-stage 3.5 books were largely testing grounds for concepts that would reappear in 4E.

In my personal opinion, this makes them less "3.5 concepts" than they were "pre-4E" concepts. You are free to disagree with me, of course.

 

[mkill]

In my personal opinion, this makes them less "3.5 concepts" than they were "pre-4E" concepts. You are free to disagree with me, of course.

That's not what people thought when the books came out. This kind of 3E purism is a retcon. Sure, some groups played with just the PHB because that was all they needed, but PHB II was very popular and a lot of people used it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Combat roles existed way before 3.5!

In the older editions, they existed but in an emergent way. "Hey, let's make different classes to represent different fantasy archetypes! Man, these classes do different things! When everyone can do a different thing well, that means less problems will be bad because we got a party member for that!"

In later editions, these ideas became more and more formalized and by the time 4th Edition came out, the designers were well aware of classes and combat roles. However, many play groups never thought about that and were surprised when told of combat roles.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

PHBII also introduced formal retraining rules, iirc.

And skill challenges are similar to complex skill checks in UA (but unlike 4E, people were smart enough to take one look at that giant mess and avoid it like the plague ).

The truth is 4E had almost no original ideas. I've long realized this.


I don't hate 4E for having roles. I hate it for making role more important than class. 3E had niche protection for special class abilities. 4E has role protection.
And the names and descriptions of the roles changed, as noted in the thread. Leader I sort of like, Controller is basically identical to the 3E concept, except 3E casters are WAY better at it... But Defender and Striker...ugh! I don't like the idea of a guy whose sole purpose is doing more damage than anyone else. In 3E lots of classes could go that route if you took the right feats and gear and sacked defenses sufficiently, it was a character option. In 4E, it's a formalized ROLE. Rogue had a much more out of combat purpose and definition before 4E, in 3E people called him the skill monkey, not the DPS. Defender is even worse. What a stupid freaking concept! In 3E a Fighter was the tank not just for being tough, but also by doing a alot of damage and/or threatening a wide enough sweep that ignoring him was perilous to do. People considered it his job to keep enemies from attacking softer targets, but "being a punching bag" was not his ultimate purpose. IMO, the ideal 3E tank is a close range controller, basically. Lots of reach, tripping, stand still, etc...

 

[mkill]

But Defender and Striker...ugh! I don't like the idea of a guy whose sole purpose is doing more damage than anyone else. In 3E lots of classes could go that route if you took the right feats and gear and sacked defenses sufficiently, it was a character option. In 4E, it's a formalized ROLE. Rogue had a much more out of combat purpose and definition before 4E, in 3E people called him the skill monkey, not the DPS.

Let's face it... There are a lot of players out there who like dealing damage more than anything else. There is nothing wrong with that. 4E just said hey, if dealing a lot of damage is what you like, try this and this and this class. I think the bigger problem was that many of these players still wanted to play a Fighter or a Wizard. With just the 4E PHB, you can't accomodate these players well, so it turned them off 4E when it came out. Now they can just pick a Slayer or a Sorcerer.

As for the Rogue, I never liked the "skill monkey". Every PC should be useful out of combat. Sure, Rogues should be good at sneaky stuff, traps, locks and tricking people, but that's just one area of what you can do with skills. There is still wilderness survival and scouting, healing, information gathering, arcane lore and religion, politics and a lot of other stuff that fit other classes better.

Defender is even worse. What a stupid freaking concept! In 3E a Fighter was the tank not just for being tough, but also by doing a alot of damage and/or threatening a wide enough sweep that ignoring him was perilous to do. People considered it his job to keep enemies from attacking softer targets, but "being a punching bag" was not his ultimate purpose. IMO, the ideal 3E tank is a close range controller, basically. Lots of reach, tripping, stand still, etc...

A 3E fighter does none of that right out of the gate. A new player who builds his first 3E fighter will only see a punching bag. Experienced players who read the Charop guides will know that the most effective way to build a fighter is to get a lot of threatening reach and trip the hell out of monsters, but it's not obvious at all and the game won't lead you there if you don't know it.

4E, on the other hand, makes "close range controller" the default, because that is how the 4E Fighter and every other defender works right from level one. He can trip (=knock prone), stop movement, punish attacks on allies ... Unlike 3E, you don't need to wait unti mid-high levels when you finally have all the feats, items and PrCs together to be effective at that.