Trinity for me existed as early as Final Fantasy I where you put the fighter in the first spot (the spot that gets the most hits) and the soft spongy black mage in the back. It continued to exist in strategy games such as Fire Emblem and Shining Force and later Final Fantasy Tactics (when you aren't using broken "I kill everything!!!!11111" jobs, at least) where you send the armoured knights in first and then after they take the initial blows, send in the archers, thieves, cavalry, and healers to mop up.
MMOs simply made it so that instead of the typical Fighter WhiteMage BlackMage party, you instead only played JUST the fighter or the White Mage or the Black Mage.
....which sucked, honestly. No wonder why I only play summoners/minion masters in MMOs if I can help it.
Been so long since I played Final Fantasy. I think you are right though. They fully took advantage of the 3 roles using different characters. Though the tank did a lot of dps as well. This is really the earliest example I have seen anywhere.
Final Fantasy IV looks like the first in the series to adopt this method. Launched in 1991
I believe the term was coined with MMORPG's but the roles just came naturally with the tactics used in D&D and the like.
Could you show me a D&D build from before 4.0 built with core material from the players handbook that fulfills either the healer or tank role as they exist in MMOs?
The only builds I can think of that would play that way would be severely underpowered.
The tank role in MMOs is so absurd that we should be embarrassed that we accept it as a viable mechanic in our games. THAT is why it wasn't in most previous games - it's ridiculous. Fireballs, teleportation, and rideable dragons make far more sense than a guy that has mastered the Neener-neenering of every race and species of creature - sentient or not - on the planet.
I agree - tank mechanics are still interesting, but the actual concept is somewhat limiting. I can understand it some some creatures, because some animals will focus on the loudest / most annoying character. But when we're fighting something intelligent, taunts really shouldn't work.
What I'd love to see is positional tanking.
So, in real life, you don't run past the swordsman to get to the archer because the swordsman will slice you up on the way past. I'd like to see that implemented in an MMO.
The way I see it working is you'd have character collision, but then each character would have a front-facing 180 degree aura that acts as a slow / root. If an enemy moves into that aura, they get slowed / rooted - to simulate them having to engage with the enemy or get killed.
This aura could have many altering factors to it. So, a guy with a halberd might have a 10ft aura whereas a guy with an axe might only have a 4ft aura. The halberd might be 100% effective against a single target, but drops to 25% effectiveness with 2+ enemies (so, the root becomes a slow). The guy that dual-wields axes might be 100% effective against 3 targets, dropping by 25% for each consecutive target.
Due to collision detection, it should be difficult to swarm someone, so against similarly sized opponents you could only get surrounded by max 10 mobs.
You could also then build in weight to the game. So, human vs human you couldn't just push people out of the way (unless you used special skills or something) but if you were fighting a troll, you wouldn't expect to stop them in their tracks, so the root-aura for threat would be reduced to a minor slow and they could physically push players backwards.
Would take a fairly beefy server to support such a system but I think it could revolutionise PvE combat in MMOs. Tanks would have to physically get in the way of the enemy, but the enemy would be trying to go around the tank to get at squishies so there would be some lovely movement stuff. I'm picturing the melee guys all getting into a line to hold back a horde, or blocking a corridor to save the squishies, plus lots of knockbacks, pushing, repositioning etc. Could be really fun!
It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt. It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.
Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.
That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.
No RPG rules that I know of codified a low damage, high heartiness warrior. In D&D the fighter was both the highest damage and the one who could take the most damage.
I thought that EQ1 was the origin of the Tank/DPS/Healer model but that is just because I believe those roles developed around that timeframe.
The Trinity is not necessary in turn-based games with a live person controlling the enemies. It is a construct of video games. A fighter who cant do melee damage makes no sense
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt. It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.
Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.
That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.
