Can you balance Combat against Non-Combat abilities?

[MerricB]

One of the key design precepts of 3e was that roleplaying penalties should not balanced mechanical advantages. I still subscribe to that precept.

I'd like to offer something else that I think should be adhered to in 4e design. Discuss as you like:

* Characters need to be balanced in combat activities. That is, during a combat they should always have "fun" things to do - perhaps not every round, but certainly they shouldn't sit out an entire combat going, "can we get onto the next bit please?"

* Characters need to be balanced in non-combat activities. That is, when the DM has finished doing all his combat stuff and is advancing the plot, roleplaying, presenting puzzles, all the characters have "fun" things they can do, and they're not just sitting there going "can we get onto the next combat please?"

If I were to divide up the non-combat roles of the main classes in 3e, I'd get something like this:

Fighter - almost nothing. Perhaps intimidate.
Cleric - good Interaction skills (if Int high enough to take skills), Spells to overcome challenges.
Magic-User - Spells to overcome challenges
Rogue - Skills to overcome certain challenges; Good Interaction Skills.

There's a big gap between the Fighter and the Cleric. The Fighter - as written - really can't contribute to many out-of-combat situations, so sits there waiting for the next combat. Of course, individuals may roleplay well, but the actual mechanics don't really support the Fighter in an out-of-combat role much.

I don't think the designers can assume how much each campaign splits between combat and non-combat abilities; and so a balance for *both* aspects of the system would be appreciated.

What do you think?

Cheers!

 

[hong]

I love MerricB with all of my body, including my pee-pee.

Well, maybe not. Not yet, anyway. But if he keeps it up, I will indeed love Merricb with all of my body, including my pee-pee.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I think it'd be extraordinarily difficult. With "character customization," the main thing I hear players in my group clamoring for, you can choose to make a character who's good at one aspect of the game at the price of being less good at other aspects.

I don't see how you can reconcile the freedom of players to design their characters as they like with a goal that every class is equally useful in non-combat situations. Ability score point buy is a good example of this. A high-Charisma character is going to be better at social interactions -- that's the point of Charisma, after all. A high-Constitution character will be better at combat. Many players I know would prefer a character who is less effective in combat but more effective in social situations. They want the ability to make that trade-off.

Now, you could have every class have the *potential* to be good at non-combat encounters. With this approach, a fighter could -- if he chose to devote skills and feats to it -- to be just as good at diplomacy as the cleric or bard. Still, in all likelihood, the fighter would forego those options to focus on combat. Making all skills available to all classes, and giving everybody 2-4 more skill points per level, would go a good way towards offering this option in 3.5.

 

[MerricB]

Now, you could have every class have the *potential* to be good at non-combat encounters.

That would be good enough, IMO.

Consider how many "fighters" are the leaders of their groups in fiction, then try to reconcile to the D&D roles.

Now, there are enough of a variety of non-combat encounters that to say "you, fighter - you can contribute in all of them!" would be a fool's quest, IMO. However, to give each character areas in non-combat where they can do things: fantastic.

Also see Siloing of spells, and apply the same to skills/feats if you wish.

Cheers!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Now, there are enough of a variety of non-combat encounters that to say "you, fighter - you can contribute in all of them!" would be a fool's quest, IMO. However, to give each character areas in non-combat where they can do things: fantastic.

I'll also add that there are some non-combat challenges where I've seen fighters excel -- travel obstacles involving Climb, Jump, or Swim are not uncommon in the games I've played in and run.

As to siloing... I can hear the complaints already from the "customization" players in my group. "Why does the game force me to spend skill points on these Social things? Can't I transfer some of my Social pool of skill points to my Athletics pool? Because, you know, it just doesn't fit my character concept for him to be good at talking to people." You can't force people to create well-rounded characters, some will want to just be good at combat and nothing else.

 

[kerbarian]

I don't see how you can reconcile the freedom of players to design their characters as they like with a goal that every class is equally useful in non-combat situations. Ability score point buy is a good example of this. A high-Charisma character is going to be better at social interactions -- that's the point of Charisma, after all.

That's a good point. We may have siloing of spells, class abilities, and even skills, but I haven't heard anything about siloing of ability scores. Assuming that players still get to assign ability scores, that means that they'll be faced with the choice of combat vs. non-combat effectiveness -- exactly what 4e seems to be trying to get away from with siloing.

The situation is mainly a problem for martial characters, who rely on the physical ability scores in combat. The classes that rely on int/wis/cha for combat effectiveness get non-combat effectiveness out of that for free, since those abilities are the ones that generally govern non-combat (or at least social) situations.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

* Characters need to be balanced in non-combat activities. That is, when the DM has finished doing all his combat stuff and is advancing the plot, roleplaying, presenting puzzles, all the characters have "fun" things they can do, and they're not just sitting there going "can we get onto the next combat please?"

Ah, the poor fighter out of combat. If only the designers of 4e, created a class that was the closest they could show the 4e fighter in 3.5... If only that, we could see if they gave the fighter-guy more non-combat stuff, like skills...

Warblade -> 4 skill points.

 

[hong]

I think it'd be extraordinarily difficult. With "character customization," the main thing I hear players in my group clamoring for, you can choose to make a character who's good at one aspect of the game at the price of being less good at other aspects.

Hmm.

A high-Charisma character is going to be better at social interactions -- that's the point of Charisma, after all. A high-Constitution character will be better at combat. Many players I know would prefer a character who is less effective in combat but more effective in social situations. They want the ability to make that trade-off.

... IOW, to make a character who's good at one aspect of the game at the price of being less good at other aspects, you can max out Con, and dump Cha.

 

[Nifft]

I think this is exactly what they mean by "silo"ing abilities.

Each class will have stuff that it can do in situation X (combat), and different stuff it can do in situation Y (non-combat), and you can't trade your Y thingy for another X thingy.

Good design goal.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Irda Ranger]

I don't think the designers can assume how much each campaign splits between combat and non-combat abilities; and so a balance for *both* aspects of the system would be appreciated.

Agree 100%. I never play a low-skill character, because I hate the feeling of being a 5th wheel when it comes time to "do stuff that isn't killing things."

Iron Heroes takes the problem even further, IMO, with the Thief character. Between his limitless Skill Points (he can max out 3/4 of the skills in the game, easy) and Social Feat Masteries, he rules the non-combat situation. He's also pretty useless in combat (anything that challenges a Man-at-Arms or Weapon Master is straight deadly to him). Mearls has coined the phrase, in posts about balancing the "Fighter vs. Magic-User" in combat, "taking turns having fun."

I think you're absolutely right that this concept should inform out-of-combat skills.

To 4e-lingoize it: "There should be non-combat silos, and they should be balanced."