Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[pemerton]

Nor do I think it matters that the high level PCs would find ways to cope if the low level character is gone. He doesn't have to be necessary to contribute.

It depends on what we mean by "cope".

If we mean "cope" in the way that my players would cope if they lost the player of the ranger-cleric PC, and that PC with him, well that's one thing. The game would go on, but play would be noticeably different.

If we mean "cope" in the way that the players would cope if their porter died - they'd just redestribute the gear on the character sheets and retotal their encumbrances - we're talking about something else.

I guess from the point of view of the fictional characters, it is pleasant enough to have your load lightened by a porter. But from the point of view of the players of the game, all that "lightening the load" involves is changing a few numbers on an equipment list. I personally don't regard this as contributing to the game. It's the merest of mere colour.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Why in the world are we talking about the contribution levels of a 1st level PC in a group of 15th level PC's?

Let's talk about the contribution levels of equal level pc classes.

 

[pemerton]

In 1e and 2e, non-combat skills were largely level independent. Characters taking a non-weapon proficiency had a success chance based on the stat that the skill was based on.

And I'm someone who always found this strange - that in a level-based game, level doesn't matter. It also interacts strangely with thief abilities.

as long as the DCs aren't based on the average party level (which they shouldn't be - they should be based on the task at hand

I don't think there is any blanket "should" here. In Burning Wheel DCs are "objective" - and play an important role in building up the shared conception of the gameworld through play. In HeroQuest revised DCs are "relative" - and play a crucial role in relation to pacing and the realisation of the pass/fail cycle. The shared conception of the gameworld is built up through other means, including a wider range of augments than comes into play in Burning Wheel.

4e uses a mix of objective and relative DCs, but inclines towards the relative. It relies on a very long list of detailed story elements (that WotC presumably makes a lot of its money from selling!) to build up the shared conception of the gameworld.

There are many viable techniques here, depending on what you want to prioritise in your game, and what other techniques you're prepared to bring to bear.

 

[Arlough]

In 1e and 2e, non-combat skills were largely level independent. Characters taking a non-weapon proficiency had a success chance based on the stat that the skill was based on. Characters could invest further as they went up in levels, but the main improvement was by taking the skill in the first place.

But even with a level-based skill system, as long as the DCs aren't based on the average party level (which they shouldn't be - they should be based on the task at hand) the low level character may still be a contributor. Sure, he's less likely to have a unique contribution simply because he hasn't got the accumulation of level-raising benefits to invest, but I don't see that as a flaw or as meaning the low level character can't find ways to contribute. Nor do I think it matters that the high level PCs would find ways to cope if the low level character is gone. He doesn't have to be necessary to contribute.

In 1e & 2e, skills were level independent, but number of skills were not. So that lvl 1 character would be able to fill in about 3 skills (assuming that nobody else had seen them to be valuable enough to take) and could stand watch. But they could only do this in safe areas, because lvl 15 characters will be taking on conflicts in places too dangerous for a lvl 1 character to even contemplate.

Also, filling in a few skills is not really meaningful contribution. Especially if the rest of the party is expected to spend resources to keep you alive in all the other situations. Quite frankly, I would rather have an NPC in my party that I had to protect than a PC with a disengaged player.
As for the flanking in combat, the lvl 1 would die immediately after pulling adjacent to the enemy, and now you have a body to haul around.

I agree that he doesn't have to be absolutely necessarily to contribute, but his contribution must be meaningful or it is just a waste of time.
If you are given a penny, you don't immediately revalue your assets to account for that additional penny, because it is not a meaningful amount. A lvl 1's contribution to a lvl 15 party is that penny.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why in the world are we talking about the contribution levels of a 1st level PC in a group of 15th level PC's?

Let's talk about the contribution levels of equal level pc classes.

And that's just it. The argument is that in a party with a wizard, a druid, and an artificer (or a wizard, a summoner, and a cleric in PF) the fighter is contributing little more than the 1st level PC would.

The argument is that the difference in power between a tier 1 class and a tier 5 class by 15th level is enough to render the concept of "equal level" a joke.

If you accept the premise that if someone is seriously outpowered (hence the level 1 character) they aren't contributing significantly to the party. If not you are claiming that the level 1 doesn't matter. If you accept that a level 1 character doesn't contribute much to the party, common consensus is that the fighter is seriously outclassed. Not as much as a level 1 character would be - but still seriously outclassed. Which means they aren't worth a 15th level character.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Don't 15th level parties do everything with magic? Their scout is flying and invisible or a wizard eye. Research is done by means of legend lore, commune with nature, or contact other plane. Unseen servant does the fetching and carrying. Etc.