The shield wall type of gameplay couldn't happen very often. Maybe enclosed dungeons and if the DM didn't roll to see what character the many goblins would try to attack. It was very hard to establish the trinity in D&D 1st-2nd editions. Because the clerics weren't that great at healing and the warriors couldn't hold aggro at all. It was very situational and very hard to make it happen.
DKmano is right the word Trinity was first used in Everquest and it was because 3 particular classes overpowered everything else when it came to group play. Then it evolved into what it is today. WOW probably being the largest contributor because they made the classes evolve around these 3 types. Sad that Everquest with all the different classes they had there was only 3 that shined.
That's what sucks about min-maxing and spreadsheets. Takes the imagination out of the equation and makes the game poorer because of it.
I wish we had games to satisfy both preferences.
The Min Maxing was what really killed the Trinity. The reason I say that is because during Vanilla WOW and TBC you had 1 tank 1 healer, 2 DPS and 1 DPS/Off Tank/Long CC to be able to handle groups. The problem is that today's kids can do nothing other than pew pew and stand in fire because their attention span is so short. This is why you have Tank Healer and DPS all Min Maxing shit.
IMO the level of min-maxing is directly proportional to the capabilities of the tank to hold aggro. The more reliably the tank can hold aggro, the less anything but their survivability matters. The less DPS worries about being attacked, the more of a glass cannon they can be. The less healers worry about being attacked, the more they can do nothing but heal.
That's why in say ArcheAge. Clerics are the supreme healers. All you need to go through content is min-maxed cleric that can heal incredibly well. Clerics taking 2 trees related to healing and then a slightly tanky tree that makes casting faster.
Switch it over into PvP where aggro does not matter, and you start seeing classes like Templars and Shadowbanes really shine. Templars being the main healing tree, a slightly tanky tree, and the shield tank tree, and shadowbane being the main healing tree, the shield tank tree, and the CC tree. Less healing output but when I switched from cleric to shadowbane I noticed I could actually get myself out of enemy focus fires alive instead of CC-lock until dead.
I believe the term was coined with MMORPG's but the roles just came naturally with the tactics used in D&D and the like.
Could you show me a D&D build from before 4.0 built with core material from the players handbook that fulfills either the healer or tank role as they exist in MMOs?
The only builds I can think of that would play that way would be severely underpowered.
The tank role in MMOs is so absurd that we should be embarrassed that we accept it as a viable mechanic in our games. THAT is why it wasn't in most previous games - it's ridiculous. Fireballs, teleportation, and rideable dragons make far more sense than a guy that has mastered the Neener-neenering of every race and species of creature - sentient or not - on the planet.
Just watch any monster movie which involves a group of some sort. Inevitably the group will, at some point, encounter the monster and, inevitably, one of the characters will yell at the monster or throw a stone at it or something, causing it to focus on them. That's the tank, lol.
Or, the first one to go down ...
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt. It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.
Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.
That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.
No RPG rules that I know of codified a low damage, high heartiness warrior. In D&D the fighter was both the highest damage and the one who could take the most damage.
I thought that EQ1 was the origin of the Tank/DPS/Healer model but that is just because I believe those roles developed around that timeframe.
The Trinity is not necessary in turn-based games with a live person controlling the enemies. It is a construct of video games. A fighter who cant do melee damage makes no sense
Lots of people here seem to be making those distinctions. The 'rules' don't say that so it didn't happen.
Well that's just not true. If you were playing D&D in the 70's you were using those books as a guide not a proscriptive rule book. You were probably reading magazines like White Dwarf for ideas too. As I said around here Fighters (and Rangers) formed a blocking wall, 3 up and 3 behind. It was, in my view, trinity play.
You may not have played it that way, or more likely you are too young to know how it was played back then, but that was the way it was done here.
It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt. It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.
Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.
That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.
No RPG rules that I know of codified a low damage, high heartiness warrior. In D&D the fighter was both the highest damage and the one who could take the most damage.
I thought that EQ1 was the origin of the Tank/DPS/Healer model but that is just because I believe those roles developed around that timeframe.
