Class concepts that you just can't work out neatly in DnD
- Thread starter Driddle
- Start date
pawsplay
Hero
Dannyalcatraz said:
And let me talk about Powers & Skills (2e) for just a second. Classes like wizards has access to schools and so forth defined by a number of points, then their total points were back-engineered. Result: with regard to the fighter versus the paladin, the paladin could buy all the fighter's abilities instead of his own and have points left over. Whereas in the core game, fighters did truly have some areas in which paladins could not compete.
How would you rate the 2e system in terms of balance? I thought it was a nightmare.
Sorry- I don't see it. But if it makes you happy...
In all the games we played with Players Option 2Ed stuff, there was precisely one person who complained about PC construction.
He opted for a cleric with good martial arts skills, a few powerful divine domains, and powerful arcane (Evocation or Conjuration- which one escapes me) magic, but couldn't wear armor. His PC could kick but Shaolin style, or pound you from range with mighty magics.
I, too, opted for a cleric. Mine had medium armor and decent weapons, all of the minor domains, Aburation from the arcane side, and had no turning ability.
Same number of points spent, of course.
He griped at how many spells my PC had, that I could wear armor and swing a sword- called him "Superman." Never mind that of the entire spell list the PC had access to, only 3 were offensive (and one of those was Bull's Strength); that undead were as big a problem for me as for the party's rogue; or that where his PC was so self-contained he could wade into combat without fear, my guy was a sitting duck if disarmed. He was a buffer, not a fighter...which was proved 2 months later.
He wouldn't shut up, so I tore the character sheet up in his face, and ran a straight thief. I still had my design notes, however, and resurrected the concept for another campaign. "Superman" was isolated from the party, and died in the first round of combat.
It was what it was. We played it, we had fun.
I'm no worshipper at the altar of balance. IME, balance is a useful goal for game design, but doesn't have to be perfect to have a good game. A few degrees off in any direction is fine by me. Unless I see something egregiously wrong with a game, I don't bother even considering the concept of balance.
And I saw nothing egregiously wrong. Nobody in our group tried to make a fighter using paladin points. They could have, but they didn't. It was a non-issue for us.
That said, I had no problems as a player or GM with RIFTS, where one player could play a Glitterboy (essentially, a guy with his own small mecha) and another could play a Vagabond (exactly what it sounds like). Role playing games are (for me, at least) about playing roles you want to play, not about being equally über in combat or what have you.
And no, point based systems are no better balanced than level/class systems. You give 3 players the same number of points in something like GURPS or HERO, and you can see PCs with wildly different capabilities and weaknesses. I've been playing HERO since its initial release, and I'm pretty sure I can squeeze more out of a point in that system than most. However, my inner munchkin is on a pretty tight leash, so I only use my powers for goodness and light...
Owen K.C. Stephens
Adventurer
Not that I'm claiming the following is true of anyone here, nor am I saying it's common or the only reason someone might take a particular side in this discussion.
Some DMs, and some players, dislike point-systems because they've experienced games that were ruined by massive imblance between players in the ability to manipulate the points. There are players out there who will take any point system and try to gain advantage out of it. And while a savvy DM can stop that, it requires the DM to carefully go over everything, catch anytyhing the player has managed to slip in, and then confront the player. For some people, that's more effort than it's worth. And yes, there are groups where an "official" product is considered to have more weight, and thus be more likely to be allowed, and thus cause more problems.
I think a point-allocation rules set is a great idea, done exactly right. Done wrong, it's a disaster. I doubt it'll ever come from WotC for any 3.x edition, though they could easily go another direction when they do get around to another edition. As it is, the selection of feats and skills (heck, and domains) already allows a high level of customization. The similar d20 mechanic of talents also allows for great customization. I could see a system where all class abilities counted as a feat, talent or special ability, and each class had access to a given number of each as it gained levels.
It is worth noting, however, that it is easier to design adventures when a party has more discrete functions. Since a lot of DMs must use commercial adventures, it's helpful they can be written with a combat-type, a sneak-type, a priest-type and a mage-type assumed in party composition. The more customizable characters are, the harder it is to make those kinds of assumptions. If you have a game where everyone may play a mage, because they can spread themselves out to cover a lot of different mage-types, its a problem if the adventure assumes someone is a priest. Such problems can be overcome, but likely won't be as long as customizable classes are a minor optional rule.
Some DMs, and some players, dislike point-systems because they've experienced games that were ruined by massive imblance between players in the ability to manipulate the points. There are players out there who will take any point system and try to gain advantage out of it. And while a savvy DM can stop that, it requires the DM to carefully go over everything, catch anytyhing the player has managed to slip in, and then confront the player. For some people, that's more effort than it's worth. And yes, there are groups where an "official" product is considered to have more weight, and thus be more likely to be allowed, and thus cause more problems.