And wouldn't a 1st level character just die whenever a fireball or cloudkill goes off, or a dragon breathes on the party?

That 1st leveller better be hella entertaining, or a VIP, cause he ain't contributing jack otherwise and requires extensive resources to protect. And, if I've learned anything from playing videogames, it's that escort missions suck!

 

[Hussar]

He said "nobody is ever dead weight", not "everyone always contributes meaningfully to combat". Though in my experience, people usually contribute to both.


Well, I'll disagree here. It depends on the 1st level character. He probably won't contribute much to combat (though he'll contribute a tiny amount, via flanking, another guy the bad guys have to account for, etc.), but he can certainly contribute to other things. Gathering food quickly, navigating, or dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs) if nobody has any survival skills. Knowledges about any number of topics (cities, nations, religion, undead, other planes, weather, and on and on). Social aspects (including leadership, negotiation, intimidation, lying, detecting the truth, etc.). Patching wounds, treating diseases, poisons, or infections, discovering what was used to kill a creature, removing status effects, lessening penalties (from fatigue, etc.), etc. Scouting ahead, keeping an eye out for things, or an extra guy on shift during the night. Crafting goods for the PCs, or making money for them on the side by selling it. And that's not talking about one more guy to lug around heavy stuff.

I could easily add a hit die 1 NPC that would help my players out, and the game assumes that hit die 4 is "the average settled adult". They might find him in danger in some of the combats they jump into, but against local bandits and the like (hit die 3-5), the NPC could definitely contribute (if he's a warrior or magician).

Now, can the NPC beat a PC in any area the PC has covered? Nope, not really at all. He'll get trounced. But, he can definitely make a difference, and he can definitely still get his time to "shine". So, yeah, I can pretty much say your "outright wrong" and "easily proven" statements are way, way too broad for me to accept at face value. I have absolutely no problem envisioning PCs of wildly variable levels getting a lot of screen time, as I've seen it (in 3.5, a level 8 PC getting a ton of screen time when the rest of the party was level 23).

Yeah, you're more or less correct when it comes to combat. I just feel that there's a lot more to the game than combat. But, when it comes to D&D, I remember your view (unless it's changed since the "Is D&D About Combat" thread), so I expect our disagreement is somewhat fundamental, rather than superficial. As always, play what you like

I agree that there is more to the game than combat. However, anything that the 15th level party is engaged in is so far beyond the scope of a 1st level character that he cannot actually contribute.

You mention scouting ahead. Sure. But, we're talking about 15th level opponents here, which means that they will pretty much automatically spot the 1st level scout and eat him. Navigating? Really? He's a 1st level character with score of maybe +8 (and that's generous) to any sort of navigations skills. He gets lost as soon as he leaves the sight of obvious landmarks. On and on and on.

Please stop with the canard of "the game is all about combat". For one, you are completely misrepresenting my point, and two, it's really annoying to see someone continually drag in the same argument over and over again.

Why in the world are we talking about the contribution levels of a 1st level PC in a group of 15th level PC's?

Let's talk about the contribution levels of equal level pc classes.

Because you are the one claiming that character power has no implications for balance in play.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I agree that there is more to the game than combat. However, anything that the 15th level party is engaged in is so far beyond the scope of a 1st level character that he cannot actually contribute.

Yeah... still disagree as a universal statement.

You mention scouting ahead. Sure. But, we're talking about 15th level opponents here, which means that they will pretty much automatically spot the 1st level scout and eat him.

Maybe it's me, but not all scouting missions include bad guys (this goes back to the game isn't all combat), and when there is bad guys, not all of them have amazing senses (if it doesn't scale at ½ level, for example).

Navigating? Really? He's a 1st level character with score of maybe +8 (and that's generous) to any sort of navigations skills. He gets lost as soon as he leaves the sight of obvious landmarks. On and on and on.

Whoa, your DCs are pretty rough. How do the common people get along? Are they all high level? That bonus (+4 in my game) is more than enough to get by in my game, and +8 was not a bad bonus in 3.X. This applies to Knowledge checks, healing, conjuring food, and so on.

Please stop with the canard of "the game is all about combat". For one, you are completely misrepresenting my point, and two, it's really annoying to see someone continually drag in the same argument over and over again.

Hey, didn't mean to offend. Honestly. Sorry if I did. (And I won't try to clarify or anything without you asking, since I feel that'll make me come off as trying to justify rather than clarify.)

This seems to assume not only (i) that the 1st level character contributes in a niche that the PCs don't already cover, but also (ii) that non-combat skills are in some significant way not level-dependent.

