Can you balance Combat against Non-Combat abilities?

[Zaruthustran]

What do you think?

I think I mentioned this very idea here and here.

In other words: I'm totally with you. D&D is essentially two games: the tactical combat game, and the investigation/roleplaying/puzzle/problem-solving noncombat game. Any class should have something to do in each game, and utility/effectiveness in one game shouldn't be "balanced" by utility/effectiveness in the other game.

-z

 

[Dragonblade]

In other words: I'm totally with you. D&D is essentially two games: the tactical combat game, and the investigation/roleplaying/puzzle/problem-solving noncombat game. Any class should have something to do in each game, and utility/effectiveness in one game shouldn't be "balanced" by utility/effectiveness in the other game.

-z

QFT! Well said! I agree completely.

 

[GreatLemur]

I wholly agree with Merric's thesis, and my quick fix for the problem would just be to give classes more skill points (except, of course, for those which already have plenty) and eliminate cross-class skills.* There is no delicate game balance that will be upset by giving Fighters 4 skill points per level and letting them spend them on things like Diplomacy, Knowledge (history), or even Use Magic Device.

I'm a little less concerned about the in-combat spotlight, as pretty much all D&D classes have ways to contribute meaningfully to a fight.


*It's no surprise that I like the Cloistered Cleric and Thug better than the Cleric and Fighter. Heavy armor? Who can afford that at first level? And no one likes medium armor, anyway.

 

[Pazu]

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.

It seems that they're already taking this route to some extent, at least.

Quoted from the Design & Development article from 8/20 by Mike Mearls:

Rogues have a similar relationship with skills. A nimble rogue dives through the air to tumble past an ogre, while a charismatic one tricks an enemy into looking away just before she delivers a killing blow with her dagger. Just as fighters do more with weapons than any other character, rogues push skills beyond the limits that constrain other PCs.

Looks like rogues, at least, get some "combat tricks" based off their skills.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Looks like rogues, at least, get some "combat tricks" based off their skills.

If Rogues can use skills to get advantages in combat, I wonder if fighters will be able to use weapons to get advantages out of combat?

[humor]
Like: use a big sword to get bonus to intimidate, or use a spear to pole-vault (jump bonus) over a pit? Or a dagger to cram into a crevice (climb bonus)? Maybe scatter some arrows onto the ground, and divine the future (know: arcana).
[/humor]

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

Yes, I admit, I immediately jumped onto the social aspect too, and not discussing the non-social and non-combat things.

I think these are even harder to balance internally, because, what kind of challenges are these?
Sneaking around: Well, either you can sneak or you can't? What second ability is related to this?
Scouting: Well, either you can spot or you can't. Sure, being sneaky is helpful, but if you don't have enough Spot and Listen, what do you do?

Can you balance "movement" encounters (Climb, Jump, Swim) within a single encounter? You usually can't choose between climbing a wall and swimming it, can you? And if there are two ways to cover an obstacle, do you want to split the party between those that swim, those that jump or fly, and those that climb?)

Dealing with documents: Decipher Script and Forgery are helpful. But either you are good at the task or you are not?

We need some kind of "encompassing" encounter that fits all these to make some kind of balancing.

Maybe "Overland Travel" is a good type of encounter:
- You need the ability to climb, jump or swim over obstacles. Maybe it is sufficient if one guy from the group has it on a good value and the rest can follow his lead?
- Scouting and Sneaking can be helpful to avoid trouble
- Survival is used for finding food and shelter
- Decipher Script is required to decipher strange warning signs or read the map

Still, sounds difficult to balance to me. But maybe the D&D designers came up with something good? Or do we have to wait for D&D 5?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yes, I admit, I immediately jumped onto the social aspect too, and not discussing the non-social and non-combat things.

Me too, however that's because non-combat, non-social situations are generally not required and nearly impossible to balance. And relatively easy to bypass using the slightest bit of magic.

Plus, I find that most of the time they are either fun the way they are...or simply annoying. Nothing quite beats the fun of watching the cleric roll climb checks for 10 minutes over and over again to try to get to the top of a rope you tied since he can't make it taking 10. Or taking the time to take off your armor since you can't possibly succeed on that balance check to get to the other side of the cliff. Or just having to cast mass fly to get over without rolling.

I think these can be fun in order to use a spell or two up in the current system and possibly for a little tension when everyone has close to the same chance to make it. It's when you run into a situation where a party member has to roll an 18 in order to balance across a deadly pit or die that it's no fun or when the entire party makes it across on a 1.

I think this is partly what the Saga skill system attempts to fix by providing minimum competency in everything.

 

[Voadam]

It's not that it will make everyone identical... it's that some will see being "forced" to take skills they don't want as unfair or limiting. It may just be my group of players.

One wanted a cleric who was entirely noncombatant for an earlier campaign. Even a wizard BAB was too much for her character concept -- she wanted a cleric with +0 BAB, all the time. Her husband, when creating a barbarian for my game, asked if he could go below 8 on the point buy for Int/Wis/Cha to get a higher Str. These gamers want total freedom in designing their character. They dislike the class system because it enforces a certain "minimum competency" on things like BAB, and had been trying to design a point-buy system to replace classes.

So... it sounds like the demand for well-rounded characters is at odds with the demand for more flexibility in character design. And I think it might be a good trade, but it's not going to please everybody.

If you want to accomodate those styles of character specialization and customization without minimal competency in 3e check out Buy the Numbers http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=18175&it=1

 

[MerricB]

Me too, however that's because non-combat, non-social situations are generally not required and nearly impossible to balance. And relatively easy to bypass using the slightest bit of magic.

Well, they can be. The new trap "encounter" from Dungeonscape makes things a lot more interesting. Then too, you have things like "research" that is ill-defined in the current rules, but occasionally is really important to a story. Do you handwave it, or can it be made better?

Cheers!