The Holy Trinity

[Lantyssa]

I always thought Diku was Tank/DPS/Healer, not a game with levels and exp and "end game".

This is the Holy Trinity.  It's more of an MMO convention, and in that sense, newer than DIKU.

[Trippy]

I always thought Diku was Tank/DPS/Healer, not a game with levels and exp and "end game".

This is the Holy Trinity.  It's more of an MMO convention, and in that sense, newer than DIKU.

That comes from D&D.

[Azazel]

That comes from D&D.

Fighter, Cleric, and ??

[Prospero]

Mage. Them fireballs hurt.

[edlavallee]

[derail]

I would classify the trinity as CC, Damage and Heals. And the typical warrior/tank fits in the CC slot most times.

[/derail]

[Sky]

I always thought Diku was Tank/DPS/Healer, not a game with levels and exp and "end game".

This is the Holy Trinity.  It's more of an MMO convention, and in that sense, newer than DIKU.

That comes from D&D.

To make the super nested quote post....

AD&D was warrior/healer/mage/rogue as archetypes.

The Holy Trinity was from EQ1 and consisted of tank/healer/chanter.

[SnakeCharmer]

Chicken vs egg discussion #98714987139874

GO!!!

[Rasix]

Dude, I tried. 

[lesion]

SHAMBO, RIGHTEOUS MMOCOW OF THE PLAINS GIVES THIS GAME A SOLID

TWO RIGHT-EAR CLIPS OUT OF $HAY

[Ratman_tf]

[sidereal]

D&D lacked a taunt mechanism, so therefore no tanking (the grid tactics of 3rd edition tried to allow for positional tanking, but that was late and ineffective against ranged attacks), so therefore no Trinity.  That was all EQ.  In D&D you had to be more clever about keeping your mage alive.

[Trippy]

D&D didn't need a taunt mechanism cause it was adopted from Chainmail which was a miniatures game which had a built in "tanking" mechanism by virtue of your position on the grid. I.e. armored people in front, squishies in back. That's why one of the first things a DM asks your party when moving through a territory is what is your marching order.

[sidereal]

You obviously skip over parentheticals.

[Trippy]

No I didn't. 3E added all sorts of crap like Attacks of Opportunity but we never worried about that stuff playing D&D/AD&D. It was implicitly understood that the heavily armored people stood in front and the others in the back and the DM used common sense in situations with monsters trying to move past the front row (typically by a bonus to hit from the back).

To put it another way you are saying D&D didn't recognize "tanking" until 3E. I'm saying we were playing that way back when D&D was first released.

[sidereal]

A more substantial reply:

Although D&D derived from a minis game, in most actual play it dropped any pretense of physical position in combat (YMMV, depending on your DM).  Most combat I participated in and saw was completely abstracted into taking turns and picking targets. . position only mattered in significant cases (being in the same room as the target) and was either in the DM's head or sketched on graph paper.  3rd edition tried to bring back more explicit tactics with all of the mini and grid rules (and therefore reach, attack of opportunity, etc), but between ranged attacks, area effect, swarms of enemies, magic, etc you need to rely on something other than 'Fighter soaks all of the attacks' to protect your squishies.

The default 'tanking' mechanism in pre-gridsheet D&D play involved the fighters running forward and 'engaging' the enemies in melee along with the DMs usually unspoken assumption that the enemy would attack someone they are 'engaged' with over another target.  The grid system encapsulated that preference in rules via attacks of opportunity.  An MMO would do well by incorporating an engagement and attacks of opportunity system over 'taunting', since it works much better for PvP (you can attack someone other than the Warrior sitting on you, but you pay a price for it).

[Trippy]

You seem to think that there needs to be an explicit "taunt" mechanism for there to be a concept of a "tank".

[sidereal]

OMG geekfight.

