Can you balance Combat against Non-Combat abilities?

[Majoru Oakheart]

I feel that you could in theory balance combat vs. non-combat abilities, but then you'd also have to supply a 'balanced' number of combat vs. non-combat situations to the party. You can easily do this in video games because player choice is so severely constrained, but I suspect it's harder in live D&D.

Exactly. And there's no way you're going to know one adventure to the next or from one group to the next how much combat or role playing you are going to do. Easiest to balance one side entirely by itself and balance the other side entirely by itself. This way if you play a game that is 100% social encounters and role playing, everyone has fun and has a balanced character. If you play a game that has 100% combat, everyone is balanced as well.

Everyone can contribute, just in different ways. In combat the fighter is slashing through peoples chest with a sword while the rogue leaps over his head and sticks a dagger in his back while the cleric smites him with the power of his god and the wizard blasts him with arcane power.

In social encounters, the wizard uses his cunning to outsmart those he's speaking with and manipulate them, the rogue lies to everyone to makes him sound better than he is, the cleric uses his kindness and tenderness to win over the hearts of those he speaks to, and the fighter uses his threatening presence to intimidate people into seeing his point of view.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Exactly. And there's no way you're going to know one adventure to the next or from one group to the next how much combat or role playing you are going to do. Easiest to balance one side entirely by itself and balance the other side entirely by itself. This way if you play a game that is 100% social encounters and role playing, everyone has fun and has a balanced character. If you play a game that has 100% combat, everyone is balanced as well.

Everyone can contribute, just in different ways. In combat the fighter is slashing through peoples chest with a sword while the rogue leaps over his head and sticks a dagger in his back while the cleric smites him with the power of his god and the wizard blasts him with arcane power.

In social encounters, the wizard uses his cunning to outsmart those he's speaking with and manipulate them, the rogue lies to everyone to makes him sound better than he is, the cleric uses his kindness and tenderness to win over the hearts of those he speaks to, and the fighter uses his threatening presence to intimidate people into seeing his point of view.

Sounds nice, yeah...

 

[ruleslawyer]

Yep yep yep. Nice example.

I feel that you could in theory balance combat vs. non-combat abilities, but then you'd also have to supply a 'balanced' number of combat vs. non-combat situations to the party. You can easily do this in video games because player choice is so severely constrained, but I suspect it's harder in live D&D.

Many games feature both already, but IMHO it's terrible design to tell everyone they must include a fixed proportion of combat vs. non-combat just so the system works as designed.

Cheers, -- N

I would agree.

It seems to me, as I mentioned abovethread, that the simplest route would be the Iron Heroes route: Make "non-combat" skills useful in combat. 3.5 already has some "Charisma to attack" build tools in the splatbooks; one could either build combat uses for every skill (easier under an SWSE-type condensed model, since Persuasion is one skill, for example, so you wouldn't need to come up with "Diplomacy combat uses") or allow something like IH stunts, where you can use a skill to confer a bonus to attack or defense, etc.

 

[Dragonblade]

There should never be a trade-off between social abilities, skills, and feats, and combat abilities skills and feats.

This is the only way to make everyone happy. Instead of just giving players a feat and forcing them to choose between combat useful feats and social feats, they basically need to be given two feats and be told to choose one feat from the combat list and one feat from the social list. Likewise, you need one set of skill points for combat related skills and be given another set to be spent only on social skills.

I like combat, but I also like to play charismatic characters with social graces. 3.5 doesn't facilitate this because to be the best warrior I can be I have to forgo taking social feats and skills. Some might call that powergaming, but I just place my limited resources where I think it makes my character the most effective and where I have the most fun. I would like to make a socially adept character, but I can always roleplay social adeptness to a certain degree. I can't roleplay combat effectiveness. Either I have the bonus to hit or I don't. Pretty cut and dry.

What WotC needs to do is reduce the opportunity cost to taking social feats and skills. That ways those feats and skills can be taken without feeling like you are giving up combat effectiveness.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

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.