The Trinity is not necessary in turn-based games with a live person controlling the enemies. It is a construct of video games. A fighter who cant do melee damage makes no sense
Lots of people here seem to be making those distinctions. The 'rules' don't say that so it didn't happen.
Well that's just not true. If you were playing D&D in the 70's you were using those books as a guide not a proscriptive rule book. You were probably reading magazines like White Dwarf for ideas too. As I said around here Fighters (and Rangers) formed a blocking wall, 3 up and 3 behind. It was, in my view, trinity play.
You may not have played it that way, or more likely you are too young to know how it was played back then, but that was the way it was done here.
Again a very situational example. Why didn't the goblins run around the 3 people with shields? I mean you had to literally walk in formation to hold that kind of playstyle. And it requires 3 people to be tanks. Yes somewhere somehow someone probably did the trinity type of gameplay in the 70's. But just because someone in a cave invents something completely separate from society doesn't mean it had any influence whatsoever on the current definition. And you are also forgetting the fact that original D&D didn't really have a healing class. They relied on potions and the sort because lets face it clerics were really bad at it.
Did MMORPGs create the trinity? The requisite classes existed before MMORPGs, so there is a possibility that the trinity existed before MMORPGs. But that's going to depend quite highly on how the DM/GM ran the game. If they lined up strictly fighter on fighter and left the healers and support characters free to do their business, then you could have had trinity-esque game play. If every character is paired off with an opponent, there's not much chance of that. Basically, if the DM didn't run the goblin hoard after every character, then the trinity-style game was possible.
MMORPGs did popularize the trinity-style of game play, because a group of players could use tactical abilities (pull splitting, in-camp CC, kiting, rooting, etc) to ensure a 4+-on-1 encounter. There are / were very few 6-on-6 encounters where both sides are roughly equivalent. Those were accidents (or trains) and were avoided as much as possible.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
MMOs sort of ruined what a party should be with the mobs that one shot all but a tank. Less adventure and feeling like a fight happened and to much pew pew win win.
It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt. It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.
Actually it was numerous Pen and Paper games, not just D&D. You are correct that warriors/fighters didn't have a power of taunt, they role played it! Imagine telling the leader of an orcish band in his native orcish that "Your momma doesn't wear combat boots, she is combat boots!" and point to your boots. If the GM decides your action succeeds, you can bet that orc is going to go after you, if not him and his whole band.
Whether you like it or not, computer role playing games are rather limited in how they can react to real peoples crazy ideas of what to do. That's why your tanks in CRPGs of all types get a skill/power like taunt, it represents the players activity of TAUNTING the opponent, which is something a tabletop game can do by just saying it. Heck, at the worst case there's some kind of communication skill that can be used.
Sorry centkin, but you are just thinking too linearly and I suspect have little to no experience with actual role playing games. Don't get me wrong, I love the computer ones as well, but they often pale in comparison. You really should go find a real world group or two and give it a shot. Often the local game stores will have them, or at least a meetup board where you can find on. Local gamestores that are part of a chain like Fun Again Games often do that as standard, and even provide a room for it.
So give it a try, and if you like it, that's great. If you don't, at least you can say you've tried it.
'The Trinity' has been around in one variation or another since people organized. In the Army, you don't have a bunch of generalists doing things. You send out a medic, with a couple forms of combat strength. You don't just send in a tank division, you send it with a recon, and medical unit.
It all falls to common sense. Specialists working together are more effective than generalists working together.
As far as games are concerned, they've been around since the D&D or roleplaying revolution. Who played D&D didn't and still doesn't make sure they have a healer, tank, and then a tossup between thief/mage types.
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
Who played D&D didn't and still doesn't make sure they have a healer, tank, and then a tossup between thief/mage types.
I do. D&D's tank role is exceptionally muddled. The barbarian who stacks strength and con. Tank or DPS? He's a front line fighter and likely taking more hits than the rest of the party but he's also probably your primary damage dealer at early levels.
