Hot take: get rid of the "balanced party" paradigm

[TwoSix]

Also I am not a big fan of having the system balance everything around combat. I want some characters who are good at non-combat things but not great in combat

If I wanted to do that (and I have thought about it), I would start with 2 poles of class design.

You have a warrior class, which gains hit points, attack bonuses, and the ability to use magic weapons and armor.

You have a mage class, that does NOT gain hit points or attack bonuses, but does gain spells, and the ability to use scrolls, wands, and utility items. The mage is mostly worthless in combat, all of their magic generally takes at least a minute to cast.

You can differentiate and create more class archetypes within those two groups, but you do NOT hybridize or cross the streams. Warriors solve fights, mages solve non-fights.

 

[payn]

Having played a fair bit of CoC recently, I'm not sure that's actually true, even if I would have knee-jerk agreed a few years ago.

I say this because a lot of CoC adventures and campaigns basically collapse if all the PCs get wiped out, even if you try the old "your new PCs get the notes your old PCs made". Orient Express, for example, it's very hard to handle a TPK transition past about the 50% mark of the campaign in any way that's plausible or lets things go forwards, especially if certain events cause the TPK. The assumption in a lot of CoC adventures and campaigns very much seems to be that at least some PCs will survive, just probably not all of them. The individual adventures are often not well-written if all the PCs do perish either (especially if it's before some "final confrontation") - i.e. they don't have a cool horror-movie ending or something they just abruptly short out/stop, which is very much unlike Lovecraft or other Mythos writers, who almost always go for the cool horror ending.

Coc has never worked as a long campaign game for me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If I wanted to do that (and I have thought about it), I would start with 2 poles of class design.

You have a warrior class, which gains hit points, attack bonuses, and the ability to use magic weapons and armor.

You have a mage class, that does NOT gain hit points or attack bonuses, but does gain spells, and the ability to use scrolls, wands, and utility items. The mage is mostly worthless in combat, all of their magic generally takes at least a minute to cast.

You can differentiate and create more class archetypes within those two groups, but you do NOT hybridize or cross the streams. Warriors solve fights, mages solve non-fights.

I don't think you'd even need to differentiate on the point of magic. You'd have "violence doers" and "problem solvers". A person who solves problems via skill not magic probably also usually takes "at least a minute" and won't necessarily be good at combat. A combatant who uses magic in battle might not have any real way to use it outside of battle.

It would require careful class design but magic can be set aside entirely as the differentiating factor here.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think you'd even need to differentiate on the point of magic. You'd have "violence doers" and "problem solvers". A person who solves problems via skill not magic probably also usually takes "at least a minute" and won't necessarily be good at combat. A combatant who uses magic in battle might not have any real way to use it outside of battle.

It would require careful class design but magic can be set aside entirely as the differentiating factor here.

Absolutely, but people do seem to latch quickly onto magic as being a specific "skill set" rather than just being narrative flavoring, so I leaned into it.

You could also do a "core 4":
Warrior - Non-magic violence
Cleric - Magic violence (magic strictly short-term combat buffs and healing)
Rogue - Non-magic problem solver
Wizard - Magic problem solver

 

[Wolfpack48]

Coc has never worked as a long campaign game for me.

We've done, but it does involve pulling punches. Still, plenty of PC deaths along the way.

 

[Lanefan]

To the OP: the GM soft-mandating a somewhat-balanced party doesn't have to be a threat to player agency in terms of what characters those players choose to play.

For me, ideally the GM is set to run the same campaign/adventures/challenges/etc. without regard for what the players bring in as PCs; the players play the PCs they want, and if the PC party later turns out to have shortcomings in one area or another then so be it. That said...

Speaking more generally, I am in favor of playstyles where a group gets to choose their role loadout, and then selectively curate the adventures they attempt based on their capabilities/what they want to do. If everyone wants to play a wizard or no one wants to play a cleric, choose adventures where that is non-suicidal.

Or, in character as the PCs, go out and recruit NPC adventurers to fill out the missing roles in the party!

Just because there's only four players at the table doesn't by any means limit the adventuring party to only having four characters in it. If the players in a D&D game all decide to play Wizards that's fine; after a turn or two in the field they'll very likely realize they're short on brawn and healing and - one would think - would recruit NPCs* to help out. Those NPCs could be henches, or full-ride party members, or whatever...but the end result is the party is more balanced yet the players still get to play the PCs they want to.

* - or second characters for the players, but not every table allows this.

 

[Lanefan]

Balance is a myth. A buzzword. The DM is going to do what they are going to do.
Make your PC how you want,

Agree up to here.

any DM worth their salt will adjust.

Disagree here. In my view, any GM worth their salt won't change a thing. It's on the players to find ways and means of overcoming the challenges neutrally and fairly presented by the GM, and if the PCs they chose to play turn out to be individually or collectively sub-optimal against some of those challenges then so be it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

2E has much less of an LFQW problem than 3E. The problem is there but it takes a loooooong time to manifest, whereas in 3E it manifests fairly rapidly, and PF1 even faster. Also in 2E it was a lot easier for a Thief to get to 95% on the most important checks than it is for a 3E or later character to get to where they only fail on a 1.

Can you clarify what LFQW is an acronym for? (I just think I missed the original post where that was spelled out: or I forgot in my old age )

2E has other differences that matter too. 3E is a much more combat focused game. Everything is built around encounters crafted do the CL/EL system. And in addition tot he point you make about 95%, some of those abilities were available to other PCs in very limited ways, for instance if you really did into the PHB you find this page explaining how other characters can climb walls (if I recall this entry is a little different between the 89 and 95 edition of the PHB). 3E opens those abilities up more to other characters

 

[Bill Zebub]

To be fair, Call of Cthulhu scenarios tend to assume the party isn't going to survive at all.

Right, but they are all pretty much equally likely to go mad or die. Or both.

Balance!

 

[mcobden]

Agree up to here.

Disagree here. In my view, any GM worth their salt won't change a thing. It's on the players to find ways and means of overcoming the challenges neutrally and fairly presented by the GM, and if the PCs they chose to play turn out to be individually or collectively sub-optimal against some of those challenges then so be it.

I like this approach. But a good scenario has multiple ways to approach it. So while I agree that the referree should be relatively neutral, the setting should lend itself to the party creativity.