I am quoting this because it seems that the majority of posts in this thread have confused "Non Combat" with "Social Interaction".

The problem is that any given game will be guaranteed to have a combat element, except in the most determined hard core story based RP heavy games. But non combat content varies much more from one game to the next. Some games will have DMs who find all sorts of use for Diplomacy, Intimidate, Forgery, and Gather Information. Other DM's might like using traps and obstacles, loading a given area with things that require Swim, Climb, Open Lock, Search, and Disable Device.

And much of this can be player driven. Need to get a specific item from an NPC? One group may try the classic "Kill him and take his stuff" approach. Another may try to use Diplomacy to buy the item, or even Charm Person to get the guy to just give it to him. A Rogue PC may want to dust off the Hide, Move Silently, and Open Lock skills to steal the object from his room, or even just Slight of Hand to take it off his person.

What I do think the DMG needs to do for 4th Edition is emphasize that for any given challenge the DM may come up with, that the DM needs to accept that the players may solve it in a manner he had not anticipated, and that he should mostly go along with it. All the PHB needs to do is allow enough character customization that a player can reasonably succeed with whichever approach he prefers.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Cadfan]

I think that combat versus non combat is an excellent place to apply this "siloing" I've heard so much about.

Everyone should get combat abilities. Everyone should get non combat abilities.

But they shouldn't be the same combat abilities, and they shouldn't be the same non combat abilities.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Except, of course, that this isn't quite true. The Thief is better at social interaction than other IH PCs, but other PCs aren't gimped,

I never said they're gimped, and I would disagree with someone who contended they were. I just meant what you said: they're better; and that the difference is large enough to be noticeable. D&D classes are all supposed to be more or less equally effective in combat, just in different ways. They are not equally effective out of combat.

Mind you, only the Thief, Arcanist and MAA (with Social skill groups) stands out in this way. I would say that all the other classes have a more or less equal proficiency both in and out of combat stuff.

the Thief is actually quite effective in combat... because of his skills. The IH skill challenge/stunt system allows the Thief to use skills to effectively daze or stun opponents, confer large bonuses to attack rolls, deny active defense ("Dex bonus to AC" in D&D), and so on.

The Thief certainly can be used intelligently to be helpful in combat* (just like any other class can be 'helpful' out of combat), but in any PvP duel I suspect the Thief would usually lose to any combat focused class (with the possible exception of the Hunter, who's mostly about buffing his buddies). That's my sole point. Not that "Thieves are 100% useless in combat" or that "non-Thieves are 100% useless out of combat", just that they're balanced from a "holistic campaign" point of view, and not a "separate but equal combat and non-combat" point of view. MerricB's contention that the game designers cannot predict the amount of time spent on combat and non-combat is very on point, which is why classes should not be balanced based on any particular assumptions in that regard.


*Or not.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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!

I deifnately agree. I really think each person should get to contribute to combat, social and problem solving encounters. It prevents "decker syndrome" from Shadowrun, where some characters just dont pay attention while tohers have their side game. Going into town shouldnt be a sign for the fighter to go on a beer run because he cant provide a meaningful mechanical benefit to the group.

 

[Stalker0]

I would agree.

It seems to me, as I mentioned abovethread, that the simplest route would be the Iron Heroes route: Make "non-combat" skills useful in combat.

Basically I see it as two main areas:

1) Making skills more useful in combat as you say. We can allow fighters to have more skills, and that becomes part of their combat power. Skill based classes can rely more on what they picked the class for...skills...to excel in combat.

2) Allow noncombat stats to serve more of a purpose in combat. The warblade did this very well with intelligence. A warblade's int provides bonuses in combat, not crazy bonuses that overshadow his strength or his con, but enough that it encourages him to put some points in it, AND increase it with magic items (what fighter is going to get a headband of int?)

The same should be done with charisma. Perhaps the knight's challenges idea should become more standard or something, or charisma could influence action points that are used in combat. This way more rounded characters become more generally useful.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Never mind. I fear that was all irrelevant.