I think a point-allocation rules set is a great idea, done exactly right. Done wrong, it's a disaster. I doubt it'll ever come from WotC for any 3.x edition, though they could easily go another direction when they do get around to another edition. As it is, the selection of feats and skills (heck, and domains) already allows a high level of customization. The similar d20 mechanic of talents also allows for great customization. I could see a system where all class abilities counted as a feat, talent or special ability, and each class had access to a given number of each as it gained levels.
It is worth noting, however, that it is easier to design adventures when a party has more discrete functions. Since a lot of DMs must use commercial adventures, it's helpful they can be written with a combat-type, a sneak-type, a priest-type and a mage-type assumed in party composition. The more customizable characters are, the harder it is to make those kinds of assumptions. If you have a game where everyone may play a mage, because they can spread themselves out to cover a lot of different mage-types, its a problem if the adventure assumes someone is a priest. Such problems can be overcome, but likely won't be as long as customizable classes are a minor optional rule.
Relique du Madde
Adventurer
OStephens said:
First off, let me say that I never played Rolemaster, so please excuse me if what I am about to say resembles anything that has been already done by that system. Anyways, I've noticed that alot of ideas mentioned in this tread has been tried elsewhere to varying degrees, for instance the approach mentioned in the last sentence of the quote has been tried in True20.
However, I think that an more "3.x-ish" approach to making a point based class system would be to make each "class" consist of several modular components to allow for costumization. For instance, when creating a class you purchase X levels worth of BaBs, Saves, and Skills depending on if you are making a PrC or a 'Base Class". Then you would use the remaining points to purchase several blocks worth of abilities. Some of the these abilities would consist solely of feats while other would have progression trees.
The main strength of this system is that it is customizable and it can be easily balanced. It also allows for the creation of customizable character classes and can be used to recreaste existing classes (maybe by giving the current classes a "discount" on the point totals). An added bonus for WoTC is that they could still make a profit from making supplement books since these will contain a both pre-made character classes, charcter class building materials and all the other sorts of fluffy/crunchy goodness that we come to expect from a d20 product.
Unfortunately, one of major flaws in this sort of system is that it falls appart rather quickly once multi-classing begins. Also, I if not balanced properly, this system will have the potential to make extremely powerful/broken characters. Sadly, one criticism of this type of system would be that it is very mmorpg-esque and would anger all of the purists.
delericho
Legend
The difficulty with offering the point-buy system in the DMG to run alongside the classes in the PHB is that it is monstrously difficult (or, perhaps, impossible) to balance the two systems against each other. The likelihood is that the point-buy system characters will be better than their class-based counterparts. Since the point-buy characters are also likely to have been created by more experienced/skilled players, this gives them a significant edge.
I can see the utility of a point-buy system as a proposed replacement for the classes. But, then, such a system already exists in "Buy the Numbers". I'm not sure WotC are the best people to produce such a system. (Further, since selling a point-buy system stands opposed to selling books of new classes and PrCs, I doubt they would produce such a system for business reasons.)
I certainly don't want to see D&D move to a point-buy system as the default. Classes are one of the advantages of D&D, IMO. It's easy to explain them to new players, and they work really well in practice. What I would like to see is more ability to customise classes, by loosening some of the current restrictions (loosen up the class skills, provide ability-trees as in "d20 Modern", and change around just a few other things, and you can provide a huge increase in available character options for a minimal increase in complexity).
I can see the utility of a point-buy system as a proposed replacement for the classes. But, then, such a system already exists in "Buy the Numbers". I'm not sure WotC are the best people to produce such a system. (Further, since selling a point-buy system stands opposed to selling books of new classes and PrCs, I doubt they would produce such a system for business reasons.)
I certainly don't want to see D&D move to a point-buy system as the default. Classes are one of the advantages of D&D, IMO. It's easy to explain them to new players, and they work really well in practice. What I would like to see is more ability to customise classes, by loosening some of the current restrictions (loosen up the class skills, provide ability-trees as in "d20 Modern", and change around just a few other things, and you can provide a huge increase in available character options for a minimal increase in complexity).
wayne62682
First Post
I have not read the rest of the thread (well, the first couple posts but that is all) so let me just quickly give my opinion:
I utterly, utterly hate the rigid structure of D&D 3.x (and previous versions, this isn't limited to WotC's implementation). The very notion that some game designer arbitrarily decided that all "Fighters" learn the exact same class skills in some mystical "Fighter 101" course is beyond ridiculous. The idea that Rangers can only ever pick from two combat styles because that's what they learned in "Combat Methods for Rangers" is laughable. I'm well aware that there are house rules that can deal with this sort of thing, but these are the very framework of character creation and shouldn't NEED to be houseruled.
I would absolutely love a system like the old Skills & Powers of 2nd edition, where I as the player can decide what I want my character to have. If I want a charismatic fighter of noble birth, I can choose class skills that reflect that upbringing (e.g. Diplomacy, Knowledge nobility). If I want a Wizard who can wear certain armor due to whatever, I can make one. I want customization without being stuck following everything. In other words, I want to be able to pick and choose what I want my character to have as a set package, rather than be forced to take only what someone else decided I should be allowed unless I multiclass to another path and then be forced to only take what's given to THAT class.