No, I'm claiming that 'tanking' in the sense we use for MMOs refers to a high-armor, high-hp character's ability to draw attacks to them, thus using their high armor and high hp to keep everyone else alive.  D&D had no mechanics for explicitly drawing attacks, but an implicit mechanism for fighters to make themselves the more appealing target by being in front.  Pre-3rd DMs generally just agreed that mobs attacked guys in front because the game broke down otherwise.  3rd and after, AoOs made it slightly more explicit.  However, there are enough non-melee damage mechanics in D&D that mages need other mechanisms to survive than the assumption that everyone will just attack the fighter.  Or to put it another way, in D&D, particularly above level 6 or so, mages draw just as many attacks as fighters.  They just survive them in different ways (resists, defensive spells, and an unspoken and surprisingly large amount of DM goodwill).  This is nothing like the Trinity, where the fighter is expected to draw all attacks.

[Trippy]

You just agreed with my previous statement.

[sidereal]

Nyope.  Tanking requires taking a majority (or all) of the attacks.  Taunts aren't necessary in an environment where a player can guarantee (positionally or some other mechanism) that they get the attacks.  Say, for example, a game with collision and exclusively melee attacks.  D&D was not and is not such an environment.  No tanks.

[Trippy]

You are changing the common usage of that word when applied to RPGs for your own purposes. The term "tank" to describe heavily armored characters in RPGs was used before MMORPGs and the MUDs that preceded them were around.

[sidereal]

I think we're going down a rathole.  The question was whether the Holy Trinity originated in D&D.  The Holy Trinity in MUDland is defined as a tank, which takes the damage, a priest which heals the damage, and a dps, which does the damage.  I picked up specifically on the inapplicability of the tank role to D&D.  I don't care that in other contexts 'tank' refers to people in armor.  Further, there are a hundred of other ways in which D&D play differs from Holy Trinity play, if you don't like the tank comparison.

In D&D:
The "tank", properly equipped, typically does as much damage as (and usually more than) any other class when fighting a single creature or a small number.
The "healer" wears full armor and can absorb as much damage as (or often more than) the "tank".
The "DPS", assuming you're talking mage, only out-damages the "tank" against swarms and is otherwise interested in crowd control, ranged damage, messing with the environment, audible glamers, and other kookiness.

So no, the Trinity did not originate in D&D.  It came with MUDs.

[Trippy]

No it did not.

[schild]

One could argue the original Holy Trinity came from Arthur, Merlin, and Lancelot.

Or something.

Or Jesus.

Sup. Just trolling through here. Don't mind the boat.

[Trippy]

Who was the healer?

[schild]

Jesus.

And Arthur was a paladin tank. He could lay on hands and shit. Fucking excalibur dude.

[Samwise]

In D&D:
The "tank", properly equipped, typically does as much damage as (and usually more than) any other class when fighting a single creature or a small number.
The "healer" wears full armor and can absorb as much damage as (or often more than) the "tank".
The "DPS", assuming you're talking mage, only out-damages the "tank" against swarms and is otherwise interested in crowd control, ranged damage, messing with the environment, audible glamers, and other kookiness.

I call BS on your geek credentials, sir.

[sidereal]

I call BS on your geek credentials, sir.

You.  Me.  1st Edition AD&D.  Temple of Elemental Evil.  High noon.  It's on.

I am literally astounded that anyone disagrees on this.  Was there some other version of D&D that everyone else played?  Does anyone think a Fighter with proficiency and spec on a bastard sword and strength bonus is doing less damage than fucking Magic Missile?  And at later levels with multiple attacks they're doing less than, what, Melf's Acid Arrow?  Wizards don't get FB/LB until, what 5th level, and then only one a day and then you only get to use it in contrived circumstances or you nuke your own party.  They're not DPS!  Clerics wear fucking plate and shield!  They don't heal until after the battle is over, because 90% of healing is touch ranged and they're too busy doing a lot of damage with their mace, Strength of Stone, and Draw Upon Holy Might to run around fucking touching everyone else in the party.  Who are you people?  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

[Samwise]

You're arguing that D&D mages are underpowered relative to fighters.  Unless you put some sort of qualifier on that like "at first level," you have to turn in your geek card.