The ranger who stacks primary dex and secondary strength and wields a composite bow for heavy damage may be a bit squishier than that barbarian. But his high dex makes him able to avoid a lot of attacks. And he's probably not better than that barbarian at DPS, just able to apply his damage from farther away.
Also. Wizards and sorcerers may be fairly interchangeable but they are not interchangeable with a rogue or a bard. Arcane casters and skill based characters are totally different animals even if your skill based character has a splash of arcane as is the case with a bard. Lumping them together doesn't work. Besides you put them both in the DPS role, and while high level casters have some respectable damage I challenge you to create any rogue build that can go toe to toe with a fighter or barbarian in terms of DPS.
Basically what I am saying is while characters with different strengths and weaknesses is certainly a D&D thing parties built of min-maxed characters with a singular focus is purely an MMO thing.
Basically what I am saying is while characters with different strengths and weaknesses is certainly a D&D thing parties built of min-maxed characters with a singular focus is purely an MMO thing.
That's okay for you to have that OPINION given your experience. This is not my experience. I can think of tons of times people have taken races to work with specific classes or role-played looking for that specific item/weapon to make their specific character more powerful. They only thing I see as a purely MMO thing is boiling down armor sets to two or three flavors in the interest of 'balance.'
I don't know of a single party in D&D that did not have someone that could take a hit or someone that had some way of healing. The only work around I see is DMs making healing pots readily available. The term 'balanced party' was very much a thing well before MMO was ever a thing.
Min maxing has been around before video games existed. When you roll a character, let's say a fighter, do you think most people put the highest roll in strenght? The difference between mmo min maxing and pen and paper is that you have less choice with an mmo. Mmo mostly limit your min maxing to racial ability choice and gear choice. With old school d&d you rolled and allocated your attributes, you chose your race, you chose your class, and you chose your skills. It was rare to see a race that got a reduction in strength as a fighter. How many mages didnt have fireball? Why would you gimp yourself...
Concept of tanking existed in mud before mmorpg came into existence. Given that many MUD had similar classes to D&D like the stereotypical fighter, rogue, mage, cleric and that grouping existed its safe to say that trinity existed before MMOs.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
The tank and spank method of combat used in mmorpg's only works in D&D if the DM plays the monsters like mindless lemmings. You could make the argument that it might work against a monster with a 4 intelligence but otherwise not so much. The most fun part of D&D is the freedom to do clever or unusual or crazy things.
I've always played with a very small group so we usually had odd group compositions. Many times were missing a fighter or barbarian or paladin. Sometimes we didn't have a cleric or druid or bard. I think it makes the encounters more interesting because you must improvise a lot.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt. It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.
Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.
That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.
No RPG rules that I know of codified a low damage, high heartiness warrior. In D&D the fighter was both the highest damage and the one who could take the most damage.
I thought that EQ1 was the origin of the Tank/DPS/Healer model but that is just because I believe those roles developed around that timeframe.
The Trinity is not necessary in turn-based games with a live person controlling the enemies. It is a construct of video games. A fighter who cant do melee damage makes no sense
Lots of people here seem to be making those distinctions. The 'rules' don't say that so it didn't happen.
Well that's just not true. If you were playing D&D in the 70's you were using those books as a guide not a proscriptive rule book. You were probably reading magazines like White Dwarf for ideas too. As I said around here Fighters (and Rangers) formed a blocking wall, 3 up and 3 behind. It was, in my view, trinity play.
You may not have played it that way, or more likely you are too young to know how it was played back then, but that was the way it was done here.
Any sensible GM will tear your backline a new one. Hell, even low int monster like wolves will not throw themselfs into shield wall. Stupid GM is stupid.