There's a reason why most builds you see dip into classes for only a few levels, and this is why. Just my two cents on the subject.
Regards,
Wayne
I utterly, utterly hate the rigid structure of D&D 3.x (and previous versions, this isn't limited to WotC's implementation). The very notion that some game designer arbitrarily decided that all "Fighters" learn the exact same class skills in some mystical "Fighter 101" course is beyond ridiculous. The idea that Rangers can only ever pick from two combat styles because that's what they learned in "Combat Methods for Rangers" is laughable. I'm well aware that there are house rules that can deal with this sort of thing, but these are the very framework of character creation and shouldn't NEED to be houseruled.
I would absolutely love a system like the old Skills & Powers of 2nd edition, where I as the player can decide what I want my character to have. If I want a charismatic fighter of noble birth, I can choose class skills that reflect that upbringing (e.g. Diplomacy, Knowledge nobility). If I want a Wizard who can wear certain armor due to whatever, I can make one. I want customization without being stuck following everything. In other words, I want to be able to pick and choose what I want my character to have as a set package, rather than be forced to take only what someone else decided I should be allowed unless I multiclass to another path and then be forced to only take what's given to THAT class.
There's a reason why most builds you see dip into classes for only a few levels, and this is why. Just my two cents on the subject.
Regards,
Wayne
Moonstone Spider
First Post
I'm not sure how the class system is less prone to imabalance and abuse than build point systems. With builds like the Hulking Hurler, Nasty Gentleman, the +256 Diplomacy build, and Pun-Pun floating around one can hardly argue that DnD's classes aren't prone to certain abuses.
For me, difficult concepts aren't so much what I can't get, as what I can't leave out. Often I find a concept ruined by the baggage of either class requirements (frex must be Chaotic, must be Lawful, must revere Nature, cannot cross class easily) or class abilities that don't fit what I want to make (All thievish types apparently have ultra-lethal assassination attacks, all martial artists learn to talk to anything and don't age, and all the base classes but 3 wind up either learning spells or learning a slew of supernatural abilities.
Anyway concepts I've had trouble making:
Anybody smart who's not a bard. I really like having knowledge skills for flavor and most classes are horribly limited in their class knowledge skills.
Actually a lot of cross-class skill stuff annoys me. Fighters should at least get bluff, given that it's directly used in combat for feinting. You'd think such an elementary skil would be taught in fighter 101 but apparently they focus on how to jump like Spider-Man instead.
I second the call for a better alchemist. I love the concept of the crazy guy with bandoliers of potions but you can't do it in DnD without also being able to teleport and turn invisible and call down lightning or whatever.
The LA system seems designed to punish players who want to play anything but the basic races. I'm not sure why. I'd like to see less of a gimp-stick handed to players who want to be a Satyr, or Aranea, or whatever.
For me, difficult concepts aren't so much what I can't get, as what I can't leave out. Often I find a concept ruined by the baggage of either class requirements (frex must be Chaotic, must be Lawful, must revere Nature, cannot cross class easily) or class abilities that don't fit what I want to make (All thievish types apparently have ultra-lethal assassination attacks, all martial artists learn to talk to anything and don't age, and all the base classes but 3 wind up either learning spells or learning a slew of supernatural abilities.
Anyway concepts I've had trouble making:
Anybody smart who's not a bard. I really like having knowledge skills for flavor and most classes are horribly limited in their class knowledge skills.
Actually a lot of cross-class skill stuff annoys me. Fighters should at least get bluff, given that it's directly used in combat for feinting. You'd think such an elementary skil would be taught in fighter 101 but apparently they focus on how to jump like Spider-Man instead.
I second the call for a better alchemist. I love the concept of the crazy guy with bandoliers of potions but you can't do it in DnD without also being able to teleport and turn invisible and call down lightning or whatever.
The LA system seems designed to punish players who want to play anything but the basic races. I'm not sure why. I'd like to see less of a gimp-stick handed to players who want to be a Satyr, or Aranea, or whatever.
Numion
First Post
Driddle said:
To put a nicer spin on it, the group decides what an individual doesn't play. As in "You can make "Innocent Slaughterer McBackstabbity", but he's going to join some other adventuring group, not ours".
It only happened once in my group. One player made an assassin, and then came to join the group. Cleric: "Hmm .. detect evil? Thanks but no thanks, our group is full".
I'm all for player rights to make the character, but the DM sets boundaries and the group has a more limited right to control who joins the party.
wayne62682
First Post
Moonstone Spider said:
Why? Because that's exactly what WotC wanted to do: Punish players who want to play anything other than the basic races. There's a quote floating around the net from one of the designers of Savage Species that says, to effect, WotC told him to purposely make playing a "monster" race less appealing than playing a non-monster race.