I'll concede that maybe things were different in 1st Ed.  Most of my D&D experience was 2nd ed, with a "holy quaternity" party that went from 1st level to 15th or so.  I assure you that the mage nuked the shit out of everything, be it one big thing or lots of little things, with equal effectiveness.  Fireball is not the only spell in the book.

Also, going back to the earlier slapfight, I'd argue that rogues also occupy the DPS niche as of D&D 3rd ed (being able to make continual sneak attacks against a flanked opponent).

[sidereal]

I never said 'underpowered'.  I said they're not damage focused.  D&D, being an actual RPG, has a lot of conduits for power that have nothing to do with combat.  Like Astral Projection, and Time Stop, and Wish.  Yes, a high level mage nukes and if you call stuff like Power Word: Kill 'dps' they might even out-nuke a specialized fighter with 4 attacks a round, a magical weapon, increased crit chance, and a girdle of storm giant strength.  Maybe.  But it wouldn't be by a lot.  Certainly not enough that you'd say the mage's job is to 'do damage' and the fighter's job is to 'tank', especially when you run into magic resistance and high saves vs spell and your mage's job is mostly to not die.  Of course, none of this even deals with the fact that the most popular 1st Ed 'class' was Fighter/Mage.  So yeah.  Which part of the Trinity is that?

Pre-3rd rogues were jokes for damage unless your DM let you use poison, in which case they just instakilled everyone, and then your DM stopped letting you use poison.  Mid-combat backstabbing in 3rd screwed around with it.  Especially with the wacky new prestige classes that can 'feint' to roll to flank and backstab every round.  Still, they do less damage than a fighter.

Interestingly, in 4th ed they're moving more toward MMOG-like combat roles for classes, presumably because it will give them wow-like revenue.  Here's their breakdown:
    * Defender: Fighter & Paladin
    * Leader: Cleric & Warlord
    * Controller: Wizard
    * Striker: Rogue, Ranger, & Warlock

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs
The clown interviewing Wyatt actually uses the phrase 'damage per second'.  Goddammit.

So MUDs may be introducing the Trinity to D&D, not the other way around.

Edit: speeling

[UnSub]

Jesus.

And Arthur was a paladin tank. He could lay on hands and shit. Fucking excalibur dude.

Judas was a dirty PeeVeePee griefer.

[Samwise]

stuff

It seems like you're primarily arguing that there are options in D&D other than the tank/DPS/healer party.  I don't disagree with that.  Doesn't change the fact that lots of people used it long before it showed up in Dikus.

Also, I'm not ever sure what version of D&D you're talking about -- one second you're talking about fighters getting four attacks per round with improving crit chances (I don't even remember crits being part of the core rules before 3rd ed), the next you're talking about rogues only getting one backstab.  There was a lot of overall stat inflation in 3rd ed so if you're comparing the 2nd ed version of one class against the 3rd ed version of another, you can make any class look like anything you want.

[sidereal]

It seems like you're primarily arguing that there are options in D&D other than the tank/DPS/healer party.

Holy crap you read nothing I wrote.  There is no tank/DPS/healer party in D&D.  You're misremembering.  The canonical D&D party is Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Rogue.  My /played in D&D is thousands of hours, every edition.  70% DMing.  I have no confusion about this.  Nobody in that party is DPS.  The fighter doesn't receive any more attacks than the mage does.  They are not the tank class (by the trinity definition.  You can call them tanks if you like).  Ask yourself why it was rare to run Cleric/Cleric instead of Fighter/Cleric.  It's not because they couldn't 'tank' enough.  It's because they couldn't do enough damage.  That's what fighters are and were for.

Also, I'm not ever sure what version of D&D you're talking about

It doesn't matter.  There is no version of D&D where a fighter (assuming typical loadouts) does not lead in damage except in the most specialized environments (ranged attacks against groups). I'm not comparing cross-edition.  I pointed out that in 2nd, fighters destroyed rogues for damage, in 3rd rogues get closer.  Because you suggested that Rogues are DPS in 3rd edition.  And I forgot about fighters getting Power Attack in 3rd and the improved strength bonus to 2-handers, so no.