I guess the first question would be to decide exactly what the trinity is. If it is just the fact that 1 character is able to heal and 1 character is able to take damage then the trinity has always existed. DPS is the easiest so we just leave that one alone. Tank should have the ability to draw damage away from other players or prevent other players from taking damage by taking it himself. Then the healer should be able to heal the party of at least 4 and keep them alive. So when exactly did this all start? And what better definition do you have if mine is incorrect?
if DPS is the easiest, why is it they melees always die first? juuuust sayin' i actually did all 3 roles, and i concider tanking the easiest so far.
and for the record, D&D started it. not mmos.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I guess the first question would be to decide exactly what the trinity is. If it is just the fact that 1 character is able to heal and 1 character is able to take damage then the trinity has always existed. DPS is the easiest so we just leave that one alone. Tank should have the ability to draw damage away from other players or prevent other players from taking damage by taking it himself. Then the healer should be able to heal the party of at least 4 and keep them alive. So when exactly did this all start? And what better definition do you have if mine is incorrect?
if DPS is the easiest, why is it they melees always die first? juuuust sayin'
i actually did all 3 roles, and i concider tanking the easiest so far
DPS is the easiest to find since the beginning of gaming.
I guess the first question would be to decide exactly what the trinity is. If it is just the fact that 1 character is able to heal and 1 character is able to take damage then the trinity has always existed. DPS is the easiest so we just leave that one alone. Tank should have the ability to draw damage away from other players or prevent other players from taking damage by taking it himself. Then the healer should be able to heal the party of at least 4 and keep them alive. So when exactly did this all start? And what better definition do you have if mine is incorrect?
if DPS is the easiest, why is it they melees always die first? juuuust sayin'
i actually did all 3 roles, and i concider tanking the easiest so far
DPS is the easiest to find since the beginning of gaming.
people hate changes i guess, and if you play alone, you usualy go for dmg (obvious problems on the other 2)
still, DPS has alot more movement than the other 2, for example.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I guess the first question would be to decide exactly what the trinity is. If it is just the fact that 1 character is able to heal and 1 character is able to take damage then the trinity has always existed. DPS is the easiest so we just leave that one alone. Tank should have the ability to draw damage away from other players or prevent other players from taking damage by taking it himself. Then the healer should be able to heal the party of at least 4 and keep them alive. So when exactly did this all start? And what better definition do you have if mine is incorrect?
I realize that you are probably a millenial, but the world existed before you were born, you know. The original Dungeons and Dragons, tabletop version released in 1974 originated the modern trinity. And guess what... role playing games of some sort existed long before that though they would have been more with healing units, supply units, and different types of army units.
So no, MMO's did not create the trinity.
wth. I'm starting to understand why so many people are getting so upset with the millenials. It's like you think the world started the day you were born.
Min-maxing in a general sense is a D&D thing. For instance say, a fighter has no use for wisdoms other than spot/listen/search and will saves. So they are going to drop will and put that into a stat that makes more sense to their character.
Min-maxing to a one dimensional level is an MMO thing though. You are not going to see a (good) Paladin dump strength below 14-16 to bump Charisma in order to get more healing output from lay on hands or favor an item that bumps charisma over purchasing heavy armor.
You will absolutely see a paladin healer from an MMO drop anything and everything they can to absolutely maximize their healing output.
You aren't going to (good) wizard forgo taking an item like robe of the magi that gives them survivability just to get more high level pearls of power they fill with damage spells.
You will see a mage in an MMO dump anything and everything that isn't DPS.
You will not see a (good) fighter dump strength to pump more points into con so they can take more hits. You will see fighters dump DPS for health and mitigation in an MMO.
Pen and paper characters are multi-facted characters with multiple strengths, or else they suck.
High level PvEers in MMO's are one-dimentional characters with a singular purpose, or else they suck.
In that way, the trinity is an MMO thing, that came about through MMOs.
I guess the first question would be to decide exactly what the trinity is. If it is just the fact that 1 character is able to heal and 1 character is able to take damage then the trinity has always existed. DPS is the easiest so we just leave that one alone. Tank should have the ability to draw damage away from other players or prevent other players from taking damage by taking it himself. Then the healer should be able to heal the party of at least 4 and keep them alive. So when exactly did this all start? And what better definition do you have if mine is incorrect?