Yes, I did say that if the high level characters had the same skill they'd trounce the level 1 guy (though certain things, like having an extra guy on watch, would still help). As far as level-dependent skills, it makes a much bigger difference when you don't automatically add ½ your level to everything. Suddenly that level 1 character's +8 to Knowledge, Survival, and Heal seem much better than the +4 that the next best guy has at level 15.

Rolemaster is a game in which (ii) is false - ie all skills are level dependent. And I've never played a Rolemaster game in which 15th level PCs have a "niche gap" that might noticeably be filled by a 1st level character - by 15th level, they have worked out to adequately fill whatever niches they care about.

Well, I'd say this is much different than what I addressed (in spirit, at least). While a level 1 character can meaningfully contribute to the party, I purposefully quoted Hussar with ForeverSlayer's original quote in the text, and mentioned an important word that ForeverSlayer used - "shine". The level 1 character can most certainly "shine" in a party of level 15 PCs, and it doesn't have much to do with what niches they care about.

I mean, there might be a bit of extra colour in saying "Hey, my PC gets an extra hour of sleep because newbie here can fill a shift on watch", but if missing out on that extra hour for the previous 14 levels caused any mechanical penalty (eg fatigue), I'm fairly confident the 15th level PCs will have found a way to cope.

Sometimes through hiring other NPCs or the like, sure. Or just not taking watch for an hour or two per night. But, as I said, there are quite a few other ways for someone to contribute meaningfully other than taking a watch. Go reread the list, if you want the examples again.

I can't really envisage 3E being that much different in this respect, and 4e certainly is not given the level-dependent nature of non-combat abilities.

Well, in 3.X, you don't automatically add ½ your level to all skills, like you do in 4e. So, a 15th level character in 4e is getting anywhere from +6 (on the lowest end) to +11 or so (on the high end) to untrained skills (like navigating, etc.). This isn't true in 3.X, where that 15th level character is getting anywhere from -1 to +4 or so.

But in a game in which (ii) is true, what does it even mean to talk about 1st vs 15th level characters?

In my RPG, skills are level-dependent in the sense that the higher hit die you are, the more ranks you can put into the skill (or more character points to boost the skill), netting you a bigger bonus.

On skills you don't invest in, though, you can easily be outpaced by much lower hit die creatures. Hit die 1 hunter, medic, sage, etc. trainees will still likely be a decent amount better than hit die 15 characters who aren't invested. They can probably take a 10 even if they're threatened or distracted, and might have as much as a +5 bonus (if they're very invested in the skill) (DC 15 is "competent professional" level) to an untrained hit die 15 character's +0 to +2 bonus (DC 10 is "everyday task" level).

All in all, I really disagree with the sentiment seemingly expressed that a low level character can't significantly contribute to the party, or shine in a party of high level characters. Is there the possibility that the party has the guy completely covered, and there's no need for him on watch, carrying things, or in his field? Sure. But, that wasn't my point. My point was that a level 1 can regularly contribute meaningfully, and that he can shine while fulfilling his niche. Not that he always will. As always, play what you like

 

[Bluenose]

You mention scouting ahead. Sure. But, we're talking about 15th level opponents here, which means that they will pretty much automatically spot the 1st level scout and eat him. Navigating? Really? He's a 1st level character with score of maybe +8 (and that's generous) to any sort of navigations skills. He gets lost as soon as he leaves the sight of obvious landmarks. On and on and on.

That implies a system similar to the one in 3e, though. A 2e character with NWPs doesn't really improve them much as they level up. You can, but it's more likely that you'll instead spend the proficiency points to gain more and increase your versatility. That way, it wouldn't really matter whether the character with "Scouting" proficiency was 1st or 15th level, instead the governing stat would be most significant. I suspect that a lot of people would complain that their character "isn't getting better" if the rules went that way, but it's a possible way that a low-level character could contribute in a high-level party.

Of course, more often the 1st level character is going to be as useful to the high level party as on a jellyfish. In any situation where magic is required for survival, a net drain when you need another spell just to keep one more warm body around.

 

[Drowbane]

Do characters need to be equals? No. Characters do need a chance to shine, however. Casters can switch-hit when needed, but shouldn't be doing it when it steps on the toes of other characters.

The Avengers movie is a great example of 6 wildly different power leveled "PCs" shining in an awesome session.

Hulk & Thor > Iron Man > Cap > Black Widow & Hawk Eye... but it doesn't matter. They all get to do their thing, and its as a team that they kick the most tail.