This conversation is petering to inanity.  There is no doubt in my mind that class roles in D&D are not similar to and were never similar to the Holy Trinity, that the Holy Trinity did not emerge from D&D mechanics (except in the most roundabout sense that D&D invented the classes that were copied and eventually came to make up the Holy Trinity), and that it emerged in environments that focus exclusively on combat and combat roles.  My understanding is that the term itself emerged during EQ1, though the mechanics that led to it -- particularly healers being suddenly weak and unable to take damage -- emerged in Dikus (see Medievia's classes here).  I feel like I've put more than enough evidence out there for my point of view, so I'm not going to keep banging the drum.  Last word's all yours.

[Samwise]

The canonical D&D party is Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Rogue.

I'm aware that there is no D&D class called "DPS".  Perhaps that's where the misunderstanding lies.   

I pointed out that in 2nd, fighters destroyed rogues for damage, in 3rd rogues get closer.

All right, I'm going to number-crunch at you.

In this corner: Bob the 10th level fighter.  He carries a longsword, which he specializes in.  His Strength is 18 and his Dex is 10.  He gets two attacks per round at +15/+10 for 1d8+6 damage a hit.
In this corner: Jim the 10th level rogue.  He carries a shortsword, which he has weapon finesse for.  His Dex is 18 and his Strength is 10.  He gets two attacks per round at +12/+7 for 1d6 damage a hit.  His sneak attack damage is +5d6.

Bob and Jim are fighting a Gray Render, which is a CR 8 monster with AC 19 and no damage reduction.  They are fighting as a team and flanking it, meaning each gets +2 to hit and Jim gets his +5d6 sneak attack damage.

Every round, Bob has an 85% chance to land his first attack and a 60% chance to land his second.  Each hit is 1d8+6 damage.  This averages to about 15 hp of damage a round.
Every round, Jim has a 70% chance to land his first attack and a 45% chance to land his second.  Each hit is 6d6 damage.  This averages to about 24 hp of damage a round.

Damage soaker winnar: Bob!
Damage output winnar: Jim!

It gets increasingly ridiculous as rogues climb in level, far quicker than the damage bonuses on a fighter's weapons do (never mind that the rogue is getting magical weapons at about the same rate, or that higher level foes with damage reduction strongly favor the rogue's fewer-hits-for-more-damage style).  The 17th level rogue in my campaign can take out almost any single foe in one round if he can get his sneak attacks off -- that's 3 attacks for 10d6+ each with no saving throw.  Of course, this doesn't work in every situation, but nothing does.   

And never mind Enoch the Eldritch over there, who at 10th level can throw a couple of Baleful Polymorphs (instant "kill"), a handful of Enervations (1d4 negative levels), and all sorts of Lightning Bolts (10d6 damage) a day as long as Bob is doing a good job of covering his butt.

(edit) Of course, not every adventuring party will play this way, but it's a pretty common model from what I've seen, and it seems to be pretty effective.  I also agree that the tank/DPS/healer roles are not anywhere nearly as rigid as they are in Dikus, since every class can potentially fulfill a handful of different roles in a pinch, but each class tends to have a smaller handful of things that they tend to be the absolute best at.

[Strazos]

 

[Ratman_tf]

Jesus fucking christ. This is where all the bad shit in MMORPGs come from!

Everquest could not replicate the table top gaming experience, so they sucked all the fun out of it, reduced it to numbers, like any good geek retard would, and gave us the most boring game mechanic ever invented.

It's like Jurrasic Park being used to clone the Dodo Bird.

"What has science done? Have you brought the extinct Velociraptor or mighty Tyrannosarus Rex to life?"

*Skwark!*

"Oh..."

In my day, playing D&D meant kickass stories of adventure. Not making sure the purple foozle only attacked the fighter.