I realize that you are probably a millenial, but the world existed before you were born, you know. The original Dungeons and Dragons, tabletop version released in 1974 originated the modern trinity. And guess what... role playing games of some sort existed long before that though they would have been more with healing units, supply units, and different types of army units.
So no, MMO's did not create the trinity.
wth. I'm starting to understand why so many people are getting so upset with the millenials. It's like you think the world started the day you were born.
You obviously have not read any of the posts. Maybe you should do that first. The first game we have found that takes advantage of the roles is Final Fantasy 4. Meanwhile you are very subjective with the D&D assumption considering that it was very hard to find a situation where a single warrior could protect 3 other players by taking all the damage. Or the fact that lvl 11 Clerics could only fully heal 2 players per day. Which would make them unqualified for a healing role.
Haven't run the math on clerics but I'm pretty sure higher level clerics get a lot more healing than that. For instance my paladin (of freedom, He's a non-PHB Chaotic-Good pally but the abilities he uses for healing are almost all core) has more points he can heal through "Lay on Hands" than he does health points, along with a few other assorted heals. And he has one of the highest HP pools in the party.
A cleric should be able to do even more using only part of their daily spells.
However my paladin does have as previously stated, one of the highest HP totals in the party, by far the best combined saves, will be able to do well over 200 damage on a smite at level 15. Plus he has social skills including a +33 to intimidate at level 14. This is using mostly PHB material and all WoTC material aside from one house rule saying the skill-focus feats makes skills into class skills that I used to get intimidate that high.
Classify that character as a role. Go ahead and try to fit that into the trinity. I dare you.
_______________
Math for those interested
18 starting charisma, +1 from leveling, +6 from cloak, +5 from tome, 2 racial = 32 Charisma or +11 modifier.
11Charisma mod x 14levels = 154 lay on hands (vs. 139 total health)
The health is a combination of 18 constitution after items and good rolls.
11 Charisma mod = +11 to every single save (Paladin class ability)
I switched my paladin mount for an ability from the PHB 2 called charging smite that allows me to add my paladin level times 3 to damage on a charge.
However I am a mounted combat build. I took leadership to get a griffon cohort because I wanted a flying mount.
42 (Charging Smite - 14x3) + 1d8+7 (Lance + Strength) + 2d6 (Holy effect since all smite targets are evil) = 59 average damage then double that because of lance effect = 118 average damage.
At level 15 my feat will be spirited charge which doubles mounted charges again bringing that to 236 damage before scaling anything to level 15.
Intimidate = 16 from ranks, 2 from bluff synergy, 3 from skill focus, 11 from CHA and 1 from a pale green ioun stone for a total of 33.
Comments
Final Fantasy IV looks like the first in the series to adopt this method. Launched in 1991
What I'd love to see is positional tanking.
So, in real life, you don't run past the swordsman to get to the archer because the swordsman will slice you up on the way past. I'd like to see that implemented in an MMO.
The way I see it working is you'd have character collision, but then each character would have a front-facing 180 degree aura that acts as a slow / root. If an enemy moves into that aura, they get slowed / rooted - to simulate them having to engage with the enemy or get killed.
This aura could have many altering factors to it. So, a guy with a halberd might have a 10ft aura whereas a guy with an axe might only have a 4ft aura. The halberd might be 100% effective against a single target, but drops to 25% effectiveness with 2+ enemies (so, the root becomes a slow). The guy that dual-wields axes might be 100% effective against 3 targets, dropping by 25% for each consecutive target.
Due to collision detection, it should be difficult to swarm someone, so against similarly sized opponents you could only get surrounded by max 10 mobs.
You could also then build in weight to the game. So, human vs human you couldn't just push people out of the way (unless you used special skills or something) but if you were fighting a troll, you wouldn't expect to stop them in their tracks, so the root-aura for threat would be reduced to a minor slow and they could physically push players backwards.
Would take a fairly beefy server to support such a system but I think it could revolutionise PvE combat in MMOs. Tanks would have to physically get in the way of the enemy, but the enemy would be trying to go around the tank to get at squishies so there would be some lovely movement stuff. I'm picturing the melee guys all getting into a line to hold back a horde, or blocking a corridor to save the squishies, plus lots of knockbacks, pushing, repositioning etc. Could be really fun!
I thought that EQ1 was the origin of the Tank/DPS/Healer model but that is just because I believe those roles developed around that timeframe.
The Trinity is not necessary in turn-based games with a live person controlling the enemies. It is a construct of video games. A fighter who cant do melee damage makes no sense
That's why in say ArcheAge. Clerics are the supreme healers. All you need to go through content is min-maxed cleric that can heal incredibly well. Clerics taking 2 trees related to healing and then a slightly tanky tree that makes casting faster.
Switch it over into PvP where aggro does not matter, and you start seeing classes like Templars and Shadowbanes really shine. Templars being the main healing tree, a slightly tanky tree, and the shield tank tree, and shadowbane being the main healing tree, the shield tank tree, and the CC tree. Less healing output but when I switched from cleric to shadowbane I noticed I could actually get myself out of enemy focus fires alive instead of CC-lock until dead.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Well that's just not true. If you were playing D&D in the 70's you were using those books as a guide not a proscriptive rule book. You were probably reading magazines like White Dwarf for ideas too. As I said around here Fighters (and Rangers) formed a blocking wall, 3 up and 3 behind. It was, in my view, trinity play.
You may not have played it that way, or more likely you are too young to know how it was played back then, but that was the way it was done here.
MMORPGs did popularize the trinity-style of game play, because a group of players could use tactical abilities (pull splitting, in-camp CC, kiting, rooting, etc) to ensure a 4+-on-1 encounter. There are / were very few 6-on-6 encounters where both sides are roughly equivalent. Those were accidents (or trains) and were avoided as much as possible.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
MMOs sort of ruined what a party should be with the mobs that one shot all but a tank. Less adventure and feeling like a fight happened and to much pew pew win win.
You are correct that warriors/fighters didn't have a power of taunt, they role played it!
Imagine telling the leader of an orcish band in his native orcish that "Your momma doesn't wear combat boots, she is combat boots!" and point to your boots. If the GM decides your action succeeds, you can bet that orc is going to go after you, if not him and his whole band.
Whether you like it or not, computer role playing games are rather limited in how they can react to real peoples crazy ideas of what to do. That's why your tanks in CRPGs of all types get a skill/power like taunt, it represents the players activity of TAUNTING the opponent, which is something a tabletop game can do by just saying it. Heck, at the worst case there's some kind of communication skill that can be used.
Sorry centkin, but you are just thinking too linearly and I suspect have little to no experience with actual role playing games. Don't get me wrong, I love the computer ones as well, but they often pale in comparison. You really should go find a real world group or two and give it a shot. Often the local game stores will have them, or at least a meetup board where you can find on. Local gamestores that are part of a chain like Fun Again Games often do that as standard, and even provide a room for it.
So give it a try, and if you like it, that's great. If you don't, at least you can say you've tried it.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
It all falls to common sense. Specialists working together are more effective than generalists working together.
As far as games are concerned, they've been around since the D&D or roleplaying revolution. Who played D&D didn't and still doesn't make sure they have a healer, tank, and then a tossup between thief/mage types.
I self identify as a monkey.
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The ranger who stacks primary dex and secondary strength and wields a composite bow for heavy damage may be a bit squishier than that barbarian. But his high dex makes him able to avoid a lot of attacks. And he's probably not better than that barbarian at DPS, just able to apply his damage from farther away.
Also. Wizards and sorcerers may be fairly interchangeable but they are not interchangeable with a rogue or a bard. Arcane casters and skill based characters are totally different animals even if your skill based character has a splash of arcane as is the case with a bard. Lumping them together doesn't work. Besides you put them both in the DPS role, and while high level casters have some respectable damage I challenge you to create any rogue build that can go toe to toe with a fighter or barbarian in terms of DPS.
Basically what I am saying is while characters with different strengths and weaknesses is certainly a D&D thing parties built of min-maxed characters with a singular focus is purely an MMO thing.
I don't know of a single party in D&D that did not have someone that could take a hit or someone that had some way of healing. The only work around I see is DMs making healing pots readily available. The term 'balanced party' was very much a thing well before MMO was ever a thing.
I've always played with a very small group so we usually had odd group compositions. Many times were missing a fighter or barbarian or paladin. Sometimes we didn't have a cleric or druid or bard. I think it makes the encounters more interesting because you must improvise a lot.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
juuuust sayin'
i actually did all 3 roles, and i concider tanking the easiest so far.
and for the record, D&D started it. not mmos.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
still, DPS has alot more movement than the other 2, for example.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
So no, MMO's did not create the trinity.
wth. I'm starting to understand why so many people are getting so upset with the millenials. It's like you think the world started the day you were born.
Min-maxing to a one dimensional level is an MMO thing though. You are not going to see a (good) Paladin dump strength below 14-16 to bump Charisma in order to get more healing output from lay on hands or favor an item that bumps charisma over purchasing heavy armor.
You will absolutely see a paladin healer from an MMO drop anything and everything they can to absolutely maximize their healing output.
You aren't going to (good) wizard forgo taking an item like robe of the magi that gives them survivability just to get more high level pearls of power they fill with damage spells.
You will see a mage in an MMO dump anything and everything that isn't DPS.
You will not see a (good) fighter dump strength to pump more points into con so they can take more hits. You will see fighters dump DPS for health and mitigation in an MMO.
Pen and paper characters are multi-facted characters with multiple strengths, or else they suck.
High level PvEers in MMO's are one-dimentional characters with a singular purpose, or else they suck.
In that way, the trinity is an MMO thing, that came about through MMOs.
A cleric should be able to do even more using only part of their daily spells.
However my paladin does have as previously stated, one of the highest HP totals in the party, by far the best combined saves, will be able to do well over 200 damage on a smite at level 15. Plus he has social skills including a +33 to intimidate at level 14. This is using mostly PHB material and all WoTC material aside from one house rule saying the skill-focus feats makes skills into class skills that I used to get intimidate that high.
Classify that character as a role. Go ahead and try to fit that into the trinity. I dare you.
_______________
Math for those interested
18 starting charisma, +1 from leveling, +6 from cloak, +5 from tome, 2 racial = 32 Charisma or +11 modifier.
11Charisma mod x 14levels = 154 lay on hands (vs. 139 total health)
The health is a combination of 18 constitution after items and good rolls.
11 Charisma mod = +11 to every single save (Paladin class ability)
I switched my paladin mount for an ability from the PHB 2 called charging smite that allows me to add my paladin level times 3 to damage on a charge.
However I am a mounted combat build. I took leadership to get a griffon cohort because I wanted a flying mount.
My to hit on smites is:
20 (BAB + STR) + 11 (CHA) + 2 (Weapon/Items) +2 Charge = 35
My damage on smites is:
42 (Charging Smite - 14x3) + 1d8+7 (Lance + Strength) + 2d6 (Holy effect since all smite targets are evil) = 59 average damage then double that because of lance effect = 118 average damage.
At level 15 my feat will be spirited charge which doubles mounted charges again bringing that to 236 damage before scaling anything to level 15.
Intimidate = 16 from ranks, 2 from bluff synergy, 3 from skill focus, 11 from CHA and 1 from a pale green ioun stone for a total of 33.